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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 8th 2010
   • (edited Nov 8th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexthere is a span of concepts [[higher geometry]] $\leftarrow$ [[Isbell duality]] $\to$ [[higher algebra]] which is a pretty fundamental thing about math, I think (well, this observation is at least to Lawvere, of course). I put this _span of links_ at the top of these three entries. I am enjoying that, but let me know if it is once again a silly idea of mine. (maybe it should also be _higher Isbell duality_ )

   there is a span of concepts

   higher geometry $\leftarrow$ Isbell duality $\to$ higher algebra

   which is a pretty fundamental thing about math, I think (well, this observation is at least to Lawvere, of course).

   I put this span of links at the top of these three entries. I am enjoying that, but let me know if it is once again a silly idea of mine.

   (maybe it should also be higher Isbell duality )

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexhm, I forget, why are [[Isbell duality]] and [[Isbell conjugation]] separate? I think I will merge them...

   hm, I forget, why are Isbell duality and Isbell conjugation separate? I think I will merge them…

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have merged _Isbell conjugation_ into [[Isbell duality]]

   I have merged Isbell conjugation into Isbell duality

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeNov 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItex>To the extent that this adjunction descends to presheaves that are (higher) sheaves and copresheaves that are (higher) algebras this duality relates higher geometry with higher algebra. If >A sheaf is a presheaf that satisfies descent. how do you fill in >An algebra is a copresheaf that satisfies ??? And sheafification is dual to what? Oh, it looks like you told me something about this [before](http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2009/04/cohomology.html#c023034). So codescent. There's a question on cosheaves at [MO](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/43311/sheaves-and-cosheaves). Something to look at tomorrow.

   To the extent that this adjunction descends to presheaves that are (higher) sheaves and copresheaves that are (higher) algebras this duality relates higher geometry with higher algebra.

   If

   A sheaf is a presheaf that satisfies descent.

   how do you fill in

   An algebra is a copresheaf that satisfies ???

   And sheafification is dual to what?

   Oh, it looks like you told me something about this before. So codescent.

   There’s a question on cosheaves at MO. Something to look at tomorrow.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 8th 2010
   • (edited Nov 8th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> how do you fill in >> An algebra is a copresheaf that satisfies ??? A low-brow but nevertheless good answer is: An algebra is a copresheaf that preserves finite products / maybe finite limits. As in [[algebra over a Lawvere theory]]. I have to admit that I had not heard or thought of "Lawvere distributions" as are mentioned on MO. Let me try to have a look at that...

   how do you fill in

   An algebra is a copresheaf that satisfies ???

   A low-brow but nevertheless good answer is:

   An algebra is a copresheaf that preserves finite products / maybe finite limits. As in algebra over a Lawvere theory.

   I have to admit that I had not heard or thought of “Lawvere distributions” as are mentioned on MO. Let me try to have a look at that…

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeNov 9th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexFrom the Preface of the [reference](http://www.springerlink.com/content/x823m326u1122215/) mentioned at MO, >Distributions >"Following up on a 1966 Oberwolfach talk where I had proposed a theory of distributions (not only in but) on presheaf toposes, in 1983 at Aarhus I posed several questions concerning distributions on $\mathcal{S}$-toposes [where $\mathcal{S}$ is an elementary topos, thought of to be *Set*, the category of sets and functions]. The base for the definition and questions is a pair of analogies with known theories (commutative algebra and measure theory) for variable quantities, coupled with the fact that there are many important examples of variable $\mathcal{S}$-'quantities' where the domains of variation are $\mathcal{S}$-toposes. The intensively variable quantities are taken to be the sheaves on the topos, i.e., simply the objects in the category. Of course, the term 'topos' means 'place' or 'situation', but Grothendieck treats the general situation by dealing instead with the category of *Set*-valued quantities which vary continuously over it, as an affine k-scheme is described by dealing with the k-algebra of functions on it. (. . . ) Then we follow the lead of analysis and define a *distribution* or extensively variable quantity on an $\mathcal{S}$-topos to be a continuous linear functional, or generalized point, i.e., a functor to $\mathcal{S}$ which preserves $\mathcal{S}$-colimits, but not necessarily the finite limits." >F. W. Lawvere, Comments on the Development of Topos Theory, in: Jean-Paul Pier (editor), Development of Mathematics 1950-2000, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel Boston Berlin, 2000, 715-734.

