Not signed in

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

Site Tag Cloud

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).

nLab > Latest Changes: fundamental theorem of topos theory

Bottom of Page

1 to 16 of 16

- CommentRowNumber1.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeOct 12th 2021
- (edited Oct 12th 2021)
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexam giving this its own entry, for ease of hyperlinking. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/fundamental+theorem+of+topos+theory/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/fundamental+theorem+of+topos+theory">current</a>

am giving this its own entry, for ease of hyperlinking.

v1, current
- CommentRowNumber2.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeDec 30th 2021
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexJust a note for later when the page can be edited again: A model-category version of the "fundamental theorem of $\infty$-topos theory" is also discussed in: * [[Sharon Hollander]], Thm. 6.1(a) in : *Diagrams indexed by Grothendieck constructions*, Homology Homotopy Appl. 10(3): 193-221 (2008) ([doi:10.4310/HHA.2008.v10.n3.a10](https://dx.doi.org/10.4310/HHA.2008.v10.n3.a10), [euclid:1251832473](https://projecteuclid.org/journals/homology-homotopy-and-applications/volume-10/issue-3/Diagrams-indexed-by-Grothendieck-constructions/hha/1251832473.full))
Just a note for later when the page can be edited again:

A model-category version of the “fundamental theorem of $\infty$ -topos theory” is also discussed in:
- Sharon Hollander, Thm. 6.1(a) in : Diagrams indexed by Grothendieck constructions, Homology Homotopy Appl. 10(3): 193-221 (2008) (doi:10.4310/HHA.2008.v10.n3.a10, euclid:1251832473)
- CommentRowNumber3.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2022
- (edited Jul 9th 2022)
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexFinally coming back to this. I am looking for the generalization of the equivalence (of $\infty$-categories) $$ PSh(\mathcal{S})_{/y(X)} \underoverset {\sim} { \Gamma_{(-)}(-) } {\longrightarrow} PSh \big( \mathcal{S}_{/X} \big) $$ to the case that $X$ is not necessarily an object of $\mathcal{S}$ but is an object of $PSh(\mathcal{S})$ (hence omitting the "$y(-)$" in the above formula), and interpreting $\mathcal{S}_{/X}$ as the evident sub-category of $PSh(\mathcal{S})_{/X}$. I vaguley thought it was proven in this generality in [[HTT]], but now I don't find it there, and maybe it isn't. (Corollary 6.3.5.1 in HTT does generalize the above statement, but in another direction). In the special case that $X \,\in\, PSh(\mathcal{S})$ is 1-truncated, the statement is essentially Thm. 4.4 of Hollander's article [above](#Comment_97220) (after identifying $\mathcal{S}_{/X}$ with the Grothendieck construction that she refers to). For a while this was all I needed. But now I need the statement for $3$-truncated $X$, and it shouldn't depend on the truncation of $X$ at all. Is there any reference?

Finally coming back to this.

I am looking for the generalization of the equivalence (of $\infty$ -categories)
$PSh(\mathcal{S})_{/y(X)} \underoverset {\sim} { \Gamma_{(-)}(-) } {\longrightarrow} PSh \big( \mathcal{S}_{/X} \big)$
to the case that $X$ is not necessarily an object of $\mathcal{S}$ but is an object of $PSh(\mathcal{S})$ (hence omitting the “ $y(-)$ ” in the above formula), and interpreting $\mathcal{S}_{/X}$ as the evident sub-category of $PSh(\mathcal{S})_{/X}$ .

I vaguley thought it was proven in this generality in HTT, but now I don’t find it there, and maybe it isn’t. (Corollary 6.3.5.1 in HTT does generalize the above statement, but in another direction).

In the special case that $X \,\in\, PSh(\mathcal{S})$ is 1-truncated, the statement is essentially Thm. 4.4 of Hollander’s article above (after identifying $\mathcal{S}_{/X}$ with the Grothendieck construction that she refers to).

For a while this was all I needed. But now I need the statement for $3$ -truncated $X$ , and it shouldn’t depend on the truncation of $X$ at all.

