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.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 14th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexDaniel Schaeppi's new paper on the [arxiv](http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.2764) contains a more conceptual proof (see Appendix A) of the [theorem](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/superextensive+site#compatibility_of_sheafification_7) that stackification with respect to the singleton covers in a superextensive site preserves sheaves for the extensive topology, hence produces stacks for the whole superextensive topology. Section 5 also contains a proof that at least in one case, and probably more generally, stackification of internal categories is a bicategorical localization at weak equivalences, and hence (by David Roberts's analogous theorem for anafunctors) produces a bicategory equivalent to that of internal categories and anafunctors. (The rest of the paper is about very concrete algebrogeometric objects that I don't pretend to understand, but Daniel very helpfully pointed me to the parts that I would be interested in. (-: )

   Daniel Schaeppi’s new paper on the arxiv contains a more conceptual proof (see Appendix A) of the theorem that stackification with respect to the singleton covers in a superextensive site preserves sheaves for the extensive topology, hence produces stacks for the whole superextensive topology. Section 5 also contains a proof that at least in one case, and probably more generally, stackification of internal categories is a bicategorical localization at weak equivalences, and hence (by David Roberts’s analogous theorem for anafunctors) produces a bicategory equivalent to that of internal categories and anafunctors.

   (The rest of the paper is about very concrete algebrogeometric objects that I don’t pretend to understand, but Daniel very helpfully pointed me to the parts that I would be interested in. (-: )

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJun 14th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexHmm, I'd better get a wriggle on and write up some stuff. Thanks for pointing this out. I was vaguely interested in reading this, but felt no pressing need.

   Hmm, I’d better get a wriggle on and write up some stuff. Thanks for pointing this out. I was vaguely interested in reading this, but felt no pressing need.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJun 15th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexVistoli's notes [here](http://homepage.sns.it/vistoli/descent.pdf) have some relevant stuff, in particular lemmas 4.25-4.27

   Vistoli’s notes here have some relevant stuff, in particular lemmas 4.25-4.27

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 15th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThat seems to be only about characterization of stacks in terms of the two generating subtopologies, which is pretty easy. The tricky bit is to show that *stackification* with respect to the singleton topology preserves stacks for the extensive topology.

   That seems to be only about characterization of stacks in terms of the two generating subtopologies, which is pretty easy. The tricky bit is to show that stackification with respect to the singleton topology preserves stacks for the extensive topology.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJun 15th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexIn a slightly unrelated way, what do you think of this idea, which I'm sure is not hugely deep. Let $S$ be a superextensive site. Then $S^{op}$ has finite (or small) products. Isn't a sheaf or a stack for the extensive topology just a product-preserving functor on $S^{op}$? This seems to me to be like some vague shadow of $S$ being dual to a generalisation of Lawvere theory, and extensive sheaves/stacks being algebras for that theory. Then sheaves for the full topology on $S$ are those algebras which additionally preserve coequalisers. There should probably be some sort of doctrinal interpretation of this. Consider the site which is the coproduct completion of Urs' favourite site [[CartSp]]. The opposite of this category looks very much like a theory.

   In a slightly unrelated way, what do you think of this idea, which I’m sure is not hugely deep. Let $S$ be a superextensive site. Then $S^{op}$ has finite (or small) products. Isn’t a sheaf or a stack for the extensive topology just a product-preserving functor on $S^{op}$? This seems to me to be like some vague shadow of $S$ being dual to a generalisation of Lawvere theory, and extensive sheaves/stacks being algebras for that theory. Then sheaves for the full topology on $S$ are those algebras which additionally preserve coequalisers. There should probably be some sort of doctrinal interpretation of this.

   Consider the site which is the coproduct completion of Urs’ favourite site CartSp. The opposite of this category looks very much like a theory.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 15th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIndeed, the opposite of a site is just a particular kind of limit [[sketch]].

   Indeed, the opposite of a site is just a particular kind of limit sketch.