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 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 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.
   • CommentAuthorEric
   • CommentTimeOct 17th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Eric
   Format: MarkdownItexI presume that >## Definition >Let $C$ be a [[category]] with [[pullback]]s. Then the **tangent category** $T_C$ of $C$ is the category whose >* [[object]]s are pairs $(A,\mathcal{A})$ with $A \in Ob(C)$ and with $\mathcal{A}$ an abelian [[group object]] in the [[overcategory]] $C/B$; contained a minor typo, so I replaced $C/B$ with $C/A$.

   I presume that

   Definition

   Let be a category with pullbacks. Then the tangent category of is the category whose

   • objects are pairs with and with an abelian group object in the overcategory ;

   contained a minor typo, so I replaced with .

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 17th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexRight, thanks for fixing that!

   Right, thanks for fixing that!

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeOct 17th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexLink: [[tangent category]]

   Link: tangent category

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorEric
   • CommentTimeOct 18th 2010
   • (edited Oct 18th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Eric
   Format: MarkdownItexTracing references took me to [[tangent (infinity,1)-category]] and from there to [[Deformation Theory]] and from there to the [arxiv](http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.3091v2.pdf). I'm starting see a blurry image appear, but an image nontheless. One question... Why does Lurie begin with [[Kähler differentials]]? They've always seemed a bit kinky to me (but in a cool way). That is, they never seemed 100% natural due to the implied commutative of functions and differentials. Much more natural, in my opinion, are [[universal differential envelopes]] and their quotients. What if, instead of starting with Kähler differentials, you started with simply differential modules (without the implied $a (d b) = (d b) a$) and then followed Lurie's prescriptions? Is there a noncommutative version of [[stabilization]] or something? PS: In Lurie's paper on [page 5](http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0709/0709.3091v2.pdf#Page=5), he says >here $Stab$ denotes the stabilization construction introduced in §S.8. Silly question. What is he referring to? §S.8? There are only 3 sections in the paper :o

   Tracing references took me to tangent (infinity,1)-category and from there to Deformation Theory and from there to the arxiv.

   I’m starting see a blurry image appear, but an image nontheless.

   One question…

   Why does Lurie begin with Kähler differentials? They’ve always seemed a bit kinky to me (but in a cool way). That is, they never seemed 100% natural due to the implied commutative of functions and differentials.

   Much more natural, in my opinion, are universal differential envelopes and their quotients. What if, instead of starting with Kähler differentials, you started with simply differential modules (without the implied ) and then followed Lurie’s prescriptions?

   Is there a noncommutative version of stabilization or something?

   PS: In Lurie’s paper on page 5, he says

   here denotes the stabilization construction introduced in §S.8.

   Silly question. What is he referring to? §S.8? There are only 3 sections in the paper :o

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 18th 2010
   • (edited Oct 18th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex"S" stands for his article on [[stable (infinity,1)-categories]], and the stabilization he refers to is [[stabilization]]

   “S” stands for his article on stable (infinity,1)-categories, and the stabilization he refers to is stabilization