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
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexAfter Zoran had emphasized it for years without me ever really looking into it, now I have finally read the beginning of Kontsevich-Rosenberg's article on "Q-categories" in more details... and was struck: their notion of "generalized sheaves" is essentially nothing but the kind of condition that Lawvere considered in [[cohesive topos]]es $(u_! \dashv u^* \dashv u_* \dashv u^!) : T \to S$. More precisely, Lawvere considered the objects $x$ for which the canonical morphism $u_* x \to u_! x$ is an isomorphism. What Kontsevich-Rosenberg call generalized sheaves are those objects for which the _other_ canonical morphism is an isomorphism: $u^* x \to u^! x$. There are mainly two kinds of applications in Kontsevich-Rosenberg: 1. the original one was to find the right notion of sheaves over formal duals of non-commutative algebras. Apparently Rosenberg is fond of the insight that for a suitable cohesive presheaf topos (my words of course) the right condition is that $u^* x \to u^! x$ is an iso. 1. Apparently (if I remember correctly what Zoran told me) Kontsevich added the observation that formal smoothness and hence infinitesimal thickening is naturally described in this context. Now that I looked through it, I realize that what they talk about in this context is really pretty much exactly what I axiomatized as <a href="http://nlab.mathforge.org/nlab/show/cohesive+%28infinity%2C1%29-topos#InfinitesimalCohesion">infinitesimal cohesion</a>. So I am happy: at once now the entire 79 page article by Kontsevich-Rosenberg turns out to be a great resource of examples and applications of cohesive topos technology! Notably they shed more light on the role of those infamous _extra axioms_ that involve the two canoical natural transformations that come with any cohesive topos. For that reason I have now begun expanding the $n$Lab entry [[Q-category]] that Zoran once started

   After Zoran had emphasized it for years without me ever really looking into it, now I have finally read the beginning of Kontsevich-Rosenberg’s article on “Q-categories” in more details… and was struck:

   their notion of “generalized sheaves” is essentially nothing but the kind of condition that Lawvere considered in cohesive toposes $(u_! \dashv u^* \dashv u_* \dashv u^!) : T \to S$. More precisely, Lawvere considered the objects $x$ for which the canonical morphism $u_* x \to u_! x$ is an isomorphism. What Kontsevich-Rosenberg call generalized sheaves are those objects for which the other canonical morphism is an isomorphism: $u^* x \to u^! x$.

   There are mainly two kinds of applications in Kontsevich-Rosenberg:

   1. the original one was to find the right notion of sheaves over formal duals of non-commutative algebras. Apparently Rosenberg is fond of the insight that for a suitable cohesive presheaf topos (my words of course) the right condition is that $u^* x \to u^! x$ is an iso.

   2. Apparently (if I remember correctly what Zoran told me) Kontsevich added the observation that formal smoothness and hence infinitesimal thickening is naturally described in this context. Now that I looked through it, I realize that what they talk about in this context is really pretty much exactly what I axiomatized as infinitesimal cohesion.

   So I am happy: at once now the entire 79 page article by Kontsevich-Rosenberg turns out to be a great resource of examples and applications of cohesive topos technology! Notably they shed more light on the role of those infamous extra axioms that involve the two canoical natural transformations that come with any cohesive topos.

   For that reason I have now begun expanding the $n$Lab entry Q-category that Zoran once started

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • (edited Apr 12th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexJust for the record: while the $Q$-category of presheaves of sets on a $Q$-category is of course the (iso unit) adjunction between topoi, the category of *sheaves* inside the $Q$-category of presheaves is in general not a topos. New stub [[unramified morphism]] with redirect [[formally unramfied morphism]]. It required so I also made a stub for the geometric and number-theoretic notion of [[residue field]] in the standard sense, and removed the redirect at [[field]] which has the other notion of the residue field in constructive mathematics. Both places have links to the other notion.

