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.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJun 27th 2013
   • (edited Jun 27th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexFor some reason (related to idle wondering about a tangent category to a tangent category), I looked at [Romie Banerjee's](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Romie+Banerjee) 'Categories of modules and their deformations' ([arxiv](http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.2083)). It has >Definition 4.1. ([6]) An ∞-prestack F has an obstruction theory if >(i) F is infinitesimally cohesive >(ii) F has a cotangent complex So I was interested to see the uptake of Urs' 'infinitesimal cohesion', but [6] points to Toen and Vezzosi's Homotopical Algebraic Geometry II ([arxiv](http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404373)). I guess the reference is to their definition 1.4.2.1 >(2) A stack F has an obstruction theory (relative to (C, C0,A)) if it has a (global) cotangent complex and if it is infinitesimally cartesian (relative to (C, C0,A)). Is Banerjee suggesting then that infinitesimally cartesian and infinitesimally cohesive are the same? But the latter applies to $\infty$-toposes not stacks. Strange, n'est-ce pas? (EDIT: Oh, I see other people are using it differently, e.g., Lurie in DAG-XIV, Definition 2.1.9. Disambiguation needed?)

   For some reason (related to idle wondering about a tangent category to a tangent category), I looked at Romie Banerjee’s ’Categories of modules and their deformations’ (arxiv). It has

   Definition 4.1. ([6]) An ∞-prestack F has an obstruction theory if (i) F is infinitesimally cohesive (ii) F has a cotangent complex

   So I was interested to see the uptake of Urs’ ’infinitesimal cohesion’, but [6] points to Toen and Vezzosi’s Homotopical Algebraic Geometry II (arxiv). I guess the reference is to their definition 1.4.2.1

   (2) A stack F has an obstruction theory (relative to (C, C0,A)) if it has a (global) cotangent complex and if it is infinitesimally cartesian (relative to (C, C0,A)).

   Is Banerjee suggesting then that infinitesimally cartesian and infinitesimally cohesive are the same? But the latter applies to $\infty$-toposes not stacks. Strange, n’est-ce pas?

   (EDIT: Oh, I see other people are using it differently, e.g., Lurie in DAG-XIV, Definition 2.1.9. Disambiguation needed?)

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 27th 2013
   • (edited Jun 27th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHi, thanks for pointing this out, I had missed that. I have added a brief entry _[[cohesive infinity-prestack]]_ and disambiguated at _[[cohesive (infinity,1)-topos]]_.

   Hi, thanks for pointing this out, I had missed that.

   I have added a brief entry cohesive infinity-prestack and disambiguated at cohesive (infinity,1)-topos.