Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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 string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2011
    • (edited Jan 5th 2011)

    I split off locally representable structured (infinity,1)-topos from generalized scheme .

    This is about Lurie’s 𝒢\mathcal{G}-schemes, but I decided to change the title. For one to avoid the continuous conflict of notions of “generalized scheme” that made generalized scheme a mess, but also because it seems quite reasonable terminology to. Would’t you agree?

  1. In locally representable structured (infinity,1)-topos I changed two “Proj” into “Pro”. Objections?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2012

    I don’t know what ProjProj is supposed to stand for in the first place (is it supposed to evoke ProjProj as in spectrum of a graded algebra?), but I have a feeling that ProPro would rub me the wrong way: it would remind me of “profunctor” or “profinite completion” which I strongly suspect are wrong associations.

  2. The entry in question draws from DAG V and I am rather sure that pro-objects are intended.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2012

    Okay, thanks! I stand corrected. To further expose my ignorance: is DAG V some work by Lurie on Derived Algebraic Geometry? (I cannot find it on his home page, but maybe I didn’t look hard enough.)

    Should that reference be in the reference section? Also, why was ProjProj there in the first place; was it a typo?

  3. Yes, I referred to

    • Jacob Lurie, Derived Algebraic Geometry V: Structured Spaces, arXiv:0905.0459

    It is in the reference section, but not under its full title.

    I guess the ProjProj was a typo. However there are other deviations in notation compared to Lurie’s text (e.g. an op-ing from ind-objects to pro-objects) hence I was not sure in first place.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2012
    • (edited Dec 16th 2012)

    Todd, “DAG” refers to a series of 14 articles by Jacob Lurie, which lay out the foundations of higher geometry. However, I like to suppress the “algebraic geometry” when citing these articles, because I find it misleads people. The development in the articles is about geometry quite generally. I kep running into differential geometers who would keep saying things like “in algebraic geometry there are these higher categories”, not realizing that in differential geometry, topology, supergeometry, etc. there are just as well, and I don’t want to participate in further prolonging this decade-old confusion.

    Concerning the pro-objects: I think the choice of notation convention does not matter much if only it is made clear what is meant. I have now added a pointer to pro-object in an (infinity,1)-category to the entry. This had been there originally, but got stripped off when the entry was split off from structured (infinity,1)-topos.

    Concerning whether this is a typo: it feels a bit like saying that stating Pythagoras’ theorem like “x 2+y 2=z 2x^2 + y^2 = z^2” is a typo, because it ought to be “a 2+b 2=c 2a^2 + b^2 = c^2”. But I agree that changing it to “Pro” is probably better.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2012

    Thanks for your information and help, Urs. It’s of course fine with me either way how you guys want to refer to Lurie’s work; I just wasn’t sure what Stephan was referring to in #4 and was confirming. Having a pointer to the pro-object article is also useful.

    I don’t agree with the analogy in your last sentence, since I had guessed ProjProj referred to something totally different from pro-object. I would never think that about an inessential change of variables. I’m glad it’s been sorted out.

  4. Here is further confusion of notation: In St. Sp. (:-) in definition 2.1.2 in the composit diagram the relative spectrum functor goes in the wrong direction and perhaps the Ind-objects are included in the wrong category. In the nlab here it is syntactically correct but if one has a transformation of geometries which is not the identity (which it is in this case), the relative spectrum functor goes in the wrong direction.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2012
    • (edited Dec 17th 2012)

    Hi Stephan,

    I just got off the plane after a transatlantic flight. Don’t quite feel like digging through this variance-issue right now. If you feel you understand what’s going on and feel sure the direction of the arrow in the entry is reversed, then please correct it!

  5. Hi Urs, welcome back.

    I made the change I consider right: p:𝒢 0𝒢p:\mathcal{G}_0\to \mathcal{G} (not the other way round) since this shall map admissible morphisms to such and 𝒢 0\mathcal{G}_0 denotes the discrete geometry underlying 𝒢\mathcal{G}. In St Sp is the same typo.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)