Not signed in (Sign In)

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 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 deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite 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 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 sheaves 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010

    Urs created submersion and I added a little more. Still a bit stubby, though.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010
    • (edited Jul 20th 2010)

    added links (we have transversal maps, for instance).

    We should say something about regular epimorphisms.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010

    Edited transversal maps to change the direct sum sign to just a sum in the definition - as it should be.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorKevin Lin
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010
    • (edited Jul 20th 2010)
    I added a few words to submersion, which lead to adding a few words to proper morphism, which lead to the creation of separated morphism and Ehresmann's theorem, which lead to adding a few words to Riemann-Hilbert correspondence and the creation of higher direct image and hypercohomology.
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010

    which lead to […] which lead to […] which lead to […]

    Thanks!

    I added the nnPOV to hypercohomology,

    The very existence of the notion “hypercohomology” is a strong point in favor of the nPOV on cohomology.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorKevin Lin
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010
    Really cool stuff!
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010

    Really cool stuff!

    Yes. And in principle known since before 1973. A mystery why this isn’t taught in high school in the 21 century…

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010

    I added the example of Deligne cohomology to hypercohomology.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorKevin Lin
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010
    Do you know any good references for basic stuff about Eilenberg-Mac Lane objects?
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010
    • (edited Jul 20th 2010)

    I like the discussion in Higher Topos Theory . But, as we have seen elsewhere, I am strange and different… ;-)

    More seriously, I am not aware of many references that would describe Eilenberg-macLane objects in a higher sheaf topos really conceptually. Often it is just by decree that one takes these to be things represented by chain complexes concentrated in one degree. That’s fine of course, because that’s what it boils down to anyway. But a good conceptual description is in HTT.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorKevin Lin
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010
    Okay, I'll try to look at HTT.
    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2010

    I added an arrow-theoretic characterisation of transversal maps.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2010

    I put in a coordinate-dependent definition at submersion on the grounds that it applies in a more general situation.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 4th 2013

    Re #12: I’m a little baffled by this “slick category-theoretic” way to express transversality. As pointed out in a comment by Tom Goodwillie at MO (link visible for those with 10k of rep), if we have f=g:1Mf = g: 1 \to M, then the pullback of ff and gg surely exists (the pullback of a mono against itself trivially exists in any category, taking the pullback projections to be identity maps). Moreover, the tangent bundle functor TT preserves the terminal object 11, so TT takes ff and gg to a map (necessarily monic, being a map out of the terminal) Tf=Tg:1TMT f = T g: 1 \to T M, and therefore the pullback diagram, pulling back ff along gg, is preserved by the tangent bundle functor.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2013

    Why does one need rep to see this comment? I can read the question, 6 comments on it, and an answer, nothing by Goodwillie. Are there hidden comments???

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2013

    I'm trying to remember how that condition came about; I think that it's missing a clause.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2013

    @Toby: Sorry – the explanation is that the answer that I linked to, and which has Goodwillie’s comment, had been deleted; such answers on MO cannot be seen except by those with 10k of rep. (To such users the deleted answer appears in a pink box.) I just tried the link and was sent directly to the deleted answer; I guess other users are sent to the page anyway, but just can’t see the deleted answer I really meant to link to.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2013

    Yeah, that's what I see.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2013
    • (edited Jun 5th 2013)

    The answer was by me, and Goodwillie pointed out the obvious counterexample to the claim in my answer (which I think I got from the nLab page). My answer is:


    Edit: This is wrong as it stands, I’m leaving it here in case someone (perhaps me) can fill in the missing detail.


    Here’s a sketch.

    Fix the map f:CDf:C\to D. The pullback of ff along g:EDg:E \to D exists if and only if ff is transversal to gg, namely given cCc\in C and eEe\in E such that f(c)=g(e)=df(c) = g(e) = d, we have

    T f(c)D=f *T cC+g *T eE T_{f(c)} D = f_\ast T_c C + g_\ast T_e E

    (not direct sum, notice). (see, e.g. the nLab article ) (EDIT: ff is transversal to gg iff the pullback exists and is preserved by the tangent bundle functor!)

    Thus for all pullbacks of ff to exist along arbitrary maps, including from E=*E = *, we must have T f(c)D=f *T cCT_{f(c)} D = f_* T_c C, for all cCc\in C, i.e. ff is a submersion.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2013
    • (edited Jun 5th 2013)

    OK, so David thought that fgf \pitchfork g iff the pullback exists, I added the condition that the tangent bundle preserves it, and now we see that there is something more! I'm pretty sure that I teased this result out of Lang, so I should go look there again. In the meantime, there is a warning that the result is incomplete.