Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Since it touches on several of the threads that we happen to have here, hopefully I may be excused for making this somewhat selfish post here.
For various reasons I need to finally upload my notes on “differential cohomology in a cohesive ∞-topos” to the arXiv. Soon. Maybe by next week or so.
It’s not fully finalized, clearly, I could spend ages further polishing this – but then it will probably never be fully finalized, as so many other things.
Anyway, in case anyone here might enjoy eyeballing pieces of it (again), I am keeping the latest version here
A magnum opus! Just picked up a handful of typos for now:
p. 19 typicaly; geoemtric quantization; disccuss; integran
p. 21 desireable
p. 22 informstion
p. 33 Whith; geometirc
Thanks! Fixed now.
p. 39 inernalization
p. 40 contravarian
p. 40 missing word “With a notion of bare spaces give, a notion of geometric spaces comes with a forgetful functor GeometricSpaces \to BareSpaces that forgets this structure.”
p. 41 the the
p. 41 am essentially
Thanks!
I just killed 17 more ” the the “.
The Elephant is from 2002, not 2003, and the author has a middle initial (T).
p.57 “convenient categories for geometry - as in” should have a dash, not a hyphen (similar problems elsewhere); the next paragraph has mismatched double quote marks.
p.59 “grouopoid”
p.60 “analously”
p.61 “let $\Lambda^i [n] \hookrightarrow \Delta [n]” (lowercase letter at the beginning of a paragraph)
p.62 “cagtegorical”
p.63 “$\infty$-Sheaves / $\infty$-stacks” (inconsistent capitalisation)
p.64 “we will see that for all group objects” (incomplete sentence?)
p.65 “Milnor-Lurie” (dash, not hyphen; same problem everywhere), “coeffients”
p.67 First diagram has two objects labelled $V_0$; and shouldn’t subscripts be superscripts here?
p.68 “we shall say” (lowercase letter at beginning of paragraph)
p.240 “euivalent”
p.348 “disucssion”
Oh, thanks!
Am fixing this now.
(Concerning middle initials: I have the tendency of omitting middle initials consistently. Also here on the nLab. Hope that’s okay…)
Concerning the hyphens:
in the source these are all coded as
--
hm, should I make it
---
?
concerning the lower case: at some point I seem to have decided that after a colon I should continue in lower case. Probably a wrong decision.
Concerning that incomplete sentence: completed now, it was supposed to mention the nice fact that every $\infty$-group object in an $\infty$-topos over an $\infty$-cohesive site has a presentation by a presheaf of simplicial groups.
Until recently, I thought that everyone continued in lower case after a colon. Apparently some people do otherwise, but it seems correct to me: the colon doesn’t end the sentence, so why would you need to capitalize after it?
Indeed. On the other hand, starting a new paragraph (after a colon or otherwise) seems to call for an uppercase letter.
Regarding --
and ---
: these are both dashes (“en” and “em”, respectively), but I was pointing out instances of plain -
where a dash is called for.
Okay, thanks, I see.
Have added acknowledgements, too.
Apparently you have ten cases of ’allows to’.
In the UK at least, you have to say ’allows us to’.
Missed a couple of hyphens/dashes in the abstract. Assuming you aren’t doing very much subtraction, it might be good to search the whole document for instances of <space>-<space>
and replace them with <space>--<space>
where appropriate.
(My full name is Zhen Lin Low, by the way.)
Okay, have fixed your name now.
Concerning the hyphens: not sure what’s going on with the output, but it’s really as I said above, those in the text are all coded as
--
Very strange. Can you send me some source files to have a look? Perhaps there is some unexpected action-at-distance.
Okay, I’ll send you my source now. Thanks for that much energy on your part.
(Hope you can stand the look of the code…)
Some edits today: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12630719/cohesivedocument131025.pdf
cleaned up the sub-section structure of “1.2 Geometry of physics”
added a brief “2.2.1 Dependent homotopy type theory and Locally Cartesian closed $\infty$-categories”
added some content in “6. Outlook: Motivic quantization of local prequantum field theory”
In 1.1.1 we give a heuristic motivation from considerations in gauge theory in broad terms; then in 1.1.2 and 1.1.4 a more technical motivation…
why doesn’t 1.1.3 get a mention?
Thanks, fixed now.
Here is the new version https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12630719/cohesivedocument131026.pdf
differing from the one last night by minor adjustments and mostly by having plenty of broken links fixed. Plenty, but not quite all yet.
