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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric 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 string string-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 6th 2012

    I have split morphism of sites off from site, and in the process made bold to change the definition to the one I think is inarguably correct, using covering-flatness rather than representable-flatness (which is equivalent in case the sites have finite limits and subcanonical topologies). I made corresponding changes to the statements of the theorems relating morphisms of sites to geometric morphisms, but I don’t have the time or energy to change the proofs, so I left them as-is with pointers to my paper for proofs in the general case. It would be nice to have proofs of these theorems in the general case that don’t require the reader to understand κ\kappa-ary exact completion for general κ\kappa, but I can’t think when I might have time to write out such proofs in the foreseeable future myself.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMar 19th 2020
    • (edited Mar 19th 2020)

    What is a morphism of (∞,1)-sites? nLab does not seem to have an article about them, nor could I find anything in Lurie’s HTT.

    Presumably it should be a functor that preserves covering families and satisfies the appropriate analog of being a covering-flat functor. But what is it?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2020

    Good question. Of course, for (,1)(\infty,1)-sites with finite limits, the answer is obvious: the functor has to preserve finite limits. In general, one could turn Proposition 2.15 on the page morphism of sites into a definition. It’s unclear to me whether there will be a useful reformulation of this like there is in the 1-categorical case; (,1)(\infty,1)-sites without finite limits generally seem to be less well-behaved. For instance, the enveloping (,1)(\infty,1)-topos of a presheaf 1-topos need not be the corresponding presheaf (,1)(\infty,1)-topos if the (trivial) site in question lacks finite limits.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMar 20th 2020

    Where’s Proposition 2.15 on the page morphism of sites? Section 2 only has Definition 2.1 and Remark 2.2.

    (∞,1)-sites without finite limits are quite important, e.g., the site of smooth manifolds or cartesian spaces.

    Do we at least know that an ordinary morphism of sites without finite limits induces a geometric morphism of (∞,1)-toposes?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2020

    Oops, I meant the page covering-flat functor, sorry.

    Offhand I’m not sure we even know that.

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)