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
   • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2011
   • (edited Feb 8th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexAt [[synthetic differential infinity-groupoid]] I have entered statement and detailed proof that flat and infinitesimally flat real coefficients are equivalent in $SynthDiff\infty Grpd$ $$ \mathbf{\flat}_{inf} \mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R} \simeq \mathbf{\flat} \mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R} \,. $$ The proof proceeds by presentation of $\mathbf{\flat}_{inf} \mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R}$ by essentially (a cofibrant resolution of) Anders Kocks' s infinitesimal singular simplicial complex. In this presentation cohomology with coefficients in this object is manifestly computed as in [[de Rham space]]/[[Grothendieck descent]]-technology for oo-stacks. But we also have an intrinsic notion of de Rham cohomology in cohesive $\infty$-toposes, and the above implies that in degree $n \geq 2$ this coincides with the de Rham space presentation as well as the intrinsic real cohomoloy. All in all, this proves what Simpson-Teleman called the "de Rham theorem for $\infty$-stacks" in a note that is linked in the above entry. They consider a slightly different site of which I don't know if it is cohesive, but apart from that their model category theoretic setup is pretty much exactly that which goes into the above proof. They don't actually give a proof in this unpublished and sketchy note and they work (or at least speak) only in homotopy categories. But it's all "morally the same". For some value of "morally".

   At synthetic differential infinity-groupoid I have entered statement and detailed proof that flat and infinitesimally flat real coefficients are equivalent in $SynthDiff\infty Grpd$

   $$\mathbf{\flat}_{inf} \mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R} \simeq \mathbf{\flat} \mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R} \,.$$

   The proof proceeds by presentation of $\mathbf{\flat}_{inf} \mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R}$ by essentially (a cofibrant resolution of) Anders Kocks’ s infinitesimal singular simplicial complex. In this presentation cohomology with coefficients in this object is manifestly computed as in de Rham space/Grothendieck descent-technology for oo-stacks.

   But we also have an intrinsic notion of de Rham cohomology in cohesive $\infty$-toposes, and the above implies that in degree $n \geq 2$ this coincides with the de Rham space presentation as well as the intrinsic real cohomoloy.

   All in all, this proves what Simpson-Teleman called the “de Rham theorem for $\infty$-stacks” in a note that is linked in the above entry. They consider a slightly different site of which I don’t know if it is cohesive, but apart from that their model category theoretic setup is pretty much exactly that which goes into the above proof. They don’t actually give a proof in this unpublished and sketchy note and they work (or at least speak) only in homotopy categories. But it’s all “morally the same”. For some value of “morally”.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2011
   • (edited Feb 8th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexUrs, link does not work: [[Grothendieck descent]], rather than Grothenndieck with two n-s. > But it's all "morally the same". For some value of "morally". It is very often than modern mathematicians use that term, but an excellent teacher of mine with logic training and fine linguistic feeling, was complaining to me that it is a bad choice to attach morality as a question of will, value, consensus or attitude to a variant of **truth**. Truth could be explained or weighted roughly, vaguely, imprecisely, approximately, **essentially**, but morally, this would mean depending on the human consensus, not about the essence of things. Since that critique, which I appreciated, I rarely used the term myself. Essentially the same is not subject to the same critique, I believe. I hope you enjoy his thought.

   Urs, link does not work: Grothendieck descent, rather than Grothenndieck with two n-s.

   But it’s all “morally the same”. For some value of “morally”.

   It is very often than modern mathematicians use that term, but an excellent teacher of mine with logic training and fine linguistic feeling, was complaining to me that it is a bad choice to attach morality as a question of will, value, consensus or attitude to a variant of truth. Truth could be explained or weighted roughly, vaguely, imprecisely, approximately, essentially, but morally, this would mean depending on the human consensus, not about the essence of things. Since that critique, which I appreciated, I rarely used the term myself. Essentially the same is not subject to the same critique, I believe.

   I hope you enjoy his thought.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI always thought "morally the same" in math is meant as in "the moral of the story": we learn the same lesson.

   I always thought “morally the same” in math is meant as in “the moral of the story”: we learn the same lesson.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexThe are also worse variants like "this is morally correct" for a mathematical proof where the "lesson" interpretation can hardly pass.

   The are also worse variants like “this is morally correct” for a mathematical proof where the “lesson” interpretation can hardly pass.