Based on the quote in #20, I’ll give this one a miss! I don’t want to get into a fight about “heuristic” again.
Andrew, I’m sincerely interested in knowing how you think people are using the word wrongly. I’ve looked up the word and have tried puzzling it out on my own on occasion.
I tried asking you here but got no reply. Perhaps I came off as rude, I don’t know. Would you please tell us? I won’t get into a fight with you, I promise. I just want to know.
Edit: Never mind – will post separately.
In the diagram on the top of p.565 you have $\infty super Grpd$, where you should have $Super \infty Grpd$.
By the way, with these three dimensions of yours, shouldn’t there be eight possibilities as the choice of zero/nonzero is made for each dimension? That should give in addition what you call $Inf \infty Grpd$ and what I haven’t seen yet $Inf Super \infty Grpd$.
concerning “heuristics”: actually the gauge principle is a strong heuristic for solving the problem of “What is a space of physical fields?” If you just translate it verbatim to formal language, you get the right answer: “It is a higher geometric stack.”
I have worked a bit now on “1.1 Motivation” (see the new https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12630719/cohesivedocument131027.pdf), which had been a section somewhat orphaned. I have added
at the very beginning (p. 16) a lead-in via Hilbert’s sixth problem, along the lines of my “synthetic QFT” notes;
have re-arranged the subsections a bit to make them flow more naturally,
have added to the beginning of “1.1.4 Philosophical motivation” pointers to both Science of Logic and to Some Thoughts on the Future of Category Theory.
All this could do with more work, still. But I guess I have to leave it at that for the time being.
You’re in good company. Have you read the introduction to Hermann Weyl’s Raum - Zeit - Materie? He wrote it in a very Husserlian frame of mind.
@Urs
It seems those bugs introduced by special characters I pointed out have returned.
Is there a standard definition for ‘concordance’ as in §3.8.2? The only other place I have ever seen the word is in [Moerdijk, Classifying spaces and classifying topoi].
@Zhen Lin - usually concordance $E_0 \sim E_1$ of bundles over a space $X$ is defined as the existence of a bundle $E$ over $X\times [0,1]$ such that $E_i \simeq E\big|_{X\times\{i\}}$.
It’s certainly not a recent coinage.
The notion of concordance is quite standard. Somebody should add a list of literature to concordance. When googling for hits, “concordance class” yields the best results.
(facepalm) :-S (let me edit that out and retain some dignity)
Sure, edited out.
have plenty inspiring conversation
plenty of inspiring conversations
Last not least
Last but not least
We start with the general statement in 1.1.1 and then look at its incarnations following the history of physics in 1.1.1.
Sounds odd as this is already in 1.1.1.
Perhaps “In this section we start…”
is equipped differentiable (smooth) structure.
insert “with a”
Mathematicall
The fist two of these; first Stiefe-Whitney class; a Dirac operato
contravarian functors
In [Law91] Lawvere refers to cohesive toposes as Categories of Being and refers to the phenomenon exhibited by the adjunctions that define them as Becoming, thereby following the terminology of [He1841] and in effect proposing a formal interpretation of Hegel’s ontology in topos theory (much like the original interpretation of “natural” in category theory).
I don’t understand the contents of the parentheses. The original interpretation of “natural” is “much like” what?
we wiil construct
in 3.9 we a comprehensive discussion
p147
This definition of concrete smooth spaces (expressed slightly differently but equivalently) goes back to [Chen77]. A comprehensive textbook account of differential geometry formulated with this definition of smooth spaces (called “diffeological spaces” there) is in [11].
Chen spaces are not equivalent to diffeological spaces. That was the whole point of Comparative Smootheology.
Thanks for all the input.
Fixed all the typos that David pointed out.
Added citation to Comparative smootheology
Have also expanded the very last section “6. Outlook”.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12630719/cohesivedocument.pdf
Sorry for the telegraphic message, my battery was dying.
@David: I have removed that parenthetical remark, as it is not important anyway. What I meant to express is that I see Lawvere’s way of reading Hegel and trying to translate the terms found there into precise definitions in category theory as being in continuation of the the way that Eilenberg and MacLane translated the word “natural” into category theory.
I know the reasons for complaining about making “natural” a technical term (Mike complains about it every now and then, I think) but for understanding “Science of Logic” I understand now that this may be very fruitful, and I suppose that is what Lawvere has been doing all along.