   Just for the record: while the $Q$-category of presheaves of sets on a $Q$-category is of course the (iso unit) adjunction between topoi, the category of sheaves inside the $Q$-category of presheaves is in general not a topos.

   New stub unramified morphism with redirect formally unramfied morphism. It required so I also made a stub for the geometric and number-theoretic notion of residue field in the standard sense, and removed the redirect at field which has the other notion of the residue field in constructive mathematics. Both places have links to the other notion.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • (edited Apr 12th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexUrs, I think that Brzeziński is not working in the context of topoi but rather with abelian examples. I am just pointing to what you know: that one does not need to take presheaves of sets, but some other possibilities are interesting which allow for notion of formally smooth objects. P.S. it is getting very interesting :)

   Urs, I think that Brzeziński is not working in the context of topoi but rather with abelian examples. I am just pointing to what you know: that one does not need to take presheaves of sets, but some other possibilities are interesting which allow for notion of formally smooth objects.

   P.S. it is getting very interesting :)

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • (edited Apr 12th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> the category of sheaves inside the Q-category of presheaves is in general not a topos. And because of that, saying "sheaves" for the objects $X$ for which $u^* X \to u^! X$ is an iso is a really bad idea! :-) Personally I would think these things should be given an entirely different name. But if we do stick with Kontsevich-Rosenberg's terminology, we should at least be sure to say "$\mathbb{A}$-sheaves" or the like.

   the category of sheaves inside the Q-category of presheaves is in general not a topos.

   And because of that, saying “sheaves” for the objects $X$ for which $u^* X \to u^! X$ is an iso is a really bad idea! :-)

   Personally I would think these things should be given an entirely different name. But if we do stick with Kontsevich-Rosenberg’s terminology, we should at least be sure to say “$\mathbb{A}$-sheaves” or the like.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • (edited Apr 12th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexIt is quite classical to use the sheaves with values in other categories, for example sheaves in abelian categories, then sheaves of Frechet algebras, which do not form an abelian category. Sheaf is in my opinion more about gluing conditions, not about the codomain category. I do not understand the pressure from topos community that if something is not a topos that this makes its objects not being sheaves, as the notion of a sheaf existed before the notion of a topos. > Personally I would think these things should be given an entirely different name. But it HAS a different name. It is a sheaf on a Q-category with values in $C$, for example. Just spell the whole name. Resolutions existed in homological algebra for abelian categories, before the generalizations were found in nonabelian context. And people decided to still call them resolution, but they have a full name. The new name is indeed *needed* if it were the case that two different generalities *in the same context* would have the same name. I agree with your remark about the $\mathbb{A}$-sheaves. In practice, the prefixes disappear if used a lot in the understood context.

   It is quite classical to use the sheaves with values in other categories, for example sheaves in abelian categories, then sheaves of Frechet algebras, which do not form an abelian category. Sheaf is in my opinion more about gluing conditions, not about the codomain category. I do not understand the pressure from topos community that if something is not a topos that this makes its objects not being sheaves, as the notion of a sheaf existed before the notion of a topos.

   Personally I would think these things should be given an entirely different name.

   But it HAS a different name. It is a sheaf on a Q-category with values in $C$, for example. Just spell the whole name. Resolutions existed in homological algebra for abelian categories, before the generalizations were found in nonabelian context. And people decided to still call them resolution, but they have a full name. The new name is indeed needed if it were the case that two different generalities in the same context would have the same name.

   I agree with your remark about the $\mathbb{A}$-sheaves. In practice, the prefixes disappear if used a lot in the understood context.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI don't mean the issue that the codomain may not be a topos. I mean that the $\mathbb{A}$-sheaf condition (saying that $u^* X \to u^! X$ is an iso) is not at all (in general) an ordinary sheaf condition.