Is there any reference?
- CommentRowNumber4.
- CommentAuthorHurkyl
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2022
- (edited Jul 9th 2022)
- PermaLink
Author: Hurkyl
Format: MarkdownItexThe equivalence of these presheaf categories is corollary 5.1.6.12 of HTT; the last thing proved in the section on complete compactness. However, the equivalence constructed there is the colimit-preserving functor extending the map $C_{/p} \to P(C)_{/yp}$.

The equivalence of these presheaf categories is corollary 5.1.6.12 of HTT; the last thing proved in the section on complete compactness. However, the equivalence constructed there is the colimit-preserving functor extending the map $C_{/p} \to P(C)_{/yp}$ .
- CommentRowNumber5.
- CommentAuthorHurkyl
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2022
- (edited Jul 9th 2022)
- PermaLink
Author: Hurkyl
Format: MarkdownItex(I'm confused. I'm pretty sure I've made an error in the following, but I can't find it. It's probably just reversing an orientation so I'm leaving it up) For completeness, let $p : J \to C$ be such that $X = \lim(yp)$. $C_{/p} \to C$ is a pullback of $(C^J)^{[1]} \to C^J \times C^J$, and so it is contravariant Grothendieck construction $\overline{el}_C( C^J(\Delta-, p))$. However, $$ C^J(\Delta-, p) \simeq PSh(C)^J(y \Delta -, yp) \simeq PSh(C)^J(\Delta y -, yp) \simeq PSh(C)(y-, X) \simeq X $$ so $C_{/p} \simeq \overline{el}_C(X)$, and the isomorphism is $PSh(\overline{el}_C(X)) \simeq PSh(C)_{/X}$.

(I’m confused. I’m pretty sure I’ve made an error in the following, but I can’t find it. It’s probably just reversing an orientation so I’m leaving it up)

For completeness, let $p : J \to C$ be such that $X = \lim(yp)$ . $C_{/p} \to C$ is a pullback of $(C^J)^{[1]} \to C^J \times C^J$ , and so it is contravariant Grothendieck construction $\overline{el}_C( C^J(\Delta-, p))$ . However,
$C^J(\Delta-, p) \simeq PSh(C)^J(y \Delta -, yp) \simeq PSh(C)^J(\Delta y -, yp) \simeq PSh(C)(y-, X) \simeq X$
so $C_{/p} \simeq \overline{el}_C(X)$ , and the isomorphism is $PSh(\overline{el}_C(X)) \simeq PSh(C)_{/X}$ .
- CommentRowNumber6.
- CommentAuthorHurkyl
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2022
- (edited Jul 9th 2022)
- PermaLink
Author: Hurkyl
Format: MarkdownItexI guess the part that threw me off is that 5.1.6.12 isn't actually full generality like I had remembered; I guess it only applies when $X$ is a limit of representable functors.

I guess the part that threw me off is that 5.1.6.12 isn’t actually full generality like I had remembered; I guess it only applies when $X$ is a limit of representable functors.
- CommentRowNumber7.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2022
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexThanks for looking into this! Would be a great issue to settle. Other people went through thinking that HTT 5.1.6.12 (right, that's what I had meant to point to) gives the answer -- e.g. [MO:a/86209](https://mathoverflow.net/a/86209/381). Myself, I don't see, either, how HTT 5.1.6.12 would give the answer (which is what I meant by saying that it "generalizes in a different direction") -- but I'd be happy to be educated if it does. Alternatively one could try to figure out if Hollander really needs her assumption that $X$ be 1-truncated. Possibly the only reason for this condition is that it allowed her to think of the slice in classical terms. But I haven't dug through her proof yet.

Thanks for looking into this! Would be a great issue to settle.

Other people went through thinking that HTT 5.1.6.12 (right, that’s what I had meant to point to) gives the answer – e.g. MO:a/86209.

Myself, I don’t see, either, how HTT 5.1.6.12 would give the answer (which is what I meant by saying that it “generalizes in a different direction”) – but I’d be happy to be educated if it does.

