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
   • CommentTimeAug 28th 2012
   • (edited Aug 28th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexMike, have you at all thought about doing "stable homotopy type theory" in analogy to your proposal for doing "[[directed homotopy type theory]]"? So I am thinking of axiomatizing the internal homotopy-logic of the "tower $\infty$-topos" $\mathbf{H}^{\mathbb{Z}_{\leq}}$ and then internally characterizing in there the spectrum objects. Just an idea. I haven't thought about it in any detail. I just thought I'd check if you had. :-)

   Mike,

   have you at all thought about doing “stable homotopy type theory” in analogy to your proposal for doing “directed homotopy type theory”?

   So I am thinking of axiomatizing the internal homotopy-logic of the “tower $\infty$-topos” $\mathbf{H}^{\mathbb{Z}_{\leq}}$ and then internally characterizing in there the spectrum objects.

   Just an idea. I haven’t thought about it in any detail. I just thought I’d check if you had. :-)

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 28th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexHmm, no, I haven't thought of that. That wouldn't be quite the right topos; you need maps $X_n \to \Omega X_{n+1}$, not $X_n \to X_{n+1}$. But it's an interesting idea!

   Hmm, no, I haven’t thought of that. That wouldn’t be quite the right topos; you need maps $X_n \to \Omega X_{n+1}$, not $X_n \to X_{n+1}$. But it’s an interesting idea!

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 28th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexRight, after posting this yesterday night I went to bed. And then in bed I thought "Aw, I should have typed $\mathbb{Z}_{\leq} \times \mathbb{Z}_{\leq}$ instead of $\mathbb{Z}_{\leq}$" (as in [Def 8.1](https://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/papers/DAG-I.pdf#page=25) in [[Stable Infinity-Categories]] ). But then I didn't want to get up again ;-)

   Right, after posting this yesterday night I went to bed. And then in bed I thought “Aw, I should have typed $\mathbb{Z}_{\leq} \times \mathbb{Z}_{\leq}$ instead of $\mathbb{Z}_{\leq}$” (as in Def 8.1 in Stable Infinity-Categories ). But then I didn’t want to get up again ;-)

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeAug 28th 2012
   • (edited Aug 28th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexCan we look for any old variety of homotopy type theory? What about one to correspond to categories with duals?

   Can we look for any old variety of homotopy type theory? What about one to correspond to categories with duals?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 28th 2012
   • (edited Aug 28th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexSo far the strategy that we are talking about potentially works for structures that can be formulated as certain objects with certain properties _in some topos_. Because the HoTT language takes place in an $\infty$-topos. The strategy with the _directed homotopy type theory_ and the _stable homotopy type theory_ was the following: in these cases either $(\infty,1)$-categories or spectrum objects internal to an $\infty$-topos $\mathbf{H}$ can be characterized as special objects in a _diagram $\infty$-topos_ $\mathbf{H}^D$ for some diagram category $D$ (in the first case $D = \Delta^{op}$, in the second $D = \mathbb{Z}^2$). Since $\mathbf{H}^D$ is again an $\infty$-topos, there is a chance that we can add axioms to the homotopy type theory language such as to characterize this, from the inside. And then we have to think about how to use these axioms to describe the actual objects that we want (internal $\infty$-categories or internal spectra). For categories with duals I suppose one would first go to the context of $\mathbf{H}^{\Delta^{op}}$, characterize internal $\infty$-categories there, and then see if we can characterize duals on these. On the other hand, if we want to describe $\infty$-categories with duals _and adjoints_, say because we want to describe topological quantum field theory in homotopy type theory, then it _might_ be an idea to go via a description of such beasts that is not modeled on simplices, but that constructs these structures more directly. I kept wondering about that: At [[(infinity,n)-category with adjoints]] is referenced an approach that realizes $(\infty,n)$-categories with adjoints as $\infty$-stacks on a certain category of iterated submersions of smooth manifolds with embeddings (and a bit more stuff). Do we have a chance of saying that internally? Is it remarkable that $(\infty,n)$-categories can be modeled as $\infty$-stacks on (iterated submersions of) smooth manifolds, and that at the same time cohesion knows about smooth manifolds, in a way? I don't know. But I have been wondering about this.

   So far the strategy that we are talking about potentially works for structures that can be formulated as certain objects with certain properties in some topos.

   Because the HoTT language takes place in an $\infty$-topos.

   The strategy with the directed homotopy type theory and the stable homotopy type theory was the following: in these cases either $(\infty,1)$-categories or spectrum objects internal to an $\infty$-topos $\mathbf{H}$ can be characterized as special objects in a diagram $\infty$-topos $\mathbf{H}^D$ for some diagram category $D$ (in the first case $D = \Delta^{op}$, in the second $D = \mathbb{Z}^2$). Since $\mathbf{H}^D$ is again an $\infty$-topos, there is a chance that we can add axioms to the homotopy type theory language such as to characterize this, from the inside. And then we have to think about how to use these axioms to describe the actual objects that we want (internal $\infty$-categories or internal spectra).

   For categories with duals I suppose one would first go to the context of $\mathbf{H}^{\Delta^{op}}$, characterize internal $\infty$-categories there, and then see if we can characterize duals on these.

   On the other hand, if we want to describe $\infty$-categories with duals and adjoints, say because we want to describe topological quantum field theory in homotopy type theory, then it might be an idea to go via a description of such beasts that is not modeled on simplices, but that constructs these structures more directly. I kept wondering about that:

   At (infinity,n)-category with adjoints is referenced an approach that realizes $(\infty,n)$-categories with adjoints as $\infty$-stacks on a certain category of iterated submersions of smooth manifolds with embeddings (and a bit more stuff).

   Do we have a chance of saying that internally? Is it remarkable that $(\infty,n)$-categories can be modeled as $\infty$-stacks on (iterated submersions of) smooth manifolds, and that at the same time cohesion knows about smooth manifolds, in a way?

   I don’t know. But I have been wondering about this.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeAug 28th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexInteresting. I wonder if that big conversation on fundamental n-categories with duals of stratified spaces can fit in somewhere.

   Interesting. I wonder if that big conversation on fundamental n-categories with duals of stratified spaces can fit in somewhere.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 28th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexHere's a question: is the subcategory of spectra in $\mathbf{H}^{\mathbb{Z}_{\le} \times \mathbb{Z}_{\le}}$ an exponential ideal? If not, then it can't be extended to a reflective subfibration, which would make it hard to express internally.

   Here’s a question: is the subcategory of spectra in $\mathbf{H}^{\mathbb{Z}_{\le} \times \mathbb{Z}_{\le}}$ an exponential ideal? If not, then it can’t be extended to a reflective subfibration, which would make it hard to express internally.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeSep 4th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI wrote: > is the subcategory of spectra in $\mathbf{H}^{\mathbb{Z}_{\le} \times \mathbb{Z}_{\le}}$ an exponential ideal? The answer to this must be "no", because an exponential ideal in a cartesian closed category is itself cartesian closed, but the category of spectra is not cartesian closed.

   I wrote:

   is the subcategory of spectra in $\mathbf{H}^{\mathbb{Z}_{\le} \times \mathbb{Z}_{\le}}$ an exponential ideal?

   The answer to this must be “no”, because an exponential ideal in a cartesian closed category is itself cartesian closed, but the category of spectra is not cartesian closed.