When one goes to Volume 1, Book 1, Section 1, Chapter 1 “Being” of “Science of Logic” I gather the general reader’s rection is profound puzzlement. But if one reads it as a prose riddle “Guess which constructs in homotopy type theory Hegel is secretly talking about!” then it may become quite inspiring.
This reminds me of what somebody recently said somewhere, in reply to the question if the specific syntax of type theory is important, something like: “Not so important. If Aristotle had danced his syllogisms instead of writing them down as chains of symbols, we might be using very different means to code these days. “
Though I doubt Mac Lane would have read Hegel, we know he did immerse himself in philosophy while in Gottingen. At the moment I’m reading Thomas Ryckman’s The Reign of Relativity. It devotes considerable space to how much Weyl’s formulations of geometry and unified field theory owed to Husserlian phenomenology. And Mac Lane would have been exposed to phenomenology in the 1930s.
An invited chapter, for which my current proposal begins as below, would have me look into such matters.
Looking through Robert Torretti’s book ’Philosophy of Geometry from Riemann to Poincaré’ (1978), it is natural to wonder why, at least in the Anglophone community, we currently have no such subject today. By and large it is fair to say that any philosophical interest in geometry shown there is directed at the appearance of geometric constructions in physics, without any thought being given to the conceptual development of the subject within mathematics itself. This is a result of a conception we owe to the Vienna Circle and their Berlin colleagues that one should sharply distinguish between mathematical geometry and physical geometry. Inspired by Einstein’s relativity theory, this account, due to Schlick and Reichenbach, takes mathematical geometry to be the study of the logical consequences of some Hilbertian axiomatisation. For its application in physics, in addition to a mathematical geometric theory, one needs laws of physics and then ‘coordinating principles’ which relate these laws to empirical observations. From this position, the mathematics itself fades from view, as a more or less convenient choice in which to express a physical theory. No interest is taken in which axiomatic theories deserve the epithet ‘geometric’.
However, in the 1920s this view of geometry was not the only one put forward. Hermann Weyl, similarly inspired by relativity theory, was led to very different conclusions. His attempted unification of electromagnetism with relativity theory, was the product of a coherent geometric, physical and philosophical vision. While this unification was not directly successful, it did give rise to modern gauge field theory. Weyl, of course, also went on to make a considerable contribution to quantum theory. And while Einstein gave initial support to Moritz Schlick’s account of his theory, he later became an advocate of the idea that mathematics provides important conceptual frameworks in which to do physics:
“Experience can of course guide us in our choice of serviceable mathematical concepts; it cannot possibly be the source from which they are derived; experience of course remains the sole criterion of the serviceability of a mathematical construction for physics, but the truly creative principle resides in mathematics” (Herbert Spencer Lecture, Oxford 1933)
We may imagine then that an important chapter in any sequel to Torretti’s book would describe both Reichenbach’s and Weyl’s views on geometry. This is done in Thomas Ryckman’s excellent The Reign of Relativity (Oxford 2005). Ryckman ends his book with a call for philosophical inquiry into “what sense a ‘geometrized physics’ can have”. It seems that the time is right to take up this challenge in the context of a new foundational approach to geometry provided by higher category theory.
We’ve had the issue raised before about whether to understand Per Martin-Lof one needs to look at his philosophical inspiration – Husserl, Brentano, etc. It would be quite a coincidence if both homotopy type theory (Martin-Lof) and gauge theory (Weyl) owed their origins partly to Husserl, and this to be without merit. On the other hand, I can’t say I find Husserl pleasant to read, although I know Rota enormously admired him.
I wonder if ultimately it’s less the particularities of the philosophies and more the drive that philosophy provides to provide simple conceptual foundations that is important.
Hi David,
sounds interesting. You have to bear with my ignorance, but can you give me a pointer to Husserl’s writing or an account of them, that makes me understand what you refer to in #27?
Maybe easiest for you is to read Weyl himself, the ten or so pages of the introduction. There’s a free online copy of Space, Time and Matter here, though of course you should prefer the original German here.
A very Husserlian passage begins
Expressed as a general principle, this means that the real world, and every one of its constituents with their accompanying characteristics, are, and can only be given as, intentional objects of acts of consciousness. The immediate data which I receive are the experiences of consciousness in just the form in which I receive them. They are not composed of the mere stuﬀ of perception, as many Positivists assert, but we may say that in a sensation an object, for example, is actually physically present for me—to whom that sensation relates—in a manner known to every one, yet, since it is characteristic, it cannot be described more fully. Following Brentano, I shall call it the “intentional object”.