Alternatively one could try to figure out if Hollander really needs her assumption that $X$ be 1-truncated. Possibly the only reason for this condition is that it allowed her to think of the slice in classical terms. But I haven’t dug through her proof yet.
- CommentRowNumber8.
- CommentAuthorHurkyl
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2022
- (edited Jul 9th 2022)
- PermaLink
Author: Hurkyl
Format: MarkdownItexOkay, here's a way to establish the equivalence. The isomorphism $PSh(C_{/c}) \to PSh(C)_{/yc}$ when applied to an arrow $f : a \to b$ is the dependent sum $PSh(C)_{/ya} \to PSh(C)_{/yb}$ and the left Kan extension $PSh(C_{/a}) \to PSh(C_{/b})$. (when viewing $PSh$ as $Fun(-, \infty Gpd)$) Taking local right adjoints, an arrow $a \to b$ acts on $PSh(C)_{/yb} \to PSh(C)_{/ya}$ by taking pullbacks and on $PSh(C_{/b}) \to PSh(C_{/a})$ by the restriction map (along the composition map $C_{/a} \to C_{/b}$). Let $p : J \to C$ be such that $X = colim(yp)$. Then we have an isomorphism $\lim_j PSh(C_{/p(j)}) \simeq \lim_j PSh(C)_{/yp(j)}$. On the left side, we have $$ \lim_j PSh(C_{/p(j)}) \simeq PSh(\colim_j C_{/p(j)}) \simeq PSh(\overline{el}_C(X)) $$ where the latter isomorphism is given by computing the colimit in right fibrations over $C$ via the Grothendieck construction. On the right side, we have $$ \lim_j PSh(C)_{/yp(j)} \simeq PSh(C)_{/\colim_j yp(j)} \simeq PSh(C)_{/X} $$ by applying HTT proposition 6.3.5.14 which implies slicing gives a limit-preserving functor $PSh(C)^{op} \to LTop$ and HTT 6.3.2.3 which says limits in $LTop$ are computed in $\widehat{\infty Cat}$.

Okay, here’s a way to establish the equivalence. The isomorphism $PSh(C_{/c}) \to PSh(C)_{/yc}$ when applied to an arrow $f : a \to b$ is the dependent sum $PSh(C)_{/ya} \to PSh(C)_{/yb}$ and the left Kan extension $PSh(C_{/a}) \to PSh(C_{/b})$ . (when viewing $PSh$ as $Fun(-, \infty Gpd)$ )

Taking local right adjoints, an arrow $a \to b$ acts on $PSh(C)_{/yb} \to PSh(C)_{/ya}$ by taking pullbacks and on $PSh(C_{/b}) \to PSh(C_{/a})$ by the restriction map (along the composition map $C_{/a} \to C_{/b}$ ).

