Processing math: 100%
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

Site Tag Cloud

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

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.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2009
    I have made a comment on the groupoid cardinality page. It draws peoples attention to Quinn's notes on TQFTs which uses a notion of homotopy order to construct scaling factors in a simple TQFT. This does not seem to be mentioned in stuff that I have seen and googling gets very few hits for this. It is clearly the same as groupoid cardinality when both are defined.
  1. there’s something puzzling me about groupoid cardinality. namely, if X is a tame groupoid and f:X a function, then we have a good prescription for the integral of f over X. since, as recalled at n-vector space, the set is identified wit te 0-category 0Vect, this means that we know how to integrate a functor X0Vect.

    but what if we move from 0Vect to 1Vect? in this case we have a tentative answer given by sections of the vector bundle corresponding to f:X1Vect, but this is a satisfactory answer only in case X is a 1-type. in general, I feel the vector space of sections alone forgets about the higher homotopy of X. this is upsetting, since the integral of a 0Vect remembers higher homotopy, so taking sections seems to break the pattern.

    however even in the 1-type case, things are not as neat as they could be. namely, assume X to be a conected 1-type, so that X=BG for some group G. Then the datum of f:X1Vect is the datum of a linear representation V of G, and taking sections corresponds to taking the subspace VG of G-invariants. but this is only the tip of the iceberg giving cohomology of G with coefficients in the G-module V. so maybe one should think of the integral of a functor X1Vect as the simplicial vector space whose associated complex computes the group cohomology of G with coefficients in V. have to think more on this.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010
    • (edited May 13th 2010)

    I feel the vector space of sections alone forgets about the higher homotopy of X. this is upsetting, since the integral of a 0Vect remembers higher homotopy, so taking sections seems to break the pattern.

    Yes, I know what you mean. Likely what we need is not the n-category of n-vector spaces, but the (,n)-category of (,n)-vector spaces.

    The extra in there will make sure that everything always depends on all higher homotopies.

    It’s not too hard to make some guesses here:

    Set

    (,1)Vectk:=Ch(k)

    to be the (,1)-category of chain complexes. This is still symmetric monoidal, so we can base the iterative definition

    (,n)Vect:=(,n1)VectMod

    on that.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010
    • (edited May 13th 2010)

    And maybe better, what we should do is:

    take to be k be a commutative simplicial ring. Then (,1)Vect:=kMod its (,1)-category of simplicial modules, and then iterate.

    This would also serve to “categorfy” the ground field itself. Which is now an -groupoid with ring structure, i.e. really a special case of an E-spectrum.

    Right, so probably in full generality we should go this way:

    • fix k an E-ring spectrum.

    • declare (,0)Vectk:=k – a symmetric monoidal -groupoid.

    • then iterate: (,n)Vectk:=(,n1)VectkMod.

  2. sounds good. that would fit what I was writing, the comment in section “Ch(Vect)-enriched categories” in 2-vector space and, most remarkably, the fact that the natural target in the cobordism hypothesis is a symmetric monoidal (,n)-category. now, to have a pattern, we would like that in building the complex of sections on a (oo,1)-vector bundle, a weighted sum appears. let’s see what happens in the simplest case: a finite group representation, seen as a morphism f:BG1Vectk(,1)Vectk. let V be the vector space associated with the unique object of BG. then for every g in G we have an endomorphism ρg:VV and VG is the subspace of V where the operator 1|G|gGρg:VV acts as the identity. but it’s still not clear to me which the general receipt should be.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010
    • (edited May 13th 2010)

    Wait, once we embed all the way f:BG1Vectk(,1)Vectk we also need to compute the limit/colimit of that functor there. This will no longer be just VG, I think.

    Ahm, let me see, what will it actually be. Er. Have to think more about that.

    Notice the remarkable observation from FHLT, recorded at category algebra: if we compute the colimit of the trivial representation, but regarded as a representation on 2Vectk

    BGconst12Vect

    the result, which by definition is an algebra, is the group alghebra of G.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthordomenico_fiorenza
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010
    • (edited May 13th 2010)

    we also need to compute the limit/colimit of that functor there

    yes. we should obtain a complex whose H0 is VG. what I was trying to obtain was a bit of this in which a weighted sum of the ρg’s appeared. namely, the general picture should say not only “closed top dimensional manifolds go to numbers given by weighted sums, closed codimension one manifolds go to vector spaces (or complexes) and top dimensional manifolds with boundary go to linear maps between these vector spaces”, but also something like “matrix entries of these linear maps are given by weighted sums”. stating this correctly (and proving it) should be the key to understand the interplay between sections and integrals with the groupoid measure.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 13th 2010

    Yes, right. I need to think…

  3. a good exercise could be computing the dimension of the space of sections of a 1-vector bundle over a connected 2-type (e.g. realized as a crossed module). I’ll try to work out the details of this later.

  4. still very confused about the above. need to think to something else for a few days before coming back to this.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2023

    Added the reference

    • Lior Yanovski, Homotopy Cardinality via Extrapolation of Morava-Euler Characteristics (arXiv:2303.02603)

    diff, v29, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2023

    what is the groupoid cardinality of the circle type?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2023
    • (edited Mar 7th 2023)

    I forget how people define the groupoid cardinality for non-finite fundamental groups, if they do, but the evident naive answer comes out as expected:

    S1B*1/||=0

    (Though this may be a meaningless accident.)

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2023

    There was a funny idea of Dolan and Baez once that with the characteristic of the 2-sphere being 2, there should be a weird convergence in the product of the homotopy cardinality.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2023
    • (edited Mar 7th 2023)
    S2||2232244||2122154336???=2
    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2023

    Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Perhaps some cohomological approximation, as in the Morava K-theories?

    It’s even groups on top though so

    S2||2122154336||2232244???=2

    The one good thing I noted at the time was that S3 shares the same groups from π3, so we should have S32/||=0, which is right.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2023

    One would need some notion of approximating general homotopy types by sequences of π-finite homotopy types.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMar 7th 2023

    What about B? Is it’s cardinality also equal to zero, even though ||>|| as set cardinalities?

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 8th 2023

    To say it more explicitly: A priori, groupoid cardinality is only defined for pi-finite homotopy types.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMar 8th 2023

    By the equivalence between cardinals and ordinals wouldn’t it make sense to move from the real numbers to the surreal numbers for groupoid cardinalities for homotopy types with infinite homotopy groups?

    Theresa

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMar 8th 2023

    Theresa,

    That doesn’t work in the absence of the axiom of choice because one can only prove the equivalence of cardinals and ordinals in the axiom of choice

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMar 8th 2023

    is the entire set of real numbers even needed in the definition of groupoid cardinality? I don’t think there are any infinity-groupoids with well-defined negative cardinality. One could probably do the same thing as in metric spaces and restrict the cardinality set to the non-negative real numbers.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2023
    • (edited Mar 29th 2023)

    added DOI and publication year to this item:

    and bruched-up the way it is referenced in the text.

    diff, v30, current