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-categories 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 differential-topology 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 k-theory 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 natural 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 simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject 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 21st 2010


    groupal model for universal principal infinity-bundles

    in order to record and link David Roberts’s result.

    to go with this, I also created universal principal infinity-bundle.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2010

    In case it rings bells for anyone, I point out that the functor E:sGrp(C)sGrp(C)E:sGrp(C) \to sGrp(C), sending a simplicial group object KK (in a finitely complete category CC, say) to a contractible simplicial group object EKEK with KK a sub-simplicial group object, is a monad.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2010

    is a monad.

    It’s maybe noteworthy that the functor underlying this functor after forgetting the group structure is just decalage, and that decalage is a comonad (as indicated at decalage).

    What’s going on?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2010
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2010
    • (edited Jul 22nd 2010)

    I am sorry to talk as I did not read the background of the construction above, but it is often that the monadic and comonadic simplicial constructions for the same adjoint pair look confusingly similar. For example the bar construction for an action gives a simplicial set, but monads induce a cosimplicial object. I will once write about that in detail; the point is that objects in the category downstairs can be identified with free objects in the category upstairs. So the action can be described using endofunctors above or endofunctors below. Sometimes there is a confusion in identifying what is an appropriate choice here. Sorry for being vague, but I will write soon a discussion on this for the case of bar-like resolutions; the question of the augmentations is also relevant.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2010
    • (edited Jul 22nd 2010)

    I am working my way up to including the following construction into groupal model for universal principal infinity-bundle:

    Let 𝔤\mathfrak{g} be an nn-truncated L L_\infty-algebra, such that its Lie integration

    τ nexp(𝔤) \tau_{\leq n}\exp(\mathfrak{g})

    is equivalent to

    BG:=τ n+1exp(𝔤), \mathbf{B}G := \tau_{\leq {n+1}} \exp(\mathfrak{g}) \,,

    i.e. that we can truncate the Sullivan construction one degree “too high” and still not pick up a homotopy group. This is for instance the case for 𝔤\mathfrak{g} an ordinary Lie algebra: in that case τ 1exp(𝔤)\tau_{\leq 1}\exp(\mathfrak{g}) is BG\mathbf{B}G for GG the simply connected Lie group integrating it, and since for every Lie algebra we have π 2(G)=0\pi_2(G) = 0 there is a trivial homotopy group in degree 2 and so BGτ 2exp(𝔤)\mathbf{B}G \simeq \tau_{\leq 2}\exp(\mathfrak{g}).

    All right, so in that case, write inn(𝔤)inn(\mathfrak{g}) for the L L_\infty-algebra whose Chevalley-Eilenberg algebra is the Weil algebra of 𝔤\mathfrak{g}. This is a “L L_\infty-algebroidal-model” for the universal 𝔤\mathfrak{g}-bundle. (An observation going all the way back to Cartan and of course underlying the Cartan model of equivariant cohomologhy, which is nothing but a Lie algebroid model for the Borel construction EG× GVE G \times_G V).

    So we want to integrate this to get a groupal model of the universal GG-principal nn-bundle.

    Since Lie integration is functorial, we simply have that

    (BGBEG):=(τ n+1exp(𝔤)τ n+1exp(inn(𝔤))) (\mathbf{B}G \to \mathbf{B}\mathbf{E}G) := (\tau_{\leq {n+1}}\exp(\mathfrak{g}) \to \tau_{\leq {n+1}}\exp(inn(\mathfrak{g})))

    So picking any explcit delooping functor gives an \infty-group homomorphism

    GEG. G \to \mathbf{E}G \,.

    Since the Weil algebra has no cohomolog we have of course EG*\mathbf{E}G \simeq *.

    It remains to pass back to the base space object BG\mathbf{B}G in a controled way.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2010

    okay, I added a paragraph with a pointer to a discussion along the above lines.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2010
    • (edited Jul 23rd 2010)

    It’s maybe noteworthy that the functor underlying this functor after forgetting the group structure is just decalage,

    ..up to isomorphism, that is. The monad I give is not a strict lift of the decalage Dec:sGrpsSetDec:sGrp \to sSet through the forgetful functor, but up to iso.

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)