   I don’t mean the issue that the codomain may not be a topos. I mean that the $\mathbb{A}$-sheaf condition (saying that $u^* X \to u^! X$ is an iso) is not at all (in general) an ordinary sheaf condition.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexBut what would it mean an ordinary sheaf condition in that context ? In a number of cases it does have a feeling of a sheaf condition. Besides the sheafification is related to a localization at local morphisms and with correct notion of locality one reproduced the correct notion of sheafification, when the latter is possible, I think this is a strong argument for that terminology in this context. But never mind.

   But what would it mean an ordinary sheaf condition in that context ? In a number of cases it does have a feeling of a sheaf condition. Besides the sheafification is related to a localization at local morphisms and with correct notion of locality one reproduced the correct notion of sheafification, when the latter is possible, I think this is a strong argument for that terminology in this context. But never mind.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI just think that any terminology makes one say: "I have here a category of sheaves but -- notice! -- it is not a topos" is asking for trouble. Not every localization produces sheaves, and the terminology should try to faithfully reflect that. But I can't come up with a good term myself, currently.

   I just think that any terminology makes one say: “I have here a category of sheaves but – notice! – it is not a topos” is asking for trouble. Not every localization produces sheaves, and the terminology should try to faithfully reflect that.

   But I can’t come up with a good term myself, currently.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • (edited Apr 12th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexYou see, in noncommutative geometry we use sheaf intuition for a very long time, and the Q-category picture for the Zariski Q-category can be replaced in main examples by e.g. the quasi-site picture which is like a coverage, but one does not have the stability of the covers under pullbacks, and translated to such examples (which still have nothing to do with topoi, as well as the Frechet and abelian sheaves do not form topoi) one really have a sheaf-like conditions! Requiring to have a topos is extremely restrictive with respect to most noncommutative cases where I worked with sheaves in last 14 years, and I did NOT work with Q-categories but with other formalisms for abelian sheaves on noncommutative spaces. I worked with analogues of a small site, not of a big site, though. By the way, it is not about arbitrary localization, not at all; but variosu generalizations of covers can indeed be inverted by talking the $\mathbb{A}$-sheaves for the corresponding choice of a Q-category $\mathbb{A}$. Of course, one should understand some intermediate generalities which are really interesting.

   You see, in noncommutative geometry we use sheaf intuition for a very long time, and the Q-category picture for the Zariski Q-category can be replaced in main examples by e.g. the quasi-site picture which is like a coverage, but one does not have the stability of the covers under pullbacks, and translated to such examples (which still have nothing to do with topoi, as well as the Frechet and abelian sheaves do not form topoi) one really have a sheaf-like conditions! Requiring to have a topos is extremely restrictive with respect to most noncommutative cases where I worked with sheaves in last 14 years, and I did NOT work with Q-categories but with other formalisms for abelian sheaves on noncommutative spaces. I worked with analogues of a small site, not of a big site, though.

   By the way, it is not about arbitrary localization, not at all; but variosu generalizations of covers can indeed be inverted by talking the $\mathbb{A}$-sheaves for the corresponding choice of a Q-category $\mathbb{A}$. Of course, one should understand some intermediate generalities which are really interesting.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexI have posted some discussion of this to the blog <a href="http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2011/04/you_may_have_heard_me.html">here</a>

    I have posted some discussion of this to the blog here

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
    • (edited Apr 12th 2011)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexZoran, I am geting bit lost in the document, or maybe it's too late: I want to extract concisely exactly the definition of a sheaf in noncommutative geometry, according to them. Which definition (number?) has the covers or quasi-covers or whatever on $Alg_k^{op}$?

    Zoran,

    I am geting bit lost in the document, or maybe it’s too late: I want to extract concisely exactly the definition of a sheaf in noncommutative geometry, according to them.

    Which definition (number?) has the covers or quasi-covers or whatever on $Alg_k^{op}$?

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexAh, is it A.1.9.2?

    Ah, is it A.1.9.2?

