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 bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics 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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number 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 string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010

    Readability concern: The first place where W¯G\bar{W}G appears should have a link to an entry where W¯G\bar{W}G is defined (I do not know which entry has it). I know it is somewhat standard, but not everybody is educated enough.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010

    right, that’s a remnant from the material being copied from simplicial group. I’ll fix it. Thanks.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2010

    okay, I added some remarks about W¯G\bar W G to simplicial principal bundle. But the entry is still pretty stubby.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2020

    Corrected a serious mistake in the definition: previously, the action of G_n on E_n was not required to be transitive!

    diff, v9, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2020

    Removed transitivity, since it is introduced later.

    Is a “principal action” really the same thing as a “free action”?

    diff, v9, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2020

    It’s of course not the same, in general. There is a condition missing in the entry.

    The point is that for simplicial bundles, which are meant (explicitly or implicity) to model principal \infty-bnundles, the 1-categorical definition of principal action is not the intended one.

    Instead one wants a free action that is “weakly principal” in that the shear map it induces is a weak homotopy equivalence.

    I am too tired now to deal with the entry. But if it doesn’t say that, it needs fixing.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2020

    Instead one wants a free action that is “weakly principal” in that the shear map it induces is a weak homotopy equivalence.

    But being a free action is a cofibrancy condition that presumably one does not want in a weak definition.

    I can envision at least two different definitions:

    The strict definition says that a principal G-bundle for a simplicial group G is a G-equivariant simplicial map E→B, where the G-action on B is trivial and the induced map E/G→B is an isomorphism.

    The weak definition says that a principal G-bundle for a simplicial group G is a G-equivariant simplicial map E→B, where the G-action on B is trivial and the induced map E//G→B is a weak equivalence, where // denotes the homotopy quotient.

    One can prove that the ∞-categories of strict and weak principal G-bundles are equivalent.

    Which definition do we want here?

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2020

    Does the weak definition imply E× BEE\times_B E is equivalent to E×GE\times G?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2020

    Re #9: Yes (with a homotopy fiber product): E ⨯^h_B E = E ⨯^h_{E//G} E = E ⨯^h (pt ⨯^h_{pt//G} pt) = E ⨯ G.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2020

    I have fixed the definition to that of weakly-principal bundles (here). Please be invited to add further variants.

    diff, v10, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2021
    According to the point of view of the articles //ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/Principal+%E2%88%9E-bundles+--+theory%2C+presentations+and+applications (https), higher principal bundles (discrete case included) are modeled by homotopy pullbacks which are, in turn, computed as ordinary pullbacks on fibrantly replaced diagrams. If I am not wrong, this necessarily means that we have to obtain (in simplicial sets) twisted Cartesian products with Kan fibrant base, because all objects in fibrantly repalced diagrams are Kan fibrant. But on the other hand, there is no such condition imposed on base of principal twisted Cartesian product in works of May and others. Hence the question is - is the Kan fibrant condition on base needed? If so, why? If not, how to understand the concept of simplicial principal bundles established in the classical literature?
    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 1st 2021
    • (edited Aug 1st 2021)

    [ this is referring to arXiv:1207.0249, web ]

    Since the classical model structure on simplicial sets is right proper, a pullback diagram is a homotopy pullback already when one of the two maps is a fibration, with no further condition on the objects. This is the second item of this Prop..

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeAug 3rd 2021

    Ahh, thank you! So do I understand it correctly that the Kan condition on a simplicial set XX in the section 4 (The universal simplicial GG-principal bundle) is redundant?

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)