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 bundle bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory itex k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics planar 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 string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft 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
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2010

    Some of you may remember that a while ago I had started wondering how one could characterize geometric morphisms of toposes EFE \to F that would exhibit EE as an “infinitesimal thickening” of FF.

    Instead of coming to a defnite conclusion on this one, I worked with a concrete example that should be an example of this situation: that of the Gorthendieck toposes on the sites CartSp and ThCartSp of cartesian spaces and infinitesimally thickened cartesian spaces.

    But now I went through my proofs for that situation and tried to extract which abstract properties of these sites they actually depend on. Unless I am mixed up, it seems to me now that the essential property is CartSpCartSp is a coreflective subcategory of ThCartSpThCartSp and that in the respective adjunction

    CartSpThCartSp CartSp \stackrel{\leftarrow }{\hookrightarrow} ThCartSp

    buth functors preserve covers.

    So maybe it makes sense to take this as a definition: a geometric morphism of Grothendieck toposes is an infinitesimal thickening if it comes from such a coreflective embedding of sites.

    Details of this, with more comments on the meaning of it all and detailed proofs, I have now typed into my page on path oo-functors in the section Infinitesimal path oo-groupoids.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2010

    In 1-categorical abelian situation, Rosenberg looked at a notion of differential endofunctors, and they depend on some choice in general, because for general categories there is no analogue like the closedness of the diagonal. This is all in 2 preprints

    • V. A. Lunts, A. L. Rosenberg, Differential calculus in noncommutative algebraic geometry I. D-calculus on noncommutative rings, MPI 1996-53 pdf, II. D-Calculus in the braided case. The localization of quantized enveloping algebras, MPI 1996-76 pdf
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2010
    • (edited Jun 2nd 2010)

    He takes a minimal subscheme containing the identity endofunctor in the category of endofunctors. Subschemes in his abelian setup are coreflective topologizing categories. Toplogizing is an appropriate condition to do the localization theory properly in his setup. That is why i respond above to your insight that coreflectiveness in infinity situation is important for infinity Lie theory.

    Part I of the Rosenberg's papers listed above is sufficient. Part II is not of your concern I see now.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010
    • (edited Jun 15th 2010)

    The general nonsense part starts at page 19 of part I (pdf) esp. 3.1 and uses some of the localization and subscheme definitions between pages 13-19, especially things from 2.7.3 page 18. See also Prop. 4.3.2.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010

    Thanks, I have found it now. Hm, not sure yet. He seems to use co-reflectivity to define the general notion of “sub-space”.

    I was thinking of it as modelling concretely the infinitesimal thickening. The point being that if XX is an ordinary piece of space and DD an infinitesimally thickened point, then every morphism XDX \to D factors through the point, while there are nontrivial morphisms the other way round DXD \to X, of course.

    So this means that morphisms of the form XY×DX \to Y \times D are in bijection to morphisms XYX \to Y. So the embedding of ordinary spaces XX into those with an infintesimal thickening DD is left adjoint to the projection Y×DYY \times D \mapsto Y that forgets the infinitesimal part.

    This is effectively (albeit in different words and symbolds) also what happens in section 4 of A. Kock’s Cahiers note .

    Is anything of this sort in Rosenberg’s work?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010
    • (edited Jun 15th 2010)

    Not of subspace. This is not true. Of subscheme. And he says that the infinitesimal thickening oif the diagonal is the smallest subscheme of the abelian category of additive endofunctors containing the identity endofunctor. But then also he considers thickenning of other choices of generalized diagonal.

    So usual differential operators come from thickennings of the diagonal (like in theory of crystals) while you can consider other embeddings and thickenings of those.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010

    Look also at 2.7.4 in terms of Gabriel multiplication.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010
    • (edited Jun 15th 2010)

    Is anything of this sort in Rosenberg’s work?

    Look at proof of lemma 3.1.1.

    By the way, what I do not like about the ringed topoi picture with infinitesimals is that it requires the ring structure giving D. It should be completely in terms of categories not generators.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010

    Okay, thanks for the pointers. I’ll try to look again.

    By the way, what I do not like about the ringed topoi picture with infinitesimals is that it requires the ring structure giving D. It should be completely in terms of categories not generators.

    Yes, absolutely. This is why I was looking for a more intrinsic way to say “infinitesimally thickened topos”.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010

    So the embedding of ordinary spaces XX into those with an infintesimal thickening DD is left adjoint to the projection Y×DYY \times D \mapsto Y that forgets the infinitesimal part.

    Recall the meaning of the module of Kahler differential, which for general thick subcategory T corresponds to a generalized conormal bundle. Then in LR 3.2 (page 20) you have a morphism in formula (1) having a similar role.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010
    • (edited Jun 15th 2010)

    Look at proof of lemma 3.1.1.

    Hm, now that I look at it: he says “co-reflective” when the inclusion functor has a left adjoint. This is what I know as a reflective subcategory. ?! Co-reflective meaning that it has a right adjoint.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010

    This is a typo. See LR 2.1: The subcategory Y is coreflective which means that the inclusion functor Y to X has a right adjoint.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010

    I need to think about this. Direct comparison seems to be hard, because the co-reflexivity that I am thinking about is at the level of sites , whereas Rosenberg talks about abelian categories of sheaves.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010

    But this is more intrinsic: saying everything in terms of the category of sheaves abelian or not.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010

    Yes, that’s true of course. But I don’t yet understand it at that level! ;-)

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010

    If I understood correctly the usual differential calculus corresponds to the conormal bundle of the diagonal which is the identity endofunctor, while for other embeddings the infinitesimal thickenings come from applying the machinery to the corresponding abstract conormal bundles in the sense of LR.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2010

    But I don’t yet understand it at that level!

    I am sure you will understand it soon ! When we met first time in Bonn in 2005 I was teaching you what a fibered category is, and when Igor first time came to Hamburg 2006 he was teaching you what is a Quillen model category and you were complaining why he needs talking topos all the time and now you are miles beyond our understanding of these things. :)

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)