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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 7th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI created [[Galois topos]] following Dubuc's article. But I must be missing something about the notation: does it really mean to say that $A$ is an $\Delta Aut(A)$-torsor, as opposed to saying that it is _associated_ to an $\Delta Aut(A)$-torsor?

   I created Galois topos following Dubuc’s article.

   But I must be missing something about the notation: does it really mean to say that $A$ is an $\Delta Aut(A)$-torsor, as opposed to saying that it is associated to an $\Delta Aut(A)$-torsor?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks. It sure seems to me like it ought to be "associated to."

   Thanks. It sure seems to me like it ought to be “associated to.”

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
   • (edited Dec 8th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexI do not see what the objection is to the current wording. Any object $X$ naturally has a $\Delta Aut(A)$ action. (One might want to say that that was a different type of object, but is that really necessary. Perhaps it does need verifying and spelling out.) Then Dubuc's use of words just says that $X$ satisfies the usual conditions of a torsor for that action (i.e. the iso). The wording may not be 'optimal' but was and still is current. I am not sure what 'associated to' means without a specification of how it is associated to whatever.

   I do not see what the objection is to the current wording. Any object $X$ naturally has a $\Delta Aut(A)$ action. (One might want to say that that was a different type of object, but is that really necessary. Perhaps it does need verifying and spelling out.) Then Dubuc’s use of words just says that $X$ satisfies the usual conditions of a torsor for that action (i.e. the iso). The wording may not be ’optimal’ but was and still is current.

   I am not sure what ’associated to’ means without a specification of how it is associated to whatever.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
   • (edited Dec 8th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> I do not see what the objection is to the current wording. The problem is that there does not seem to be a reason why we would want to demand that there is an isomorphism between a fiber $F$ and its automorphism group $Aut(F)$. In the topos $Set$ the only objects $A$ that are $Aut(A)$-torsors are the singleton and the two-element set, because this are the only two solutions to $n = n!$. There is no good reason to declare that only sets of cardinality lower than three would count as locally constant objects. edit: hm, maybe the point is that nevertheless these two sets form a set of generators for $Set$?

   I do not see what the objection is to the current wording.

   The problem is that there does not seem to be a reason why we would want to demand that there is an isomorphism between a fiber $F$ and its automorphism group $Aut(F)$.

   In the topos $Set$ the only objects $A$ that are $Aut(A)$-torsors are the singleton and the two-element set, because this are the only two solutions to $n = n!$.

   There is no good reason to declare that only sets of cardinality lower than three would count as locally constant objects.

   edit: hm, maybe the point is that nevertheless these two sets form a set of generators for $Set$?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> I am not sure what 'associated to' means without a specification of how it is associated to whatever. There is a canonical notion of associated bundle if the structure group is given as an automorphism group: for $P$ an $Aut(F)$-bundle, the canonical associated bundle is $P \times_{Aut(F)} F$.

   I am not sure what ’associated to’ means without a specification of how it is associated to whatever.

   There is a canonical notion of associated bundle if the structure group is given as an automorphism group: for $P$ an $Aut(F)$-bundle, the canonical associated bundle is $P \times_{Aut(F)} F$.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
   • (edited Mar 21st 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexLooking at Dubuc's paper, I think that he intended exactly what he seems to say. The point that you, Urs, make is exactly right and is what makes it work. This identifies the analogues of those solutions to $n = n!$. I have not got Moerdijk's article in front of me so cannot compare with his notion of Galois object. Tonini in his [notes](http://poisson.phc.unipi.it/~tonini/Tonini%20-%20Notes%20on%20Grothendieck-Galois%20theory%20-%202009.pdf) defines them differently but is nearer the classical notion.

   Looking at Dubuc’s paper, I think that he intended exactly what he seems to say. The point that you, Urs, make is exactly right and is what makes it work. This identifies the analogues of those solutions to $n = n!$. I have not got Moerdijk’s article in front of me so cannot compare with his notion of Galois object. Tonini in his notes defines them differently but is nearer the classical notion.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexI found [this](http://www.normalesup.org/~zoghaib/math/points-tt.pdf), which uses Debuc's definition.

   I found this, which uses Debuc’s definition.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, I looked at that, too. he just seems to copy Dubuc's definition, though. Or does he shed light on the above issue?

   Yes, I looked at that, too. he just seems to copy Dubuc’s definition, though. Or does he shed light on the above issue?