Let $p : J \to C$ be such that $X = colim(yp)$ . Then we have an isomorphism $\lim_j PSh(C_{/p(j)}) \simeq \lim_j PSh(C)_{/yp(j)}$ . On the left side, we have
$\lim_j PSh(C_{/p(j)}) \simeq PSh(\colim_j C_{/p(j)}) \simeq PSh(\overline{el}_C(X))$
where the latter isomorphism is given by computing the colimit in right fibrations over $C$ via the Grothendieck construction. On the right side, we have
$\lim_j PSh(C)_{/yp(j)} \simeq PSh(C)_{/\colim_j yp(j)} \simeq PSh(C)_{/X}$
by applying HTT proposition 6.3.5.14 which implies slicing gives a limit-preserving functor $PSh(C)^{op} \to LTop$ and HTT 6.3.2.3 which says limits in $LTop$ are computed in $\widehat{\infty Cat}$ .
- CommentRowNumber9.
- CommentAuthorHurkyl
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2022
- (edited Jul 9th 2022)
- PermaLink
Author: Hurkyl
Format: MarkdownItexI was hoping there was a simpler proof in terms of right fibrations; the proposition we're asking for is that given a right fibration $X \to C$, we have $$ RFib(C)_{/X} \simeq RFib(X) $$ These are full subcategories of $(\infty,1)Cat_{/X}$ spanned by, respectively: * functors $A \to X$ such that the composite $A \to X \to C$ is a right fibration * functors $A \to X$ that are right fibrations It's not true that these are the same subcategory is it? This would imply that if $g$ and $gf$ are right fibrations, then $f$ is a right fibration, but I didn't see anything like that flipping through HTT or the nLab pages. So, if these are isomorphic $\infty$-categories, the isomorphism $RFib(X) \to RFib(C)_{/X}$ would have to be more complicated than just composing with $X \to C$.
I was hoping there was a simpler proof in terms of right fibrations; the proposition we’re asking for is that given a right fibration $X \to C$ , we have
RFib(C) /X≃RFib(X) RFib(C)_{/X} \simeq RFib(X)
These are full subcategories of $(\infty,1)Cat_{/X}$ spanned by, respectively:
- functors $A \to X$ such that the composite $A \to X \to C$ is a right fibration
- functors $A \to X$ that are right fibrations
It’s not true that these are the same subcategory is it? This would imply that if $g$ and $gf$ are right fibrations, then $f$ is a right fibration, but I didn’t see anything like that flipping through HTT or the nLab pages.

So, if these are isomorphic $\infty$ -categories, the isomorphism $RFib(X) \to RFib(C)_{/X}$ would have to be more complicated than just composing with $X \to C$ .
- CommentRowNumber10.
- CommentAuthorHurkyl
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2022
- (edited Jul 9th 2022)
- PermaLink
Author: Hurkyl
Format: MarkdownItexActually, I think that cancellation property is true. Characterizing right fibrations by the homotopy lifting property, given $f : A \to B$ and $g:B \to C$, we have * Since $g$ is a right fibration, $B^{[1]} \simeq B \times_C C^{[1]}$ * Since $g f$ is a right fibration, $A^{[1]} \simeq A \times_C C^{[1]}$ * Thus $A^{[1]} \simeq A \times_B B^{[1]}$ * Thus $f$ is a right fibration (for some reason, tikzcd wasn't working so I couldn't draw the diagram)
Actually, I think that cancellation property is true. Characterizing right fibrations by the homotopy lifting property, given $f : A \to B$ and $g:B \to C$ , we have
- Since $g$ is a right fibration, $B^{[1]} \simeq B \times_C C^{[1]}$
- Since $g f$ is a right fibration, $A^{[1]} \simeq A \times_C C^{[1]}$
- Thus $A^{[1]} \simeq A \times_B B^{[1]}$
- Thus $f$ is a right fibration
(for some reason, tikzcd wasn’t working so I couldn’t draw the diagram)
- CommentRowNumber11.
- CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2022
- (edited Jul 9th 2022)
- PermaLink
Author: Dmitri Pavlov
Format: MarkdownItexThis equivalence is very easy to implement as a [[Quillen equivalence]] of [[simplicial presheaves]] and their [[slice categories]]. First, the functor Γ:PSh(S)/X⟶PSh(S/X) is a [[right Quillen functor]] between [[projective model structures]]. This follows from the fact that [[fibrations]] and [[acyclic fibrations]] are stable under [[base changes]] in any [[model category]]. Next, the left adjoint functor PSh(S/X)→PSh(S)/X sends Čech nerves of open covers in S/X to Čech nerves of open covers in PSh(S). Thus, the Quillen adjunction descends to a Quillen adjunction between [[local projective model structures]]. Finally, we have to show that the [[derived unit]] and [[derived counit]] of this [[Quillen adjunction]] are [[weak equivalences]]. To this end we observe first that the right adjoint functor preserves weak equivalences and [[homotopy colimits]]. This implies that the [[derived unit]] and [[derived counit]] maps depend homotopy cocontinuously on the object. Thus, to show they are weak equivalences, it suffices to do it for the appropriate sets of (homotopy) generators. Given a [[cofibrant object]] $A\in PSh(S/X)$, we can take it to be representable, in which case the unit map is an isomorphism. Given a [[fibrant object]] $B\in PSh(S)/X$, we can take its underlying object in $PSh(S)$ to be representable, in which case the counit map is an isomorphism.

