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 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 constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality 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 limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum 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 set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack 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
    • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2021

    starting something, with a hat-tip to Charles Rezk

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2021
    • (edited Sep 3rd 2021)

    have cross-linked with Pontrjagin dual.

    There’d be more to say here, have to see how much energy I’ll have.

    What I am really after is whether the statement holds in crossed generality:

    Are nearby crossed homomorphism, from a compact Lie group, crossed-conjugate to each other?

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2021
    • (edited Sep 3rd 2021)

    I hope I am understanding correctly that the codomain Lie group need not be compact.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 3rd 2021
    • (edited Sep 3rd 2021)

    I have added (here) the observation that nearby crossed homomorphisms out of compact Lie groups are crossed conjugate at least under the (strong) condition that the action of the domain group on the codomain group restricts to a trivial action of the center.

    Not sure how useful this is, but this seems to be how far one gets by just using the statement for plain homomorphisms, i.e. without going inside its proof and trying to refine it.

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2021

    I have now forwarded the question to MathOverflow:

    “Are nearby crossed homomorphisms from compact Lie groups crossed-conjugate?” MO:q/403295

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2021

    It seems that the proof of the plain case is tricky enough, so I guess locating some kind of internal reasoning in the slice won’t work.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2021
    • (edited Sep 6th 2021)

    What makes me expect it’s true is that the would-be implication that CrsHom(G,Γ)=[ϕ]Γ/Stab Γ(ϕ)ΓAct(TopSp)CrsHom(G,\, \Gamma) = \underset{[\phi]}{\sqcup} \Gamma/Stab_{\Gamma}(\phi) \,\in\, \Gamma Act(TopSp) is essentially Theorem 10 in Lashof & May 1986, applied to the model of the equivariant classifying space due to Murayama & Shimakawa 1995 .

    Conversely, a proof of that nearby crossed conjugacy would give a somewhat more transparent (to my mind) proof of Lashof & May’s Thm. 10 (and then also of their Thm. 11) via Murayama-Shimakawa. That’s what I am really after.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 7th 2021
    • (edited Sep 7th 2021)

    I only now fully realize that this converse argument is really the claim in the last part of Guillou, May & Merling 2017.

    But it seems to me that a proof of that statement (of crossed-conjugate nearby crossed homomorphisms) is needed to complete their argument:

    In sec. 4.3 p. 18 they say without further ado that the groupoid of crossed homomorphisms is “equivalent to the coproduct of its subcategories Aut(α)Aut(\alpha)” and then proceed from there. But such a decomposition does of course not exist, in general, for the topological groupoids relevant here. One needs an argument like nearby crossed homomorphisms being crossed-conjugate in order to validate this assumption.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 7th 2021
    • (edited Sep 7th 2021)

    The same kind of issue seems to affect the argument in Uribe & Lück et al, 2014:

    These authors consider plain (non-crossed) homomorphism spaces, but their codomain group is PU()PU(\mathcal{H}), hence not a Lie group, and hence also outside the applicability of the available proof that nearby homomorphisms are conjugate. So another argument is needed here, too.

    On p. 5 these authors still highlight the topology on the space of homomorphisms, but when it comes to stating and proving (Prop. 1.6, p. 6) that the quotient by conjugation “is” a given set, it is no longer clear if the topology is taken into account, hence if discreteness of the quotient space is established (or whether that’s even considered).

    [ edit: I guess here it follows from knowing (?) that the set on the right is countable? ]

    But it would have to be, since later the Thm. 1.10 on p. 11 quotes the proposition in this way, and for the analogous reason as in Guillou, May & Merling, namely to argue that the fixed loci in the equivariant classifying space have connected components indexed by this set.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2021

    ah, the issue raised in #9 is addressed in the followup:

    and solved on p. 38.

    Am adding a remark on this to the entry now…

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2021

    added a brief remark (here) that the statement also holds for the case Γ=PU()\Gamma = PU(\mathcal{H}) (and GG finite)

    diff, v4, current

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)