Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
  
  
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation 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-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic 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 superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 8th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: Markdowncreated stubs for [[homotopy localization]] and [[A1 homotopy theory]]

   created stubs for

   homotopy localization

   and

   A1 homotopy theory

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2015
   • (edited Apr 27th 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex...

   …

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2015
   • (edited Apr 27th 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexSorry for #2 (I had written there that we needed some other entry organization somewhere before seeing that we actually already did.) Here is an actual technical issue: elswhere I had managed to mix myself upabout variances of the following. Consider the site of objects of the form $\mathbb{R}^n \times D \times \mathbb{R}^{0\vert q}$, where $D$ is an infinitesimally thickened points, $\mathbb{R}^{0|q}$ is a superpoint, and maps are smooth maps extended to infinitesimal generators in the evident way. The coverage is induced from that of open covers on Cartesian spaces. Then what is the $\mathbb{R}^{0\vert 1}$-homotopy localization of the $\infty$-topos over this site? I think that by direct analogy with the by now standard argument which shows that the $\mathbb{R}^1$-homotopy localization of the $\infty$-topos over the site of just the $\mathbb{R}^n$-s is the $\infty$-topos over the point, we get that the $\mathbb{R}^{0\vert 1}$-homotopy localization is the $\infty$-topos over the site of $\mathbb{R}^n \times D$s with the localization given on representables by removing the super-point part, $\mathbb{R}^n \times D \times \mathbb{R}^{0\vert q} \mapsto \mathbb{R}^n \times D$. Hence the corresponding reflector is the operation denoted $R$ [here](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/super%20formal%20smooth%20infinity-groupoid#Cohesion), I suppose.

   Sorry for #2 (I had written there that we needed some other entry organization somewhere before seeing that we actually already did.)

   Here is an actual technical issue: elswhere I had managed to mix myself upabout variances of the following.

   Consider the site of objects of the form , where is an infinitesimally thickened points, is a superpoint, and maps are smooth maps extended to infinitesimal generators in the evident way. The coverage is induced from that of open covers on Cartesian spaces.

   Then what is the -homotopy localization of the -topos over this site?

   I think that by direct analogy with the by now standard argument which shows that the -homotopy localization of the -topos over the site of just the -s is the -topos over the point, we get that the -homotopy localization is the -topos over the site of s with the localization given on representables by removing the super-point part, .

   Hence the corresponding reflector is the operation denoted here, I suppose.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexSo should we expect a pattern in the full adjoint modalities diagram as to which are localizations? That's why I was asking about $R$ on the "Science of Logic" thread. Then we might expect $\rightrightarrows$ to be a localization too. Also, does each modality have a negative modality? Well, I know that isn't true for $\emptyset$. But why do the negatives of those in corresponding positions appear, i.e., of $\flat$ and $\rightsquigarrow$? Is that observation about the negative of $\emptyset$ being the maybe monad give us a route out of the diagram to the linear/quantum world?

   So should we expect a pattern in the full adjoint modalities diagram as to which are localizations? That’s why I was asking about on the “Science of Logic” thread. Then we might expect to be a localization too.

   Also, does each modality have a negative modality? Well, I know that isn’t true for . But why do the negatives of those in corresponding positions appear, i.e., of and ?

   Is that observation about the negative of being the maybe monad give us a route out of the diagram to the linear/quantum world?