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat are the intended examples of "Galois objects"?

   What are the intended examples of “Galois objects”?

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
    • (edited Mar 21st 2013)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Tim_Porter
    Format: MarkdownItexDubuc does not seem to give any, whilst Tonini gives some reasonable ones but is using a different definition.

    Dubuc does not seem to give any, whilst Tonini gives some reasonable ones but is using a different definition.

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexHmm... if $X$ is a connected and locally simply connected topological space, then in the category of covering spaces of $X$ (which is a topos, since it is equivalent to the category of $\pi_1(X)$-sets), the universal cover $\tilde{X}$ of $X$ is, in fact, a torsor for $Aut(\tilde{X})=\pi_1(X)$. This all feels so wrong to me because it is so focused on the locally connected case! (-: Surely things will become clearer when we have good definitions that work in generality.

    Hmm… if $X$ is a connected and locally simply connected topological space, then in the category of covering spaces of $X$ (which is a topos, since it is equivalent to the category of $\pi_1(X)$-sets), the universal cover $\tilde{X}$ of $X$ is, in fact, a torsor for $Aut(\tilde{X})=\pi_1(X)$.

    This all feels so wrong to me because it is so focused on the locally connected case! (-: Surely things will become clearer when we have good definitions that work in generality.

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexTim, after three "Debuc"s maybe it's not just your fingers: I think the name is _Dubuc_ ;-)

    Tim,

    after three “Debuc”s maybe it’s not just your fingers: I think the name is Dubuc ;-)

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Tim_Porter
    Format: MarkdownItexOOPS ! Eduardo would not be pleased.:-(

    OOPS ! Eduardo would not be pleased.:-(

14. • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexSorry, i should have said this by email. But you can easily edit all your comments and fix the typo (just hit "edit" on the top of each comment.) And then we can blank these last three comments here.

    Sorry, i should have said this by email. But you can easily edit all your comments and fix the typo (just hit “edit” on the top of each comment.) And then we can blank these last three comments here.

15. • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2010
    • (edited Dec 9th 2010)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Tim_Porter
    Format: MarkdownItexIt does not really bother me and see no real reason to cover up a slip, since it was made. (That looks like papering over cracks in the plaster. It may look better but ....) I was not checking what I was typing and my fingers were on automatic pilot. It is like when I type 'categroy'. I have known Eduardo since .... if you see what I mean, so the slip is very silly on my part.

    It does not really bother me and see no real reason to cover up a slip, since it was made. (That looks like papering over cracks in the plaster. It may look better but ….) I was not checking what I was typing and my fingers were on automatic pilot. It is like when I type ’categroy’. I have known Eduardo since …. if you see what I mean, so the slip is very silly on my part.

16. • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItex> It is like when I type 'categroy'. I always find myself typing "catgegory". I can't stop my fingers doing this. Not sure why that happens.

    It is like when I type ’categroy’.

    I always find myself typing “catgegory”. I can’t stop my fingers doing this. Not sure why that happens.

17. • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Tim_Porter
    Format: MarkdownItexI always find it heartening when I mistype a search term in Google getting something ridiculous and then find that it gives me some hits, and that they are relevant! :-) It is then interesting to note that I might not have found them if I had not made the slip.

    I always find it heartening when I mistype a search term in Google getting something ridiculous and then find that it gives me some hits, and that they are relevant! :-)

    It is then interesting to note that I might not have found them if I had not made the slip.

18. • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexFor some reason my typo is always "catetgory".

    For some reason my typo is always “catetgory”.

19. • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Tim_Porter
    Format: MarkdownItexWhy do we all type THAT word incorrectly?

    Why do we all type THAT word incorrectly?

20. • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2013
    • PermaLink
    Author: zskoda
    Format: MarkdownItexCould somebody upload the Moerdijk's proceedings article cited in the entry ? The proceedings are hard to find.

    Could somebody upload the Moerdijk’s proceedings article cited in the entry ? The proceedings are hard to find.

21. • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorMarc Hoyois
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2013
    • PermaLink
    Author: Marc Hoyois
    Format: MarkdownItex@zskoda: it's on ScienceDirect: [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385725889800307](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385725889800307)

    @zskoda: it’s on ScienceDirect: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1385725889800307

22. • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2013
    • PermaLink
    Author: zskoda
    Format: MarkdownItexGreat, I have the access to this!

    Great, I have the access to this!