Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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 string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 8th 2012
    • (edited Mar 8th 2012)

    In the References-section at 2-sheaf I have added three “classical” references:

    in the 1970s Grothendieck, Giraud and then Bunge usually considered “2-sheaves” – namely category-valued stacks – by default. Also there is a good body of work on 2-sheaves realized as internal categories in the underlying 1-sheaf topos. I have added a pointer to Joyal-Tierney’s Strong stacks so far, but I think much more literature exists in this direction.

    But if one goes this internalization-route at all, what one should really do is, I think, consider weak internal categories in the (2,1)-topos over the underlying site.

    Has this been studied at all? Does anyone know how 2-categories of weak internal categories in (2,1)(2,1)-toposes relate to 2-toposes? At least under nice conditions these should be equivalent, I guess. But I want to understand this better.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 8th 2012

    Passing to internal categories in a (2,1)-topos to get a 2-topos is analogous to passing to internal groupoids in a 1-topos to get a (2,1)-topos. And just as not every (2,1)-topos is 1-localic, not every 2-topos is (2,1)-localic. In particular, the 2-topos of 2-presheaves on a small 2-category that is not a (2,1)-category cannot be obtained from internal categories in any (2,1)-topos.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 8th 2012
    • (edited Mar 8th 2012)

    Okay, thanks, sure. I want to concentrate on the suitable “localic” case here. What can one say? What is known? What do you know?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012

    Here is what I know about 2-toposes vs (2,1)-toposes, and here is an attempt at constructing “exact completions” of 2-categories by way of internal categories. The infinite iteration at the end is ugly, though, and I’m not sure that it is necessary; I’m hoping to come back to this sometime (maybe with David R’s help) now that I understand the 1-dimensional case better (the preprint version of that talk is almost ready for posting). In any case, the universal property of exact completion, together with the universal properties of 2-sheaves and (2,1)-sheaves, ought to imply that the 2-exact completion of a (2,1)-topos of (2,1)-sheaves on a (2,1)-site agrees with the 2-topos of 2-sheaves on the same site.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
    • (edited Mar 9th 2012)

    Thanks, Mike! That’s very useful.

    While I am reading, let me state my question more in detail:

    I would like to know if

    • given a 1-site CC;

    • writing Sh (2,1)(C)Sh_{(2,1)}(C) for the (2,1)(2,1)-topos over it;

    • writing Cat(Sh (2,1)(C))Cat(Sh_{(2,1)}(C)) for the 2-category of category objects in the (2,1)(2,1)-topos;

    then: how far is Cat(Sh (2,1))(C)Cat(Sh_{(2,1)})(C) from the 2-topos Sh 2(C)Sh_2(C) of category-valued sheaves on CC?

    And by “category objects” I mean the fully weak form. If you wish: complete Segal objects in Sh (2,1)(C)Sh_{(2,1)}(C).

    That’s what I am trying to understand better (eventually for (2,1)(2,1) generalized to (,1)(\infty,1)).

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
    • (edited Mar 9th 2012)

    Mike,

    where do you define “nn-exactness”?

    I was lost for a while, until I happened upon your page 2-congruence, where I find the very useful sentence

    One way to express the idea is that in an n-category, every object is internally a (n−1)-category; exactness says that conversely every “internal (n−1)-category” is represented by an object.

    So now I am back to the page exact completion of a 2-category. I feel like this is written with a reader in mind who already got more information from elsewhere, but I get the idea now that for instance theorem 5 there is part of the answer to my question.

    Let me know if I am reading it correctly: in words your are saying that, assuming “enough groupoids” a 2-category is “2-exact” if it is the 2-category of category objects in its underlying (2,1)(2,1)-category. Is that right?

    I gather, then, that 2-categories of 2-sheaves are 2-exact. Is that by definition of “2-exact”? What’s the definition of “2-exact”?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012

    Okay, I get it now. So 2-categories of 2-sheaves are going to be 2-exact by a 2-Giraud theorem, I suppose.

    All right, good. I’ll really quit now, will look at this further tomorrow. Thanks again.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012

    maybe with David R’s help

    I’m ready when you are…

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012

    Sorry, I linked you to the middle of the web, which isn’t inter-linked as well as it could be; the TOC at 2-categorical logic (michaelshulman) has links to all the pages, including exact 2-category (michaelshulman).

    I feel like the answer to whether internal categories (= “1-truncated” complete Segal objects) in a (2,1)-topos yield the corresponding 2-topos must surely be yes, but I don’t think I got around to working out the details.

    @David R: Great! I’ll be in touch when I’ve got the 1-categorical case done; it should be only a week or two.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
    • (edited Mar 9th 2012)

    Thanks, that’s already very useful to know.

    One might think that the answer to this question should be somewhere in the work of Marta Bunge. I have tried to scan parts of it, but didn’t find a version of this statement so far.

    But in the course of this I tried to improve the entry 2-sheaf a bit more by adding more classical references, adding remarks on the various different incarnations over lower categorical sites (fibered categories, indexed categories, toposes over a base topos) and added statements of two propositions from Bunge-Pare.

    Much more could be done, of course.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012
    • (edited Mar 9th 2012)

    Mike,

    let me come back to that theorem 5 on the page exact completion of a 2-category (michaelshulman):

    unless I am missing something, the theorem says in particular that if a 2-sheaf 2-topos is 2-exact and has enough groupoids, then the answer to my question in #5 is as hoped for:

    the 2-topos is equivalent to the 2-category of internal categories (2-congruences) of its underlying (2,1)(2,1)-topos.

    Right?

    So what is missing? While I don’t see you state it anywhere, I do suppose that every 2-sheaf 2-topos is 2-exact?

    So when does a 2-topos have “enough groupoids”. (I see at core (michaelshulman) that this is the case if “every object admits an eso from a groupoidal one”, but I still need to think about what this means precisely). Is it sufficient that it be (2,1)(2,1)-localic?

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012

    Ah, yes, you are right. It’s been quite a while since I thought about all of this.

    The 2-Giraud theorem (michaelshulman) says, in particular, that Grothendieck 2-toposes are 2-exact. The page truncated 2-topos (michaelshulman) states that a 2-topos has enough groupoids just when it is equivalent to the 2-sheaves on some (2,1)-site (i.e. what we are now calling (2,1)-localic).

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2012

    Ah, fantastic.

    I’ll try to collect these bits in an explitcit theorem-statement at 2-topos as soon as I get a chance. That’s awesome.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2013
    • (edited Oct 23rd 2013)

    In reaction to this MO question about the nLab entry 2-sheaf I have added to the latter a remark, right at the beginning, to clarify the terminology a bit and highlight its purpose better.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)