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
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have split off [[formally unramified morphism]] from [[unramified morphism]]. Then I added the general-abstract topos theoretic characterization, by essentially copy-and-pasting the discussion from [[formally smooth morphism]] (and replacing epimorphisms by monomorphisms)

   I have split off formally unramified morphism from unramified morphism. Then I added the general-abstract topos theoretic characterization, by essentially copy-and-pasting the discussion from formally smooth morphism (and replacing epimorphisms by monomorphisms)

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexGood. In the scheme context somebody should eventually take [[EGA]] IV and write various properties and theorems in that context.

   Good. In the scheme context somebody should eventually take EGA IV and write various properties and theorems in that context.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • (edited Apr 13th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexFormal unramifiedness is a condition that is nonsense in the derived setting. It is a first approximation to formal etaleness and a that's it (that is, in terms of the cotangent complex, it means that its zeroth homotopy vanishes.

   Formal unramifiedness is a condition that is nonsense in the derived setting. It is a first approximation to formal etaleness and a that’s it (that is, in terms of the cotangent complex, it means that its zeroth homotopy vanishes.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • (edited Apr 13th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexI don't believe that either the Kontsevich-Rosenberg or even the EGA version of formal smoothness is actually accepted in the context of derived algebraic geometry. For instance, formal smoothness fails to be determined stalkwise.

   I don’t believe that either the Kontsevich-Rosenberg or even the EGA version of formal smoothness is actually accepted in the context of derived algebraic geometry.

   For instance, formal smoothness fails to be determined stalkwise.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Formal unramifiedness is a condition that is nonsense in the derived setting. Yes, and for a good reason: in the $\infty$-categorical context the statement "epi plus mono is iso" is nonsense. Formal smoothness has a good $\infty$-version: $X$ is formally smooth if $X \to dR(X)$ (the canonical morphism to the [[de Rham space]]) is an effective epimorphism (or similarly for the relative version). And analogously for formal etalness and equivalences. But the mono-condition that gives formally unramified in the 1-categorical context has no good analog.

   Formal unramifiedness is a condition that is nonsense in the derived setting.

   Yes, and for a good reason: in the $\infty$-categorical context the statement “epi plus mono is iso” is nonsense. Formal smoothness has a good $\infty$-version: $X$ is formally smooth if $X \to dR(X)$ (the canonical morphism to the de Rham space) is an effective epimorphism (or similarly for the relative version). And analogously for formal etalness and equivalences. But the mono-condition that gives formally unramified in the 1-categorical context has no good analog.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI do not understand, what is the problem, could you guys explain it to me ? Is it in $(\infty,1)$-only, or also in $(\infty,2)$-context ? You started talking just vague $\infty$, what is confusing when making statement about different categorical dimensions.

   I do not understand, what is the problem, could you guys explain it to me ? Is it in $(\infty,1)$-only, or also in $(\infty,2)$-context ? You started talking just vague $\infty$, what is confusing when making statement about different categorical dimensions.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • (edited Apr 13th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexSo in the 1-categorical context we look at the morphism $$ X \to dR(X) $$ of any space into its [[de Rham space]] and consider three cases 1. it is an epimorphism, then we say $X$ is formally smooth; 1. it is a monomorphism, then we say $X$ is formally unramified; 1. or it is both, hence an isomorphism if we are in a balanced category, then we say $X$ is formally &eacute;tale. (Or rather, we look at the relative versions of these statements, so that the second two points become useful). This is equivalent to what Kontsevich-Rosenberg consider, under the dictionary discussed <a href="http://nlab.mathforge.org/nlab/show/cohesive+%28infinity%2C1%29-topos#InfinitesimalPaths">here</a>. Notice that there I write $\mathbf{\Pi}_{inf}(X)$ for $dR(X)$. Now when we lift this from 1-category theory to $(\infty,1)$-category theory, the notions of epimorphisms and of monomorphisms multiply. The good notion of epimorphism that we seem to want to keep here is [[effective epimorphism in an (infinity,1)-category]]. So we say 1. A (derived) $\infty$-stack $X$ is formally smooth if $X \to dR(X)$ is an effective epimorphism. 1. A (derived) $\infty$-stack $X$ is formally etale if $X \to dR(X)$ is an effective epimorphism equivalence. (Or rather, again, the relative versions of these statements.) But now there is no direct analog of the above mono-condition. We could ask $X \to dR(X)$ to be a [[k-truncated]] morphism for all $k$. For $k = -2$ this is an equivalence. So we could say as $k$ decreases from $\infty$ to -2 that we are approaching formal etalness.

