Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes science set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010
    • (edited May 13th 2010)

    considerably expanded Lie infinity-groupoid. But still stubby.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2010

    keep adding stuff to Lie infinity-groupoid, now there are sections on Lie 1- and 2-groups, their depooping and their “flat” objects, smooth nonabelian cohomology, flat Deligne cohomology, flat nonabelian cohomology. Some still a bit stubby, but mainly fully fledged with formal theorems and detailed proofs.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2010
    • (edited Jul 7th 2010)

    Am working on the entry Lie infinity-groupoid:

    have been expanding the section on differential coefficients for Lie-integrated \infty-groups, i.e. the discussion of differential refinements of those Lie \infty-groups GG that arise as the integration τ nexp(𝔤)\tau_n \exp(\mathfrak{g}) of an L L_\infty-algebra 𝔤\mathfrak{g}.

    There is now detailed proof of the statements

    1. that the presheaf GTrivBund flatG TrivBund_{flat} of trivial GG-principal \infty-bundles with flat \infty-connetion is equivalent to the underlying discrete \infty-groupoid BG\mathbf{\flat} \mathbf{B}G of BG\mathbf{B}G

    2. and factors the canonical inclusion BGBG\mathbf{\flat}\mathbf{B}G \to \mathbf{B}G as a fibration;

    3. as a corollary one gets a model for the de Rham coefficient object dRBG\mathbf{\flat}_{dR} \mathbf{B}G (the coefficient object for nonabelian de Rham cohomology with values in 𝔤\mathfrak{g}).

    It is maybe noteworthy that BG\mathbf{B}G is the concretization (in the sense of concrete presheaf) of GTrivBund flatG TrivBund_{flat} and dRBG\mathbf{\flat}_{dR} \mathbf{B}G is the kernel of this concretization, i.e. the maximally non-concrete sub-object.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2010
    • (edited Jul 8th 2010)

    Wow, that sounds cool. Sounds like a nonabelian generalization of some famous exact sequence involving de Rham cohomology and Deligne cohomology.

    Yeah, it looks like that.

    There’s a displayed equation in the nnLab entry that didn’t compile…

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2010
    • (edited Jul 8th 2010)

    Thanks for your comment!

    Sounds like a nonabelian generalization of some famous exact sequence involving de Rham cohomology and Deligne cohomology.

    Yes, it’s closely related.

    For the case that the \infty-group GG is “mildly abelian” (namely braided as a monoidal \infty-groupoid, in that two deloopings of it exist) the exact sequence that relates differential cohomology with coefficients in GG and de Rham cohomology with coefficients in GG is derived here (scroll down just a little bit to the lemma called “differential fiber sequence”).

    And it is a direct formal consequence of the fiber sequence that I was discussing above, which I write

    dRBGBGBG \mathbf{\flat}_{dR} \mathbf{B}G \to \mathbf{\flat} \mathbf{B}G \to \mathbf{B}G

    The trick is to read “\mathbf{\flat}” as “flat”: so BG\mathbf{\flat}\mathbf{B}G is the coefficient object for flat GG \infty-bundles (it’s the discrete \infty-groupoid underlying the Lie \infty-groupoid BG\mathbf{B}G. Then by definition the homotopy fiber dRBG\mathbf{\flat}_{dR} \mathbf{B}G is the coefficient for GG-valued de Rham cohomology (and the definition justifies itself by reducing to what one expectes to see in the suitable special cases).

    In the fully nonabelian case, i.e. when GG is only once deloopable or when instead of BG\mathbf{B}G we use any \infty-Lie groupoid AA there is also an exact sequence for differential GG-cohomology. This involves nonabelian de Rham cohomology with coefficients in the object which I write ΩΠ dRBG\Omega \mathbf{\Pi}_{dR} \mathbf{B}G, where Ω\Omega denotes looping, of course, and Π dRBG\mathbf{\Pi}_{dR} \mathbf{B}G is the homotopy cofiber of the constant path inclusion BGΠBG\mathbf{B}G \to \mathbf{\Pi}\mathbf{B}G.

    That’s the topic of the section Differential cohomology with non-groupal coefficients.

    All this is completely “formal” in that it involves only abstract operations in an oo-connected (oo,1)-topos. The discussion at Lie infinity-groupoid that I mentioned above is about what all this abstract stuff boils down to concretely when realized in the (,1)(\infty,1)-topos LieGrpd\infty LieGrpd.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2010
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2010
    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 26th 2010
    • (edited Jul 26th 2010)

    am starting sections on integration of an oo-Lie algebra cocycle to a cocycle of \infty-Lie groupoids; and on the oo-Chern-Weil homomorphism. But stubby for the moment.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2010

    started a new section titled simplicial de Rham complex whose punchline is supposed to be this:

    the literature knows two standard models for the simplicial de Rham complex of a simplicial manifold X X_\bullet, with a fiber integration map constituting a quasi-isomorphism between them.

    On the other hand, I happen to have two natural models (in terms of complexes of sheaves, as described in the entry) for the intrinsic de Rham coefficient object dRB n\mathbf{\flat}_{dR} \mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R}, and a fiber integration map constitutes a weak equivalence between them.

    The claim is: the cocycle oo-groupoids of the two models for the simplicial de Rham complex are precisely the hom-complexes of morphisms of simplicial presheaves

    X dRB n X_\bullet \to \mathbf{\flat}_{dR} \mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R}

    into the given two models, respectively, and the quasi-isomorphism is that induced from the weak equivalence between these.

    I spelled out some details about how to prove this in the section linked to above and indicated how to continue. But have to interrupt now.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeJul 31st 2010

    This sounds like it would be worth submitting as a brief note for publication. Not every publication needs to be earth shattering (few are). I obviously don’t understand the details, but it sounds like a nice little result.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2010
    • (edited Aug 23rd 2010)

    In another thread I had a few days ago announced a computation of the intrinsic de Rham cohomology of B nU(1)\mathbf{B}^n U(1) in the (,1)(\infty,1)-topos of \infty-Lie groupoids. The first versions of what I had typed out had however been quite rough.

    I have now refined this to what I think is a rather detailed proof. I moved this to the section oo-Lie groupoids – Intrinsic de Rham cohomology of Bn U(1).

    As I try to indicate in the proof, using the projective model structure on simplicial presheaves there is an easy naive version where one ignores the need to pass to a cofibrant resolutioin of B nU(1)\mathbf{B}^n U(1). The nontrivial work is required in demonstrating that the correct computation of maps out of a cofibrant resolution does reduce to this naive version after all.

    By the relation of cohomology in simplicial presheaves to ordinary abelian sheaf hypercohomology (as for instance in Jardine’s lecture notes) there should be an alternative computation where we don’t resolve B nU(1)\mathbf{B}^n U(1) but use instead an injective resolution of the complex of sheaves (Ω 1()d dRΩ cl n())(\Omega^1(-) \stackrel{d_{dR}}{\to} \to \cdots \to \Omega^n_{cl}(-)). First I tried to compute it this way, but then I wasn’t sure how to handle some details.

    On the other hand, the proof that I have given now (in as far as it is correct) has the advantage over this would-be alternative proof that its structure works also for nonabelian coefficients.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)