   From the Preface of the reference mentioned at MO,

   Distributions

   “Following up on a 1966 Oberwolfach talk where I had proposed a theory of distributions (not only in but) on presheaf toposes, in 1983 at Aarhus I posed several questions concerning distributions on $\mathcal{S}$-toposes [where $\mathcal{S}$ is an elementary topos, thought of to be Set, the category of sets and functions]. The base for the definition and questions is a pair of analogies with known theories (commutative algebra and measure theory) for variable quantities, coupled with the fact that there are many important examples of variable $\mathcal{S}$-’quantities’ where the domains of variation are $\mathcal{S}$-toposes. The intensively variable quantities are taken to be the sheaves on the topos, i.e., simply the objects in the category. Of course, the term ’topos’ means ’place’ or ’situation’, but Grothendieck treats the general situation by dealing instead with the category of Set-valued quantities which vary continuously over it, as an affine k-scheme is described by dealing with the k-algebra of functions on it. (… ) Then we follow the lead of analysis and define a distribution or extensively variable quantity on an $\mathcal{S}$-topos to be a continuous linear functional, or generalized point, i.e., a functor to $\mathcal{S}$ which preserves $\mathcal{S}$-colimits, but not necessarily the finite limits.”

   F. W. Lawvere, Comments on the Development of Topos Theory, in: Jean-Paul Pier (editor), Development of Mathematics 1950-2000, Birkhauser Verlag, Basel Boston Berlin, 2000, 715-734.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 9th 2010
   • (edited Nov 9th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks. I realize that I did hear of these distributions: Lawvere of course tallks about them also in his article on [[cohesive topos]]es. I need to figure out what the precise relation to algebras over a Lawvere theory is. I am still at home where I cannot access the book you pointed to. Will go to the institute now to check.

   Thanks. I realize that I did hear of these distributions: Lawvere of course tallks about them also in his article on cohesive toposes.

   I need to figure out what the precise relation to algebras over a Lawvere theory is.

   I am still at home where I cannot access the book you pointed to. Will go to the institute now to check.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 9th 2010
   • (edited Nov 9th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexDavid, I looked at the book now (excerpted [[Lawvere distribution]] and [[cosheaf]]). I am not sure yet how one can use this to give a much better description of how Isbell duality relates geometry and algebra. So one way to look at Isbell duality is as the adjunciton $$ (\mathcal{O} \dashv Spec) : [C,Set]^{op} \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\to} [C^{op}, Set] $$ and observe conditions under which this restricts to an adjunction between sheaves on the right, and product-preserving functors on the left. To get co-sheaves in the game, we'd probably want to use $[C,Set]^{op} \simeq [C^{op},Set^{op}]$. Then we could regard a product-preserving functor $C \to Set$ as a $Set^{op}$-valued cosheaf with respect to a coverage on $C^{op}$ where the covering families are the op-s of product projections in $C$. (Unless op-ing got me mixed up somewhere). But now where does this help with seeing if the presheaf/copresheaf duality descends? The topologies used for the cosheaves is independent and in general different from that used for the sheaves. Hm. I believe I need to think about this more.

   David,

   I looked at the book now (excerpted Lawvere distribution and cosheaf).

   I am not sure yet how one can use this to give a much better description of how Isbell duality relates geometry and algebra.

   So one way to look at Isbell duality is as the adjunciton

   $$(\mathcal{O} \dashv Spec) : [C,Set]^{op} \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\to} [C^{op}, Set]$$

   and observe conditions under which this restricts to an adjunction between sheaves on the right, and product-preserving functors on the left.

   To get co-sheaves in the game, we’d probably want to use $[C,Set]^{op} \simeq [C^{op},Set^{op}]$. Then we could regard a product-preserving functor $C \to Set$ as a $Set^{op}$-valued cosheaf with respect to a coverage on $C^{op}$ where the covering families are the op-s of product projections in $C$. (Unless op-ing got me mixed up somewhere).

   But now where does this help with seeing if the presheaf/copresheaf duality descends? The topologies used for the cosheaves is independent and in general different from that used for the sheaves.

   Hm. I believe I need to think about this more.