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 finite 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 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 sheaves 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 21st 2011
   • (edited Apr 21st 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexstub for [[internal site]]. Hope to expand this later, but am out of time now. Here is something I need to figure out in this context: over at the stub [[smooth super infinity-groupoid]] I thought better about what I should be doing there. I think I should take the idea that we are to be working over the base topos of sheaves over superpoints more seriously than I did so far. Here is what I currently think one needs to do: 1. consider the base topos $Sh(SuperPoint)$ of presheaves on [[superpoint]]s 1. this has a canonical line object $\mathcal{R} \in Sh(SuperPoint)$ which is such that the internal ordinary $\mathcal{R}$-linear algebra is externally traditional superalgebra. 1. Define an internal site $sCartSp$ whose objects are the $\mathcal{R}^n $s and whose morphisms are those morphisms in $Sh(SuperPoint)$ that are smooth according to the Schwarz-Molotkov-version of [[supermanifold]]s, as discussed there. 1. Then defined smooth super $\infty$-groupoids to be the internal $\infty$-sheaves on $sCartSp$. I am beginning to think that this is the right way to go. But I need to understand better what this definition will unwind to in detail.

   stub for internal site. Hope to expand this later, but am out of time now.

   Here is something I need to figure out in this context: over at the stub smooth super infinity-groupoid I thought better about what I should be doing there. I think I should take the idea that we are to be working over the base topos of sheaves over superpoints more seriously than I did so far.

   Here is what I currently think one needs to do:

   1. consider the base topos $Sh(SuperPoint)$ of presheaves on superpoints

   2. this has a canonical line object $\mathcal{R} \in Sh(SuperPoint)$ which is such that the internal ordinary $\mathcal{R}$-linear algebra is externally traditional superalgebra.

   3. Define an internal site $sCartSp$ whose objects are the $\mathcal{R}^n$s and whose morphisms are those morphisms in $Sh(SuperPoint)$ that are smooth according to the Schwarz-Molotkov-version of supermanifolds, as discussed there.

   4. Then defined smooth super $\infty$-groupoids to be the internal $\infty$-sheaves on $sCartSp$.

   I am beginning to think that this is the right way to go. But I need to understand better what this definition will unwind to in detail.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 21st 2011
   • (edited Apr 21st 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexstarted adding the discussion of externalization of internal sites. But only got to the presheaf case so far. Need to run now.

   started adding the discussion of externalization of internal sites. But only got to the presheaf case so far. Need to run now.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 21st 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexnow with a bit on the sheaf version

   now with a bit on the sheaf version

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItex> The definition of internal site is obvious and straightforward. > Definition. For ℰ a topos, an internal site in ℰ is an internal category ℂ equipped with an internal coverage. As far as I looked into the Elephant, the definition of *internal* coverage is to me very non-obvious, and, in particular, it is not clear to me wheather it is fully necessary to have a topos or it makes sense in somewhat more general categories. Do you have an insight which makes the complicated definition of *internal* coverage easier to comprehend and remember ?

   The definition of internal site is obvious and straightforward.

   Definition. For ℰ a topos, an internal site in ℰ is an internal category ℂ equipped with an internal coverage.

   As far as I looked into the Elephant, the definition of internal coverage is to me very non-obvious, and, in particular, it is not clear to me wheather it is fully necessary to have a topos or it makes sense in somewhat more general categories. Do you have an insight which makes the complicated definition of internal coverage easier to comprehend and remember ?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 28th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI think the definition is a very straightforward (though lengthy) "internalization" of the usual notion of coverage. For instance, a usual coverage on a category consists of a set of covers, each of which comes with a target (the object it covers) and a set of morphisms (those in the cover). Thus, an internal coverage is an object $T$ of covers with maps $T\to C_0$ and $T \to P(C_1)$, where $C_0$ and $C_1$ are the objects and morphisms of the internal category. And so on. Strictly speaking, one doesn't even need to do all this "by hand" -- once we have the internal language of the topos developed, we just need to say "interpret the usual definition of coverage in the internal language". The occurrence of $P(-)$, the power-object functor, means that the definition as usually given only makes sense in an elementary topos. (This can be seen easily from the standard definition which says we have, for every object *a set* of covers, each consisting of *a set* of morphisms.) However, there are variants that make sense in pretoposes as well, which demand only a *family* of covers and a *family* of morphisms. What is more difficult in the latter situation is if one wants a notion of "sieve" and to demand that covering families consist of sieves.

   I think the definition is a very straightforward (though lengthy) “internalization” of the usual notion of coverage. For instance, a usual coverage on a category consists of a set of covers, each of which comes with a target (the object it covers) and a set of morphisms (those in the cover). Thus, an internal coverage is an object $T$ of covers with maps $T\to C_0$ and $T \to P(C_1)$, where $C_0$ and $C_1$ are the objects and morphisms of the internal category. And so on. Strictly speaking, one doesn’t even need to do all this “by hand” – once we have the internal language of the topos developed, we just need to say “interpret the usual definition of coverage in the internal language”.

   The occurrence of $P(-)$, the power-object functor, means that the definition as usually given only makes sense in an elementary topos. (This can be seen easily from the standard definition which says we have, for every object a set of covers, each consisting of a set of morphisms.) However, there are variants that make sense in pretoposes as well, which demand only a family of covers and a family of morphisms. What is more difficult in the latter situation is if one wants a notion of “sieve” and to demand that covering families consist of sieves.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 29th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI understand that the internal language is the general principle here, but I hoped it is not that complicated and lengthy (Elephant book has a relatively long treatment and still most of the details are omitted). Thanks for the second paragraph insight!

   I understand that the internal language is the general principle here, but I hoped it is not that complicated and lengthy (Elephant book has a relatively long treatment and still most of the details are omitted). Thanks for the second paragraph insight!

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeApr 18th 2013
   • (edited Apr 18th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexI've put in some of the missing details at [[internal site]].

   I’ve put in some of the missing details at internal site.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthormaxsnew
   • CommentTimeMar 9th 2023
   • PermaLink
   Author: maxsnew
   Format: MarkdownItexRemove unnecessary sentence. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/internal+site/15">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/internal+site/15">v15</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/internal+site">current</a>

   Remove unnecessary sentence.

   diff, v15, current