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
    • (edited Apr 13th 2011)
    • PermaLink
    Author: zskoda
    Format: MarkdownItexFirst to answer your earlier question 6.5 explains that the classical notion of formal smoothness for MORPHISMS is as well as special case of the notion of formal smoothness with respect to a corresponding Q-category. Before that he explains the notion in the more usual language. Look also at the duality in part b) of Konst-Ros NcSp 6.5. As far as A1.9.2 that is the flat topology on NAff. One can make variants adding corresponding finiteness conditions (like fppf and fpqc in commutative case). I am more used, however, to nc Zariski where one requires to work with flat localizations. I like your new blog post, of course.

    First to answer your earlier question 6.5 explains that the classical notion of formal smoothness for MORPHISMS is as well as special case of the notion of formal smoothness with respect to a corresponding Q-category. Before that he explains the notion in the more usual language. Look also at the duality in part b) of Konst-Ros NcSp 6.5.

    As far as A1.9.2 that is the flat topology on NAff. One can make variants adding corresponding finiteness conditions (like fppf and fpqc in commutative case). I am more used, however, to nc Zariski where one requires to work with flat localizations.

    I like your new blog post, of course.

14. • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItex> 6.5 explains that the classical notion of formal smoothness for MORPHISMS is as well as special case of the notion of formal smoothness with respect to a corresponding Q-category. I think in 6.5 no classical notion of formal smoothness appears. The statement is that formal smoothness with respect to any Q-category is equivalent to that with respect to some associated Q-category. No?

    6.5 explains that the classical notion of formal smoothness for MORPHISMS is as well as special case of the notion of formal smoothness with respect to a corresponding Q-category.

    I think in 6.5 no classical notion of formal smoothness appears. The statement is that formal smoothness with respect to any Q-category is equivalent to that with respect to some associated Q-category. No?

15. • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
    • (edited Apr 13th 2011)
    • PermaLink
    Author: zskoda
    Format: MarkdownItexNo. Just one of the two is a $Q$-category. The notation has some meaning there. The other thing compared is the notion which is in a form like the classical notion. The statement is a comparison of formal smoothness in terms of machinery in 6.3 (where one does not see any $Q$-category) and the formal smoothness in the sense of associated $Q$-category. It is straightforward to formulate the classical smoothness for morphisms in terms of 6.3 for the appropriate class of morphisms (remember that it is the same weather we require the lifting property with respect to affine thickenings, or any thickenings involving possibly nonaffine schemes). Then the 6.5. gives you the recipe for associating the corresponding $Q$-category, having the same notion of formal smoothness (etc.), exactly what you asked for.

    No.

    Just one of the two is a $Q$-category. The notation has some meaning there. The other thing compared is the notion which is in a form like the classical notion.

    The statement is a comparison of formal smoothness in terms of machinery in 6.3 (where one does not see any $Q$-category) and the formal smoothness in the sense of associated $Q$-category. It is straightforward to formulate the classical smoothness for morphisms in terms of 6.3 for the appropriate class of morphisms (remember that it is the same weather we require the lifting property with respect to affine thickenings, or any thickenings involving possibly nonaffine schemes). Then the 6.5. gives you the recipe for associating the corresponding $Q$-category, having the same notion of formal smoothness (etc.), exactly what you asked for.

16. • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexOkay, as soon as I find a minute I look at this. Somebody should write this out cleanly in the nLab entry.

    Okay, as soon as I find a minute I look at this. Somebody should write this out cleanly in the nLab entry.

17. • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: zskoda
    Format: MarkdownItexI expanded a bit [[smooth morphism of schemes]]. At least at one place there was a link to [[smooth morphism]] (which does not exist) which I changed to the link referring to [[smooth morphism of schemes]]. I do not know if you want a redirect [[smooth morphism]] at [[smooth morphism of schemes]], or one wants to have a disambiguation entry at a future [[smooth morphism]]...

    I expanded a bit smooth morphism of schemes. At least at one place there was a link to smooth morphism (which does not exist) which I changed to the link referring to smooth morphism of schemes. I do not know if you want a redirect smooth morphism at smooth morphism of schemes, or one wants to have a disambiguation entry at a future smooth morphism…