Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
starting a dedicated entry for the category of vector bundles with homomorphisms allowed to cover non-trivial base maps (while previously we only had VectBund(B) for fixed base ).
For the moment the main point is to record the interesting cartesian- and tensor-monoidal structure (now here)
added (here) a section “Properties — Distributive monoidal structure” which spells out the elementary argument that is distributive monoidal (a verbatim copy of the same few paragraphs which I just added at distributive monoidal category, announed there)
also added (here) a further subsection “Properties — Amalgamation of monoidal and parameter structures” which is meant to be experimental for the moment (I left a disclaimer “under construction”).
The point of this last subsection I discuss in another thread: here.
When does this category have equalizers preserved by the tensor product? I imagine that’s when the category of base spaces satisfies the same condition?
That should be right. Abstractly one can appeal to the description of (co)limits in a Grothendieck construction given there: One first forms the (co)limit in the base category, then pushes/pulls the remaining diagram of fibers to a diagram all over the base (co)cone tip and forms the remaining (co)limit of fibers there.
I see, so that means that if I have a principal -bundle on the category on smooth manifolds expressed as an equalizer this will allow me to construct principal -bundles on as an equalizer for a Hopf algebra object in , a vector bundle over , and coalgebra vector bundles over , resp., right?
Not sure if I am following this description.
Incidentally, the first equalizer you mention is a coequalizer – which is good if you are still interested in it being preserved by external tensor – but I don’t see where this enters in what you write now.
Do you really mean to have a Hopf algebra object over a base object that is a group object – this seems to lead to a clash of variances.
So I don’t quite see what you are after here.
Right. I’m trying to construct principal bundles in along the lines of Brzeziński 09. One regards the groups as Hopf objects given that every set is a comonoid.
I see. But do you want to co-act on or to act? In the first case the relation to the underlying -action is lost, im the second case group structure is missing.
In any, I may not have the leisure right now to sort through this.
I’d want it to act, this would be the dual of the algebraic description of quantum group bundles expressed in terms of a Hopf coaction .
And no worries, this is pretty much early stage by now, but I think #5 is along the lines of what I would need, thanks!
1 to 10 of 10