This equivalence is very easy to implement as a Quillen equivalence of simplicial presheaves and their slice categories.

First, the functor Γ:PSh(S)/X⟶PSh(S/X) is a right Quillen functor between projective model structures. This follows from the fact that fibrations and acyclic fibrations are stable under base changes in any model category.

Next, the left adjoint functor PSh(S/X)→PSh(S)/X sends Čech nerves of open covers in S/X to Čech nerves of open covers in PSh(S). Thus, the Quillen adjunction descends to a Quillen adjunction between local projective model structures.

Finally, we have to show that the derived unit and derived counit of this Quillen adjunction are weak equivalences.

To this end we observe first that the right adjoint functor preserves weak equivalences and homotopy colimits. This implies that the derived unit and derived counit maps depend homotopy cocontinuously on the object. Thus, to show they are weak equivalences, it suffices to do it for the appropriate sets of (homotopy) generators.

Given a cofibrant object $A\in PSh(S/X)$ , we can take it to be representable, in which case the unit map is an isomorphism.

Given a fibrant object $B\in PSh(S)/X$ , we can take its underlying object in $PSh(S)$ to be representable, in which case the counit map is an isomorphism.
- CommentRowNumber12.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2022
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexThanks for all this. I'll think about it. Meanwhile, I was wondering about a general abstract argument. The following should be the easy proof in every context in which "category theory works": Using $$ \big( X, \, f_X \big) \;\simeq\; \Big( \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} \, s_X(i) ,\, (f_{s_X(i)})_{i \in \mathcal{I}} \big) \;\simeq\; \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} \big( s_X(i) ,\, f_{s_X(i)} \big) $$ we check fully faithfulness by the following sequence of natural equivalences: $$ \begin{array}{l} PSh(\mathcal{S})_{/B} \Big( \big( X, \, f_X \big) \,, \big( X ,\, f_{X'} \big) \Big) \\ \;\simeq\; PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( X \,, X' \big) \underset{ PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( X \,, B \big) }{\times} \{f_X\} \\ \;\simeq\; \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longleftarrow} }{\lim} \, PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, X' \big) \underset{ \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longleftarrow} }{\lim} \, PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, B \big) }{\times} \Big\{ \big( f_{s_X(i)} \big)_{i \in \mathcal{I}} \Big\} \\ \;\simeq\; \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longleftarrow} }{\lim} \, \bigg( PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, X' \big) \underset{ PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, B \big) }{\times} \big\{ f_{s_X(i)} \big\} \bigg) \\ \;\simeq\; \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longleftarrow} }{\lim} \, \bigg( \underset{ \underset{i' \in \mathcal{I}'}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, s_{X'}(i') \big) \underset{ PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, B \big) }{\times} \big\{ f_{s_X(i)} \big\} \bigg) \\ \;\simeq\; \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longleftarrow} }{\lim} \, \underset{ \underset{i' \in \mathcal{I}'}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} \, \bigg( PSh(\mathcal{S}_{/B}) \Big( \big( s_X(i) ,\, f_{s_X(i)} \big) \,, \big( s_{X'}(i') ,\, f_{s_{X'}(i')} \big) \Big) \bigg) \\ \;\simeq\; PSh(\mathcal{S}_{/B}) \Big( \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} \big( s_X(i) ,\, f_{s_X(i)} \big) \,, \underset{ \underset{i' \in \mathcal{I}'}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} \big( s_{X'}(i') ,\, f_{s_{X'}(i')} \big) \Big) \bigg) \\ \;\simeq\; PSh(\mathcal{S}_{/B}) \Big( \big( X ,\, f_x \big) \,, \big( X' ,\, f_{X'} \big) \Big) \bigg) \end{array} $$

Thanks for all this. I’ll think about it.

