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
   • CommentTimeJun 1st 2011
   • (edited Jun 2nd 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have added reference pointers to [Moritz Groth](http://www.math.uni-bonn.de/~mgroth/)'s document on "Derivators, pointed derivators and stable derivators" to the relevant entries, such as [[stable derivator]]. Mike, I forget if you mentioned that before or not. I only learned of his work today. Part of his PhD thesis with Schwede.

   I have added reference pointers to Moritz Groth’s document on “Derivators, pointed derivators and stable derivators” to the relevant entries, such as stable derivator.

   Mike, I forget if you mentioned that before or not. I only learned of his work today. Part of his PhD thesis with Schwede.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexNo, I wasn't aware of that; it is very nice, thanks. I like that he uses "stable" instead of "triangulated", that he doesn't gratuitously turn around the direction of 2-cells, and his proof that combinatorial model categories give derivators is clean too. His construction of the "exceptional inverse image functors" is essentially the same as the one at [[pointed derivator]], which is perhaps not surprising. He does continue the odd tradition of saying "open immersion" and "closed immersion" instead of "cosieve" and "sieve". I've never understood why anyone (Grothendieck?) chose to apply those words to functors, or what the intuition is for which is which. I also don't yet understand what the exceptional inverse image functors are used for. Groth shows how to construct them, but I don't think he ever uses them.

   No, I wasn’t aware of that; it is very nice, thanks. I like that he uses “stable” instead of “triangulated”, that he doesn’t gratuitously turn around the direction of 2-cells, and his proof that combinatorial model categories give derivators is clean too. His construction of the “exceptional inverse image functors” is essentially the same as the one at pointed derivator, which is perhaps not surprising.

   He does continue the odd tradition of saying “open immersion” and “closed immersion” instead of “cosieve” and “sieve”. I’ve never understood why anyone (Grothendieck?) chose to apply those words to functors, or what the intuition is for which is which.

   I also don’t yet understand what the exceptional inverse image functors are used for. Groth shows how to construct them, but I don’t think he ever uses them.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2011
   • (edited Jun 2nd 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexMike, open immersion is not only a sieve: one requires that the functor is injective on objects, fully faithful AND that its image is a sieve. So I do not understand your complaint of why not calling it simply "sieve". On the other hand, I am not sure if Grothendieck axiomatizes the properties of the morphism at the level of the corresponding direct image functor for the categories of quasicoherent sheaves; one should examine carefully to see. It is true that the direct image functor for open immersion is fully faithful, indeed, the inverse image functor is a localization; but now there is a slight trap here: one can view the localized category, but also one can look at the thick subcategory which one quotients at. That thick subcategory is reflective, but for a closed subscheme it is also coreflective. So it seems that we are in the right direction, but one should spend more time with this. P.S. maybe one should in fact look at the properties of direct image functor among derived categories of qcoh sheaves instead (the properties are usually simpler there).

   Mike, open immersion is not only a sieve: one requires that the functor is injective on objects, fully faithful AND that its image is a sieve. So I do not understand your complaint of why not calling it simply “sieve”. On the other hand, I am not sure if Grothendieck axiomatizes the properties of the morphism at the level of the corresponding direct image functor for the categories of quasicoherent sheaves; one should examine carefully to see. It is true that the direct image functor for open immersion is fully faithful, indeed, the inverse image functor is a localization; but now there is a slight trap here: one can view the localized category, but also one can look at the thick subcategory which one quotients at. That thick subcategory is reflective, but for a closed subscheme it is also coreflective. So it seems that we are in the right direction, but one should spend more time with this.

   P.S. maybe one should in fact look at the properties of direct image functor among derived categories of qcoh sheaves instead (the properties are usually simpler there).

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexAccording to [[sieve]]: > A sieve in a category C is a full subcategory closed under precomposition with morphisms in C. In particular, that means that its inclusion functor is injective on objects and fully faithful, as for any full subcategory.

   According to sieve:

   A sieve in a category C is a full subcategory closed under precomposition with morphisms in C.

   In particular, that means that its inclusion functor is injective on objects and fully faithful, as for any full subcategory.