Ryckman points out how unexpected it is to come across such a passage in a standard textbook for relativity theory, but still Weyl clearly thought highly of it as it was preserved through many editions. Looking ahead in Ryckman it seems that Weyl’s Husserlianism made him refuse to accept Cartan’s moving frame formalism.
It seems to me rather a different inspiration from that of Hegel on Lawvere as you mention in #37. By thinking about the structure of the contents of one’s consciousness, somehow one derives certain principles governing them. You’re certainly not trying to capture the world as it is in itself, but nor are you studying some Logic of the Idea, as with Hegel. Still, something was working for Weyl, as within a few brief months in 1918 he brought out Raum, Das Kontinuum and the paper unifying electromagnetism and relativity theory.
Referring to https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12630719/cohesivedocument.pdf last line page 219:
is a cofibration and C and is in addition a weak equivalence
you probably mean “is a cofibration in C”
Re:#12, FWIW, en-dashes and em-dashes have different uses. A dash in the middle of text—like this—should almost always be an em-dash; en-dashes are mostly used for ranges of numbers, like “pages 1–3”.
@David, thanks, I’ll look into it.
@Fosco, thanks! Fixed now. Could you tell me your full name?
Fosco (Name) Loregian (surname)
Sorry for my lack of good manners, I’ll add up more info on the page here in nlab in a couple of days, as I promised!
From ’General Abstract’
when in interpreted
no ’in’
these intrinsic constructions reproduce the ordinary Chern-Weil homomorphism, hence ordinary Chern-Simons functionals and ordinary Wess-Zumino-Witten functionals, provides their geometric prequantization in higher codimension (localized down to the point) and generalizes this…
’provide’ and ’generalize’
conclude that cohesive 1-topos provide
toposES
Fixed. Wow David, your input is impressive. I owe you something.
@Fosco, no problem, but I cannot acknowledge your typo-spotting without knowing your full name.
What’s the name of the feeling when the last “undefined reference”-warning has disappeared?
Since These are $\infty$-colimit construction, they are preserves
3 typos there.
Thanks. Two of them I had already caught. If you are really still reading (thanks!) please check the latest version here https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12630719/cohesivedocument.pdf.
Grr, the arXiv compiler strips off the index. Does anyone know if one can do something about this? I’d like this to have an index, weird as it may be.
Khler polarization; correspondence of correspondence
Thanks! Fixed.
@Urs 51
It’s probably not running LaTeX enough times. Perhaps you include the necessary idx
or aux
files?
Assorted comments.
Under
1.2.8.7 Examples of $\infty$-connections
you have a list where one of the items is empty.
Under remark 1.2.185:
consisting of a 1-form with values in the path Lie algebra of g, a 2-form with values in the loop Lie algebra
’with values in’ here is a little bit awkward. Perhaps ’valued in’? If this is throughout then nevermind.
On the other hand, the data of forms in the equation Lie algebra
’equation’ is think shouldn’t be there
In section 1.2.9.1, you are using both U(N) and U(n), but u(n) for the Lie algebra. Also some mixing of so(n), so(N) and Spin(N). I guess you want to stick with upper-case N to avoid conflation with n being the categorical dimension?
Around
of based paths in Spin(N) to double intersections
the style is jumping between italicised and upright for the Lie group Spin(N).
In 1.2.9.2
All the construction that we consider here in this introduction serve to mode this abstract operation
’constructions’, and not sure about the ’mode’
In 1.2.9.2.1
This evidently yields a morphism of simplicial presheaves
’evidently’ here is perhaps weaker than you intend. The two meanings of the word (cf https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+evidently) are quite opposite. This may just be me, though, leaping to the wrong conclusion. (The usage further down the page feels different to me, and leans towards the stronger meaning.)
it assigns circle n-bundles with connection whose curvature is this cuvature characteristic form
n here needs to be in maths mode, and ’cuvature’.
In 1.2.9.2.2, in the sentence beginning
The real object of interest is the k-truncated version
there are some errant parentheses. Then, in the sentence beginning
Suppose g is such that the
there is $\stackrel{\simeq}{\to}\simeq$
In the list in 1.2.10, you have a space and comma transposed:
The classical action ,the Legendre transform and Hamiltonian flows;
In the ’historical comment’ you have a missing ’n’
canonical transformations”, hence symplectomorphisms, betwee them.
