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 complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus 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 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 multicategories nonassociative 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-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 15th 2011

    at hypercover I have slightly expanded the remark about the examples: I have created a subsection “Examples” and described what degreewise the conditions on a hypercover YXY \to X are in the case that XX is simplicially constant.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2011

    added to hypercover a brief section with the main statement from Dugger-Hollander-Isaksen on hypercovers over “Verdier sites” here.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014

    Something really basic: given a coverage CC with associated Grothendieck topology TT, every TT-hypercover should have a refinement by a CC-hypercover – right?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014

    Hmm, I can think of how to build one inductively and then this should work for truncated hypercovers, but I’m not sure about non-truncated ones. (Further answers will have to wait till tomorrow)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014

    Thanks, good point. Hm.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014

    According to the cited definition of hypercover, only the Grothendieck topology matters, so the two notions should be the same. No? (The point is that the notion of local epimorphism depends only on the Grothendieck topology.)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014
    • (edited Jun 7th 2014)

    I should clarify, I was using the term in the sense of Dugger-Hollander-Isaksen which incorporates part of “split hypercover”. David seemed to have guessed correctly what I mean, but to clarify:

    given a hypercover which is degreewise a coproduct of domains of morphisms in covering families of the Grothendieck topology TT coming from a coverage CC, may we refine by a hypercover which is degreewise a coproduct of domains of morphisms in covering families of CC?

    It should be clear that one may just iteratively choose CC-covers. But as David says, maybe there is a subtlety in “taking the limit”?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014

    I’m afraid that’s not any clearer. Every representable occurs as a domain of a morphism in a covering family, namely the trivial one. Moreover, the DHI definition of “(split) hypercover” depends only on the Grothendieck topology; and cofibrancy in the projective model structure does not depend on the choice of coverage at all, so the cofibrant hypercovers remain the same, if that is what you are interested in.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014
    • (edited Jun 7th 2014)

    Not for a coverage.

    As an example: consider the category of complex manifolds with coverage-ing families the covers by polydiscs. Any complex manifold may be covered by just these. Now given any hypercover which is degreewise a coproduct of complex manifolds (or of Stein spaces, if you wish), may one refine by a hypercover which is degreewise a coproduct of just polydiscs?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014

    The analogous statement in (DHI02) (which assumes existence of more pullbacks in the site than I want to assume, I don’t want to assume a Verdier site here) is theorem 8.6. That sets up the expected induction and then the proof ends.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014
    • (edited Jun 7th 2014)

    Hmmm. In some sense, what you are doing there is shrinking the underlying category of the site. Regardless, if that’s all you are interested in, then there is no problem: every hypercover can be refined in the way you want. In the usual proof (e.g. Lemma 8.2.20 in my notes) that every local trivial fibration (of a representable) can be refined by a hypercover, in the step where we form a coproduct of representables, replace each representable with a coproduct of distinguished ones.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014
    • (edited Jun 7th 2014)

    In some sense, what you are doing there is shrinking the underlying category of the site.

    That’s exactly what I am after, yes. The \infty-version of “dense subsite”.

    When dealing with cohesion it turned out to be a nice trick to shrink the category of manifolds to the category of Cartesian spaces, i.e. to discs. (Since in that case one has good open covers, I could avoid working with (and, worse, thinking about) hypercovers.) Now I want to shrink a category of analytic manifolds to that of just polydiscs.

    Thanks a lot for the pointer to your notes! I’ll have a look now.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2014

    Okay, I have used this to jot down the intended proof that AnlyticGrpd\mathbb{C}Anlytic\infty Grpd is cohesive, here.

    This needs more polishing, but I have to dash off now.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 8th 2014

    Any interesting spectra in AnlyticGrpd\mathbb{C}Anlytic\infty Grpd? What’s the equivalent of ’differential’ as in differential cohomology/refinement? Analytic?

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 8th 2014
    • (edited Jun 8th 2014)

    The holomorphic de Rham complex and Deligne complex are objects in CplxAnalyticInftyGrpd, representing what would alternatively be called Dolbeault cohomology, holomorphic differential cohomology or the like. (One should recall at this point that this holomorphic version was what Deligne and Beilinson originally introduced in the early 1970s, long before Brylinski and others popularized the smooth differential geometric version.)

    Crucially, the discussion at intermediate Jacobian lives here, that’s what I was after now.

    (Telegraphic since i am on my phone, more later.)

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 9th 2014
    • (edited Jun 9th 2014)

    Zhen Lin,

    your lemma 8.2.20 proceeds by induction, as does theorem 8.6 in DHI, as mentioned above. This clearly gives the answer for n-truncated hypercovers for any finite nn. Does one not need to add some argument that the construction also works for the untruncated case? This is what David alluded to in #4.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJun 9th 2014

    I don’t see any problem. See, for instance, Propositions 5.4 and 6.4 in [DHI, 2004].

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 9th 2014

    Okay, I am seeing there… let’s agree on a version, it seems the numbering changed. How about we look at math/0205027v2. Do you mean to point to 5.4 and 6.4 there?

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2014

    The induction causes no trouble if it doesn’t touch the earlier stages of the construction, which does happen when trying to refine a hypercover by the nerve of an ordinary cover, but I suspect not in this case. In fact that’s the point of a hypercover, you just use what you have in lower degrees and fix up where you are up to.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2014

    @Urs

    I was referring to the published version. In the arXiv v2 version, it’s Propositions 5.5 and 6.6.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2014

    Thanks, right. I was being stupid here. Sorry.

    Once I am no longer just on my phone, I should next look more into if this way we indeed get a split hypercover…

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2014

    Ah, of course splitness is automatic by the construction.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2014

    I have added the statement to the entry, see at hypercover – Properties – Existence and refinement – Over general sites.

    Please check and please feel invited (I’ll keep reiterating that) to expand.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2014

    Please bear in mind that I update my notes from time to time, and sometimes the numbering gets changed; but I keep all versions available online, so as long as you include the date/version, there should be no confusion.

    My theorem 8.2.14 does not quite say that local trivial Kan fibrations have the local lifting property; rather it corresponds to Theorem 6.15 in [DI, 2002]. Perhaps what you want is Theorem 7.2 in [DI, 2002]?

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 10th 2014

    Okay, I have added the date to all the pointers.

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)