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 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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 15th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownI created [[synthetic differential geometry applied to algebraic geometry]] which is supposed to host a question that I am going to post on <a href="http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=sbseminar.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmathoverflow.net%2F">math Overflow</a> following the discussion we have of that <a href="http://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/math-overflow/#comment-6875">here at SBS</a>. In that context I also wrote a section at [[algebraic geometry]] intended to describe the general-nonsense perspective. But that didn't quite find the agreement with Zoran and while we are having some discussion about this in private, he has restructured that entry now.

   This comment is invalid XML; displaying source. <p>I created <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/synthetic+differential+geometry+applied+to+algebraic+geometry">synthetic differential geometry applied to algebraic geometry</a> which is supposed to host a question that I am going to post on <a href="http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=sbseminar.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmathoverflow.net%2F">math Overflow</a> following the discussion we have of that <a href="http://sbseminar.wordpress.com/2009/10/14/math-overflow/#comment-6875">here at SBS</a>.</p> <p>In that context I also wrote a section at <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/algebraic+geometry">algebraic geometry</a> intended to describe the general-nonsense perspective. But that didn't quite find the agreement with Zoran and while we are having some discussion about this in private, he has restructured that entry now.</p>
2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeNov 17th 2014
   • (edited Nov 17th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded to _[[synthetic differential geometry applied to algebraic geometry]]_ a short remark on functions $\mathbb{A}^1 \to \mathbb{A}^1$ internal to the big Zariski topos of a scheme: They are all polynomial functions. If people are interested, I can add the (routine) proof of this fact.

   Added to synthetic differential geometry applied to algebraic geometry a short remark on functions $\mathbb{A}^1 \to \mathbb{A}^1$ internal to the big Zariski topos of a scheme: They are all polynomial functions. If people are interested, I can add the (routine) proof of this fact.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
   • CommentTimeNov 17th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Zhen Lin
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat exactly does that mean? I guess a second-order statement of the form $\forall f : \mathbb{A}^1 \to \mathbb{A}^1 . \exists n : \mathbb{N} . \exists a : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{A}^1 . \cdots$?

   What exactly does that mean? I guess a second-order statement of the form $\forall f : \mathbb{A}^1 \to \mathbb{A}^1 . \exists n : \mathbb{N} . \exists a : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{A}^1 . \cdots$?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeNov 17th 2014
   • (edited Nov 17th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, exactly. For me, $\forall f : \mathbb{A}^1 \to \mathbb{A}^1$ is, in the context of the internal language of a topos, syntactic sugar for $\forall f : [\mathbb{A}^1,\mathbb{A}^1]$, where $[\mathbb{A}^1,\mathbb{A}^1]$ is the internal Hom. Note also, since the big Zariski topos is cocomplete, there is no difference in quantifying over the internal natural numbers ($\exists n : \mathbb{N}$) or taking a disjunction indexed by the external natural numbers ($\bigvee_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$). I added this clarification to the article; thanks!

   Yes, exactly. For me, $\forall f : \mathbb{A}^1 \to \mathbb{A}^1$ is, in the context of the internal language of a topos, syntactic sugar for $\forall f : [\mathbb{A}^1,\mathbb{A}^1]$, where $[\mathbb{A}^1,\mathbb{A}^1]$ is the internal Hom.

   Note also, since the big Zariski topos is cocomplete, there is no difference in quantifying over the internal natural numbers ($\exists n : \mathbb{N}$) or taking a disjunction indexed by the external natural numbers ($\bigvee_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$).

   I added this clarification to the article; thanks!

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 17th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks. I had completely forgotten about the existence of this entry. It's been a long time. This ought to be entirely reworked. For the moment I have at least rearranged somewhat. Also cross-linked with the entry _[[synthetic differential geometry]]_ itself. Then I have copied the proposition over to _[[affine line]]_ (in a new section _[Properties -- Internal formulation](#http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/affine+line#InternalFormulation)_), where it is more likely to be found by people who might care. I think it would be good for these entries if the proof were indicated with the statement, yes.

   Thanks. I had completely forgotten about the existence of this entry. It’s been a long time. This ought to be entirely reworked. For the moment I have at least rearranged somewhat. Also cross-linked with the entry synthetic differential geometry itself.

   Then I have copied the proposition over to affine line (in a new section Properties – Internal formulation), where it is more likely to be found by people who might care.

   I think it would be good for these entries if the proof were indicated with the statement, yes.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeNov 17th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks Urs! I will add a proof today or tomorrow.

   Thanks Urs! I will add a proof today or tomorrow.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeNov 17th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItex>The axioms of synthetic differential geometry are intended to pin down the minimum general abstract axioms necessary for talking about the differential aspect of differential geometry using concrete objects that model infinitesimal spaces. Shouldn't this be modified now in view of the lesser structure presumed by differential cohesion?

   The axioms of synthetic differential geometry are intended to pin down the minimum general abstract axioms necessary for talking about the differential aspect of differential geometry using concrete objects that model infinitesimal spaces.

   Shouldn’t this be modified now in view of the lesser structure presumed by differential cohesion?

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 17th 2014
   • (edited Nov 17th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThat's among the aspects that I was thinking of in #5. This entry was created over 5 years ago stating questions that I had back then; but meanwhile I had completely forgotten about the entry. Now I'd be inclined to rewrite it completely. But no time right now.

   That’s among the aspects that I was thinking of in #5. This entry was created over 5 years ago stating questions that I had back then; but meanwhile I had completely forgotten about the entry. Now I’d be inclined to rewrite it completely. But no time right now.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeNov 20th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded to _[[affine line#InternalFormulation]]_ the proof promised in #6.

   Added to affine line#InternalFormulation the proof promised in #6.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 20th 2014
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexThanks!

    Thanks!