The equation in example 1.2.91 has its terminating comma floating weirdly between the lines. You also have “kinetic energy density” but “potential energy density”
In remark 1.2.195 you have
One may think of def.
but use ’Definition’ in full later in the paragraph. Also, missing l in
information about all possibe coordinate transformations
Definition 1.2.197
the coverage (Grothendieck pre-topology), of good open covers
has superfluous comma.
For the discussion of presymplectic manifolds
Sometimes you use ’presymplectic’, sometimes ’pre-symplectic’.
In example 1.2.198 you have ’$X_{disc}$ set’ rather than ’set $X_{disc}$’.
After this you mention
More details on this are below in 1.2.3
where 1.2.3 is 100 pages back.
In 1.2.199
thes smooth spaces
’these’.
In 1.2.201 the two symplectic manifolds’ symplectic forms are mangled ($\omega-1$ and $\omega$ instead of $\omega_1$ and $\omega_2$).
In definition 1.2.205 the general relation uses a funny inclusion arrow (I think it’s an xy diagram instead of just $\hookrightarrow$ in maths mode).
In the sentence beginning
To make this clearer, notice that we may equivalently rewrite every relation
you use maps $i_X$ and $i_Y$ but don’t define them. They probably should be $p_X$ and $p_Y$, based on the diagram.
Each such trajectory would “relate”
the opening quotes are the wrong way around.
In definition 1.2.207, should the word ’correspondence’ be italicised?
The diagram under the sentence beginning
The space with this property is precisely the fiber product
has a bunch of nodes changing labels ($X$, $Y$ and $Z$ on one side, and $X_1$ to $X_3$ on the other)
One Four more, pluck’d at random. Definition 3.9.116 has
and woth symmetric monoidal
3.9.14.4 has
Under this equivalence that single object is indeed idenited
3.10.14 has
$\mathbf{H} \hookrightarrow \in \mathbf{H}_{th}$
Proof of 3.10.26
Therefore we have a retract
is followed by a symbol-mash.
We didn’t have any trouble with the index in the HoTT book. You need to include the .ind file.
Thanks, David, for all these typos!! I have fixed all those you pointed out now and added an acknowledgement.
And thanks, Zhen Lin and Mike, for the info about the index. I should have thought of that myself. Thanks.
Thanks, Urs. I meant to get started earlier, to catch more before it went up. I’ll keep looking at chunks of it to help with the continuous improvement.
Thanks, David, that’s good. There will indeed be a few more cycles of polishing. But I had to post this now.
in section 1.2, the list of sections has
3.9.7 Chern-Weil theory
rather than
1.2.9 The Chern-Weil homomorphism
1.2.1.1 has
bf Premise.
Thanks! Fixed now.
Hmm, I came across a supposedly fixed typo from #33
The fist two of these are classical.
Also you seem to have fixed the second typo from #61 but not the first, concerning section numbering. While you’re on that page (p. 45), there’s also
vial Higher correspondences
woops. Thanks for checking super-carefully. Now it should all be fixed. Thanks again.
I should say: I am mostly out of action today, as we have various seminars now.
I had already submitted to the arXiv last night, but can still update until 8:pm GMT today. So when the seminars are over I’ll come back and do a last round of checking.
This is probably my final list then:
their appeareance
too many e’s
Stiefel-Whiney class
coresponding
under the diagram on p.22
As shown there, an element in $H_n(X; \mathbb{Z})$ involves an underlying ordinary integral class
$H^n(X; \mathbb{Z})$ should be $H^n_{diff}(X; \mathbb{Z})$
the evident fact that the category Top of topological spaces does, of course, not encode smooth structure.
‘of course’ wrongly placed, but unnecessary anyway because of ‘evident’.
In the sentence in 1.1.2 beginning
In the next step there is
You have ‘is’ before and after the equation, and are missing the ‘2-bundle’ from ‘String principal 2-bundle’.
differential geoemtry
we are lead
‘led’
we formall invert
thanks, as soon as they grant me a minute here, i’ll implement. Thanks so very much for all your comments!
Okay, these typos I have fixed now all (I think!). Thanks again!
2 hours to go. From a one page sample (p. 187):
phyiscal fields
only along local diffeomorphism
needs ’s’
the signture
And an ’allow to’, along with nine others in the document, e.g.,
allows to express
which needs a direct object, so ’allows us to express’ or ’allows the expression of’.