Meanwhile, I was wondering about a general abstract argument. The following should be the easy proof in every context in which “category theory works”:

Using
$\big( X, \, f_X \big) \;\simeq\; \Big( \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} \, s_X(i) ,\, (f_{s_X(i)})_{i \in \mathcal{I}} \big) \;\simeq\; \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} \big( s_X(i) ,\, f_{s_X(i)} \big)$
we check fully faithfulness by the following sequence of natural equivalences:
$\begin{array}{l} PSh(\mathcal{S})_{/B} \Big( \big( X, \, f_X \big) \,, \big( X ,\, f_{X'} \big) \Big) \\ \;\simeq\; PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( X \,, X' \big) \underset{ PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( X \,, B \big) }{\times} \{f_X\} \\ \;\simeq\; \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longleftarrow} }{\lim} \, PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, X' \big) \underset{ \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longleftarrow} }{\lim} \, PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, B \big) }{\times} \Big\{ \big( f_{s_X(i)} \big)_{i \in \mathcal{I}} \Big\} \\ \;\simeq\; \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longleftarrow} }{\lim} \, \bigg( PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, X' \big) \underset{ PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, B \big) }{\times} \big\{ f_{s_X(i)} \big\} \bigg) \\ \;\simeq\; \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longleftarrow} }{\lim} \, \bigg( \underset{ \underset{i' \in \mathcal{I}'}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, s_{X'}(i') \big) \underset{ PSh(\mathcal{S}) \big( s_X(i) \,, B \big) }{\times} \big\{ f_{s_X(i)} \big\} \bigg) \\ \;\simeq\; \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longleftarrow} }{\lim} \, \underset{ \underset{i' \in \mathcal{I}'}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} \, \bigg( PSh(\mathcal{S}_{/B}) \Big( \big( s_X(i) ,\, f_{s_X(i)} \big) \,, \big( s_{X'}(i') ,\, f_{s_{X'}(i')} \big) \Big) \bigg) \\ \;\simeq\; PSh(\mathcal{S}_{/B}) \Big( \underset{ \underset{i \in \mathcal{I}}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} \big( s_X(i) ,\, f_{s_X(i)} \big) \,, \underset{ \underset{i' \in \mathcal{I}'}{\longrightarrow} }{\lim} \big( s_{X'}(i') ,\, f_{s_{X'}(i')} \big) \Big) \bigg) \\ \;\simeq\; PSh(\mathcal{S}_{/B}) \Big( \big( X ,\, f_x \big) \,, \big( X' ,\, f_{X'} \big) \Big) \bigg) \end{array}$
- CommentRowNumber13.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeJul 10th 2022
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexOn the other hand, the previous proof over a representable which I had typed up In October 2021 (*[here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/slice+of+presheaves+is+presheaves+on+slice#DetailsInPlainCategoryTheoryOverARepresentable)* at *[[slice of presheaves is presheaves on slice]]*) works verbatim also for non-representable base objects, and in this case gives the adjoint equivalence whose right adjoint is given by pullback. This is what you (Dmitri) are appealing to in the first statement of [#11](#Comment_100716): > First, the functor Γ:PSh(S)/X⟶PSh(S/X) is a [[right Quillen functor]] between [[projective model structures]]. This follows from the fact that [[fibrations]] and [[acyclic fibrations]] are stable under [[base changes]] in any [[model category]]. and that is the kind of argument that has been being spelled out in the above entry [here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/slice+of+presheaves+is+presheaves+on+slice#InSimplicialModelCategoryTheory). There I had found it necessary to add a few more observations to really exhibit a simplicial Quillen equivalence for enriched simplicial presheaves over an $sSet$-site, but it's all straightforward, of course. What I had not done before is type up any generalization of this argument to non-trivial Grothendieck topologies, which is of course the bulk of the argument in [#11](#Comment_100716) above. Would be nice to type this up in the $n$Lab entry here on the "fundamental theorem".

