Not signed in

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

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJun 9th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexIn <a href="http://www.math.ntnu.no/~stacey/Vanilla/nForum/comments.php?DiscussionID=1406">another thread</a> I came up with a definition of a local isomorphism in a [[site]], working from the definition of a local homeomorphism/diffeomorphism in Top/Diff respectively (with the open cover [[pretopology]] in both cases). Then I find that there is a page [[local isomorphism]] talking about maps in presheaf categories: such a map is a local isomorphism if becomes an isomorphism on applying the sheafification functor $PSh(S) \to Sh(S,J)$. To quote my definition again ><b>Definition:</b> Let (C,J) be a site (J a pretopology). A map $f:a \to b$ is a J-local isomorphism if there are covering families $(v_i \to b)$ and $(u_j \to a)$ such that for each $u_j$ the restriction $f|u_j$ is an isomorphism onto some $v_i$. I don't claim, in the time I have available, to understand the implications of the definition at [[local isomorphism]]. I just wonder how it relates to concrete notions like local homeomorphisms (let us work with Top and open covers as covering families). Is a local homeomorphism, after applying Yoneda, a local isomorphism? Does a local isomorphism in the image of Yoneda come from a local homeomorphism? I suspect the answer is yes. Now for the biggie: can a [[local isomorphism]] be characterised in terms as basic as my definition as quoted? With my definition one avoids dealing with functor categories (and so size issues, to some extent: $[Top^{op},Set]$ is very big), so if they are equivalent, I'd like to put this somewhere. Obviously we can take the site in my definition to be a presheaf category with the canonical pretopology or something, and potentially recover the definition at [[local isomorphism]], but for the ease of connecting with geometric ideas, I prefer something simpler. Any thoughts?

   In another thread I came up with a definition of a local isomorphism in a site, working from the definition of a local homeomorphism/diffeomorphism in Top/Diff respectively (with the open cover pretopology in both cases). Then I find that there is a page local isomorphism talking about maps in presheaf categories: such a map is a local isomorphism if becomes an isomorphism on applying the sheafification functor $PSh(S) \to Sh(S,J)$. To quote my definition again

   Definition: Let (C,J) be a site (J a pretopology). A map $f:a \to b$ is a J-local isomorphism if there are covering families $(v_i \to b)$ and $(u_j \to a)$ such that for each $u_j$ the restriction $f|u_j$ is an isomorphism onto some $v_i$.

   I don’t claim, in the time I have available, to understand the implications of the definition at local isomorphism. I just wonder how it relates to concrete notions like local homeomorphisms (let us work with Top and open covers as covering families). Is a local homeomorphism, after applying Yoneda, a local isomorphism? Does a local isomorphism in the image of Yoneda come from a local homeomorphism? I suspect the answer is yes. Now for the biggie: can a local isomorphism be characterised in terms as basic as my definition as quoted? With my definition one avoids dealing with functor categories (and so size issues, to some extent: $[Top^{op},Set]$ is very big), so if they are equivalent, I’d like to put this somewhere.

   Obviously we can take the site in my definition to be a presheaf category with the canonical pretopology or something, and potentially recover the definition at local isomorphism, but for the ease of connecting with geometric ideas, I prefer something simpler.

   Any thoughts?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJun 11th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexThis is to alert Urs the last question of #1 is directed at him :)

   This is to alert Urs the last question of #1 is directed at him :)