Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
  
  
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 nforum 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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorvarkor
   • CommentTimeMar 23rd 2023
   • PermaLink
   Author: varkor
   Format: MarkdownItexAdd a diagram. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/comorphism/4">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/comorphism/4">v4</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/comorphism">current</a>

   Add a diagram.

   diff, v4, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorjonsterling
   • CommentTimeApr 8th 2023
   • (edited Apr 8th 2023)
   • PermaLink
   Author: jonsterling
   Format: MarkdownItexI am puzzled by this page, where it discusses morphisms between ringed spaces. In particular, it requires a morphism $f^\sharp : O_Y\to f_*O_X$ to be a homomorphism of rings and then comments that the adjointness does not imply that the transpose $f_\sharp : f^*O_Y \to O_X$ is a morphism of rings. But both Hakim and Lurie **define** morphisms of ringed spaces to be given by morphisms of rings $f_\sharp : f^*O_Y\to O_X$. Furthermore, the Stacks project [actually claims](https://stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/01D3) that morphisms of rings $f^*O_Y \to O_X$ are the same, by adjointness, as morphisms of rings $O_Y \to f_*O_X$. Who is wrong here?

   I am puzzled by this page, where it discusses morphisms between ringed spaces. In particular, it requires a morphism to be a homomorphism of rings and then comments that the adjointness does not imply that the transpose is a morphism of rings. But both Hakim and Lurie define morphisms of ringed spaces to be given by morphisms of rings . Furthermore, the Stacks project actually claims that morphisms of rings are the same, by adjointness, as morphisms of rings . Who is wrong here?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 16th 2023
   • (edited Apr 16th 2023)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have deleted this passage from the entry: > However, in the case of ringed sites, a morphism $G\to f_* F$ is required to be morphism of sheaves of rings, whereas the adjunction does *not* guarantee that the corresponding morphism $f^* G\to F$ of sheaves of sets over $X$ is a morphism of sheaves of rings over $X$. Because, this contradicts standard sources (as pointed out [above](#Comment_108448)) and the author of that line ([revision 1](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/comorphism/1) in 2009) does not remember why he wrote it ([here](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/16317/wolfgang-rump/?Focus=108479#Comment_108479)). Of course, better than just deleting the sentence would be to replace it by an actual analysis of what's going on. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/comorphism/5">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/comorphism/5">v5</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/comorphism">current</a>

   I have deleted this passage from the entry:

   However, in the case of ringed sites, a morphism is required to be morphism of sheaves of rings, whereas the adjunction does not guarantee that the corresponding morphism of sheaves of sets over is a morphism of sheaves of rings over .

   Because, this contradicts standard sources (as pointed out above) and the author of that line (revision 1 in 2009) does not remember why he wrote it (here).

   Of course, better than just deleting the sentence would be to replace it by an actual analysis of what’s going on.

   diff, v5, current

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 16th 2023
   • (edited Apr 16th 2023)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexadded pointer to: * [[Alexander Grothendieck]], [[Jean-Louis Verdier]], Def. 13.1 of *Morphisme de topos annelés*, Section 13 in Exposé iv in: [[M. Artin]] et al., *Théorie des topos et cohomologie étale des schémas. Tome 1: Théorie des topos*, Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique du Bois-Marie 1963–1964 ([[SGA 4]]), Lecture Notes in Mathematics __269__, Springer (1972) &lbrack;[doi:10.1007/BFb0081551](https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/BFb0081551), [pdf](http://www.cmls.polytechnique.fr/perso/laszlo/sga4/SGA4-1/sga41.pdf)&rbrack; The following remark 13.1.1 ([p. 316](http://www.cmls.polytechnique.fr/perso/laszlo/sga4/SGA4-1/sga41.pdf#page=316)) explicitly says that the two adjoint forms of comorphisms are equivalent. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/comorphism/6">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/comorphism/6">v6</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/comorphism">current</a>

   added pointer to:

   • Alexander Grothendieck, Jean-Louis Verdier, Def. 13.1 of Morphisme de topos annelés, Section 13 in Exposé iv in: M. Artin et al., Théorie des topos et cohomologie étale des schémas. Tome 1: Théorie des topos, Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique du Bois-Marie 1963–1964 (SGA 4), Lecture Notes in Mathematics 269, Springer (1972) [doi:10.1007/BFb0081551, pdf]

   The following remark 13.1.1 (p. 316) explicitly says that the two adjoint forms of comorphisms are equivalent.

   diff, v6, current