Loading [MathJax]/jax/element/mml/optable/MathOperators.js
Not signed in (Sign In)

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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2013

    I noticed that there was no entry quotient stack, so I quickly started one, just to be able to point to it from elswhere.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2018

    The idea of quotient stack extended in a standard way using general internal groupoids in a site or topos.

  1. I have added motivation for definition of quotient stack

    diff, v10, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorAli Caglayan
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2018

    changed // to \sslash

    diff, v12, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorAli Caglayan
    • CommentTimeDec 19th 2018
    • (edited Dec 19th 2018)

    changed // to \sslash

    diff, v12, current


    nevermind \sslash doesn’t work on nlab for some reason. Changed them back

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 20th 2018

    In principle it works and is being used. But there may be a font issue. For me it works on Firefox on Windows.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeDec 20th 2018

    It’s a problem with Chrome again.

  2. Universal property (??) for Quotient stack. Comments are welcome.

    diff, v13, current

  3. Tried to clean up the wording, make a few things slightly more precise, and separate the two different notions of “principal G-bundle” appearing.

    D. Zack Garza

    diff, v16, current

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2023

    added references for the common construction of quotient stacks XG via prestacks of G-principal bundles equipped with G-equivariant maps to X:

    (there must be more canonical references for this construction – if anyone has a good reference at hand, let’s add it!)

    and pointer to this recent discussion of sufficient conditions for this construction to really yield a stack (instead of just a prestack):

    diff, v17, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v18, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v18, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2023

    added pointer to

    for the definition of quotient stacks as stackifications of ((2,1)-presheaves of) action groupoids

    diff, v19, current

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2023

    also pointer to:

    diff, v20, current

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2023
    • (edited Apr 16th 2023)

    I have finally looked at the section here which Praphulla Koushik had announced in message #8 above (Dec. 2018), asking for comments.

    Now I see that this section is trying to get at the characterization of G-quotient stacks as fibrations over BG. So I have added references which discuss this perspective (now here – these are the pertinent references that I am aware of; if there are others let’s add them in, too).

    I haven’t yet touched Praphulla’s section itself (there is room to bring it into a state which would allow removing the question marks) except for prefixing it by a pointer to these references.

    diff, v20, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2023

    added publication data for this item:

    diff, v21, current

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2023

    15: the section looks correct to my reading and present knowledge.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2025

    I have what I think should be a very simple question but I’m not sure what the actual details are. For M a space and H a group acting on it, one can form its weak quotient, the stack M//H. In particular, for M=*, then *//H=BH. Now, suppose one has a central extension of groups 1H𝒢G1. If I let H act trivially on BG, then taking the weak quotient is BG//H=BG×BH, which is almost B𝒢 but not quite. How can I get B𝒢 as a weak quotient by an H-action? I’m guessing one can define a nontrivial action of H not on BG but on the map BGB2H but I don’t exactly see what. I know I can compute B𝒢 as the fiber but that is all related to a BH action, whereas I am interested in an H action.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2025

    The key fact to keep in mind here is that homotopy quotients XH are exactly characterized (up to equivalence) as being the fibrations over BH whose homotopy fiber is X (Prop. 0.2.1 in Equivariant Principal -Bundles).

    This means that to exhibit B𝒢 as a homotopy quotient of some X by H, is equivalent to finding a homotopy fiber sequence of this form:

    XB𝒢BH.

    Now the vertical maps come from group homomorphisms (regarded as pointed maps they are equivalent to the -group homomorphisms) 𝒢H, and the homotopy fiber then is XH𝒢, whence

    B𝒢(H𝒢)H

    (Ex. 3.2.35 in Equivariant Principal -Bundles).

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2025

    (The elementary example of this situation, where all groups are discrete, is spelled out in great detail at induced representation in the section “Groupoid formulation”.)

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2025

    But say for group, one rarely has group homomorphisms 𝒢H for a central extension H𝒢G, no? Does that not exist only when the extension has a trivial cocycle, giving back BG×BH ultimately?

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2025

    That may be a problem for what you are after. What I stated is the complete answer to your question how to exhibit B𝒢 as a homotopy H-quotient.

    The answer implies that if in your application there is no group homomorphism 𝒢H suitable for your purpose, then your wish for a suitable homotopy H-quotient presentation of B can’t be fulfilled. That’s just the way it is.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2025

    I see. What I am ultimately after is the statement that for a G gauge theory, gauging a global H symmetry can give not only a G×H gauge theory but actually a gauge group that is a central extension 𝒢. I am not taking any Lagrangians, I am just looking at the fields ΣBG (no connection for simplicity) and replacing the target space by a weak quotient to get a B𝒢 target space which is not just BG×BH. Or is this formulation of gauging as replacing a target space with a weak quotient a special case of some other kind of limit that does allow to obtain B𝒢? One can, as I mentioned, look at pullbacks but then, on the other hand, obtaining *//G as a pullback is too artificial at best.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2025

    Not sure if the following is what you are after, but what you describe does remind me of the situation of H-equivariant G-fiber bundles, as appropriate for a G-gauge theory in the presence of a global H-symmetry.

    This requires an action of H on G by group automormisms, defining a semidirect product group extension G.

    Then the equivariant gauge bundles are classified by maps from XHX \sslash H to (BG)HB(GH)(\mathbf{B}G) \sslash H \,\simeq\, \mathbf{B}(G \rtimes H) in the slice over BH\mathbf{B}H.

    This is discussed on pp. 180 of Equivariant Principal \infty-Bundles (where HH is called GG, and GG is called Γ\Gamma).

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2025

    That is close! But I am mostly interested in central extensions with nontrivial cocycles, which is why I mentioned H should act trivially on BG\mathbf{B}G but maybe not on its map to B 2H\mathbf{B}^2 H… Skimming through the book you referenced, seems one is better off working with pullbacks/homotopy fibers for this kind of this, right?

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorperezl.alonso
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2025

    Never mind, I see what I was doing wrong…