On the other hand, the previous proof over a representable which I had typed up In October 2021 (here at slice of presheaves is presheaves on slice) works verbatim also for non-representable base objects, and in this case gives the adjoint equivalence whose right adjoint is given by pullback.

This is what you (Dmitri) are appealing to in the first statement of #11:

First, the functor Γ:PSh(S)/X⟶PSh(S/X) is a right Quillen functor between projective model structures. This follows from the fact that fibrations and acyclic fibrations are stable under base changes in any model category.

and that is the kind of argument that has been being spelled out in the above entry here. There I had found it necessary to add a few more observations to really exhibit a simplicial Quillen equivalence for enriched simplicial presheaves over an $sSet$ -site, but it’s all straightforward, of course.

What I had not done before is type up any generalization of this argument to non-trivial Grothendieck topologies, which is of course the bulk of the argument in #11 above. Would be nice to type this up in the $n$ Lab entry here on the “fundamental theorem”.
- CommentRowNumber14.
- CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
- CommentTimeJul 10th 2022
- PermaLink
Author: Dmitri Pavlov
Format: MarkdownItexI added the Čech-local argument to [[slice of presheaves is presheaves on slice]]. At some point the article switches from arbitrary presheaves to representable presheaves, for no particular reason, perhaps it should be generalized?

I added the Čech-local argument to slice of presheaves is presheaves on slice. At some point the article switches from arbitrary presheaves to representable presheaves, for no particular reason, perhaps it should be generalized?
- CommentRowNumber15.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeAug 19th 2022
- (edited Aug 19th 2022)
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexThere must be some gap in the argument in [#11](#Comment_100716). Namely, consider the example ([here](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/13571/slice-of-presheaves-is-presheaves-on-slice/?Focus=102082#Comment_102082)) where the simplicial site is trivial, $S = \ast$, and where the simplicial presheaf $X$ being sliced over is not 0-skeletal, e.g. $X = \overline{W}G$ for a non-trivial group $G$. Then the slice site is still trivial, $\ast/\overline{W}G \,=\,\ast$, since its hom-objects are computed by plain pullbacks which don't pick up the higher cells in $X$. So it won't be true that $sPSh(S)/X$ is (Quillen) equivalent to $sPSh(S/X)$ in this case. Some fibrancy condition on the site slicing is missing. The problem is the appeal to the [[enriched slice category]]. It needs to be replaced by the "discrete enriched Grothendieck construction". I'll try to make the necessary edits at *[[slice of presheaves is presheaves on slice]]*.

There must be some gap in the argument in #11.

Namely, consider the example (here) where the simplicial site is trivial, $S = \ast$ , and where the simplicial presheaf $X$ being sliced over is not 0-skeletal, e.g. $X = \overline{W}G$ for a non-trivial group $G$ . Then the slice site is still trivial, $\ast/\overline{W}G \,=\,\ast$ , since its hom-objects are computed by plain pullbacks which don’t pick up the higher cells in $X$ .

So it won’t be true that $sPSh(S)/X$ is (Quillen) equivalent to $sPSh(S/X)$ in this case. Some fibrancy condition on the site slicing is missing.

The problem is the appeal to the enriched slice category. It needs to be replaced by the “discrete enriched Grothendieck construction”. I’ll try to make the necessary edits at slice of presheaves is presheaves on slice.
- CommentRowNumber16.
- CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
- CommentTimeAug 28th 2023
- PermaLink
Author: nLab edit announcer
Format: MarkdownItex6.5.3.1 to 6.3.5.1 Qi Zhu <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/fundamental+theorem+of+topos+theory/3">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/fundamental+theorem+of+topos+theory/3">v3</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/fundamental+theorem+of+topos+theory">current</a>

6.5.3.1 to 6.3.5.1

Qi Zhu

diff, v3, current

1 to 16 of 16

nForum

Discussion Feed

Not signed in

Site Tag Cloud

nLab > Latest Changes: fundamental theorem of topos theory