   So in the 1-categorical context we look at the morphism

   $$X \to dR(X)$$

   of any space into its de Rham space and consider three cases

   1. it is an epimorphism, then we say $X$ is formally smooth;

   2. it is a monomorphism, then we say $X$ is formally unramified;

   3. or it is both, hence an isomorphism if we are in a balanced category, then we say $X$ is formally étale.

   (Or rather, we look at the relative versions of these statements, so that the second two points become useful).

   This is equivalent to what Kontsevich-Rosenberg consider, under the dictionary discussed here. Notice that there I write $\mathbf{\Pi}_{inf}(X)$ for $dR(X)$.

   Now when we lift this from 1-category theory to $(\infty,1)$-category theory, the notions of epimorphisms and of monomorphisms multiply. The good notion of epimorphism that we seem to want to keep here is effective epimorphism in an (infinity,1)-category. So we say

   1. A (derived) $\infty$-stack $X$ is formally smooth if $X \to dR(X)$ is an effective epimorphism.

   2. A (derived) $\infty$-stack $X$ is formally etale if $X \to dR(X)$ is an effective epimorphism equivalence.

   (Or rather, again, the relative versions of these statements.)

   But now there is no direct analog of the above mono-condition. We could ask $X \to dR(X)$ to be a k-truncated morphism for all $k$. For $k = -2$ this is an equivalence. So we could say as $k$ decreases from $\infty$ to -2 that we are approaching formal etalness.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexHey Urs, by the way, the determination of smoothness by requiring a map to be epi on the dR space only works with Noetherian hypotheses. This is because the nilradical is only a nilpotent ideal provided that R is noetherian.

   Hey Urs, by the way, the determination of smoothness by requiring a map to be epi on the dR space only works with Noetherian hypotheses. This is because the nilradical is only a nilpotent ideal provided that R is noetherian.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • (edited Apr 14th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexWe still need to go back to the entry [[de Rham space]] and fill in all the right technical qualifiers in order to correctly reproduce various traditional notions. But I am currently taking a general perspective essentially equivalent to that of Kontsevich-Rosenberg's: since I can define $dR(X)$ abstractly in great generality, I _define_ formal smoothness in any context by this epi-condition. But then of course, I agree, one wants to carefully state the conditions under which this reproduces various traditional notions.

   We still need to go back to the entry de Rham space and fill in all the right technical qualifiers in order to correctly reproduce various traditional notions.

   But I am currently taking a general perspective essentially equivalent to that of Kontsevich-Rosenberg’s: since I can define $dR(X)$ abstractly in great generality, I define formal smoothness in any context by this epi-condition. But then of course, I agree, one wants to carefully state the conditions under which this reproduces various traditional notions.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexI have expanded the definition of formal smoothness/unramifiedness/&eacute;taleness in the general abstract context of "infinitesimal cohesion" <a href="http://nlab.mathforge.org/nlab/show/cohesive+(infinity%2C1)-topos#FormalRelativeSmoothnessByCanonicalMorphism">here</a> and added a note highlighting the subtlety about the unramified-condition discussed above.

    I have expanded the definition of formal smoothness/unramifiedness/étaleness in the general abstract context of “infinitesimal cohesion” here and added a note highlighting the subtlety about the unramified-condition discussed above.

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
    • (edited Apr 14th 2011)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexsorry, that last addition that I mentioned is still not visible. The Lab has been slow all day, but now it takes many _minutes_ to save long entries like that on cohesive $\infty$-toposes. A steam engine computer would be faster. And apparently we are now actually at the point where it fails to safe at all. Maybe I need to split the entry. Or migrate to another software...

    sorry, that last addition that I mentioned is still not visible. The Lab has been slow all day, but now it takes many minutes to save long entries like that on cohesive $\infty$-toposes. A steam engine computer would be faster. And apparently we are now actually at the point where it fails to safe at all. Maybe I need to split the entry. Or migrate to another software…

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexI have split the entry in two. I didn't see another way out after unsuccessfully trying to safe it for about an whole hour. The paragraph that I had meant to point to above should now be visible <a href="http://nlab.mathforge.org/nlab/show/cohesive+(infinity%2C1)-topos+--+infinitesimal+cohesion#FormalRelativeSmoothnessByCanonicalMorphism">here</a>. Not a big deal, that was just meant as a side remark. A side remark that cost me an hour of experimenting.

    I have split the entry in two. I didn’t see another way out after unsuccessfully trying to safe it for about an whole hour. The paragraph that I had meant to point to above should now be visible here. Not a big deal, that was just meant as a side remark. A side remark that cost me an hour of experimenting.