Hopefully, that was an unlucky sample :)
Thanks, David! All fixed now.
Concerning luck: luckily I am one hour ahead of GMT ;-)
I should say that it is clear that the whole document can do with a good more polishing. I am posting now anyway for various reasons.
Page 5 - “$\infty$-tpoposes” :-)
Should I just keep posting them here?
Fixed! :-)
Yes, as long as you have the energy, I’ll definitely appreciate being told about more typos.
Bookmarked for later reading: Differential cohomology in a cohesive infinity-topos (lspace).
The arXiv abstract contains the word “caracteristic”.
Gee, thanks. I’ll fix that with the next replacement. Grr.
Lucky the typo wasn’t in the title :-P
@Urs:
I think Prop. 3.2.2 (3) is wrong (“local implies hypercomplete”). Your definition of a locally local (∞,1)-topos is basically a condition on the final object, so there’s no reason to expect that it would imply hypercompleteness (which is a local condition, unlike that of being locally local!). For example, the (∞,1)-topos of étale sheaves on all $k$-schemes, for $k$ an algebraically closed field, is local but it’s not always hypercomplete.
Also, in Prop. 4.3.7 and 4.4.9 (and maybe also 4.5.10), there’s no need to take the hypercompletion on the right-hand side: see this mathoverflow answer.
I think the following is an example of a cohesive (∞,1)-topos which is not hypercomplete.
Let $Cubes$ be the full subcategory of topological spaces that are homeomorphic to
$\prod_{n\in \mathbb{N}} X_n$where each $X_n$ is either $pt$, $(0,1)$, $[0,1)$, or $[0,1]$. Let
$\mathbf{H} \coloneqq Sh_\infty(Cubes).$Any $Q\in Cubes$ has a base of open sets $B\subset Cubes$ which is moreover closed under finite intersections, so that $Sh_\infty(Q)\simeq Sh_\infty(B)$, and it is clear that the embedding $i\colon B\hookrightarrow Cubes_{/Q}$ is continuous and cocontinuous. We therefore have an essential geometric morphism
$i_! \dashv i^* \dashv i_*\colon Sh_\infty(Q)\to \mathbf{H}_{/Q}$with $i_!$ and $i_*$ fully faithful. From this we deduce that $\mathbf{H}$ is not hypercomplete, since $Q$ can be the Hilbert cube. We also deduce that
$Shape(\mathbf{H}_{/Q})\simeq Shape(Sh_\infty(Q))$which is contractible since $Q$ is paracompact and contractible (HA, A.1.4). In particular, $\mathbf{H}$ is totally strongly ∞-connected. Finally, $\Gamma\colon \mathbf{H}\to \infty Grpd$ preserves colimits because the final object $pt\in Cubes$ has a unique covering sieve.
Ah, you are right. I dropped the “locally” from the assumption in HTT cor. 7.2.1.12. (At homotopy dimension I still got it right…) Luckily this can be fixed. I’ll update the file later this week. Thanks.
The hypothesis of 7.2.1.12 can actually be weakened a bit: you only need $\mathcal{X}$ to be locally of finite homotopy dimension to show that every object is the limit of its Postnikov tower, hence hypercomplete. On the other hand, to show that $\mathcal{X}=\lim_{n}\mathcal{X}_{\leq n}$, you need $\mathcal{X}$ to be locally of homotopy dimension $\leq n$ for some fixed $n$.
So, do you plan to restrict the definition of cohesion, or should the theory include infinite-dimensional examples like this?
I don’t see a need to restrict the axioms. I invoke hypercompleteness just as a means of computing with my models.
I do wish that you wouldn’t conflate “homotopy type theory” with “$\infty$-topos theory”. They are different, though related, subjects. E.g. section 2 should really be called “$\infty$-topos theory”.
Also I’m a bit sad that you’ve decided to say “$\infty$-connected” for what should really be “locally $\infty$-connected and $\infty$-connected”.
Hey, I don’t say “$\infty$-connected” the way that makes you sad. At least not in def. 3.3.1 where it is introduced and not in def. 3.4.1 where it is picked up in the context of cohesion.
Maybe I got careless elsewhere? I’ll fix it if you point me to it.
Concerning conflation: I did by now well realize that the feeling in the HoTT community about this changed, but as you were once among the first to be fond of, the old homotopy-type theory is usually written without that hyphen and it’s a lucky coincidence, not an unfortunate one.
Other people complain when there are too many “$\infty$“-signs thrown around, especially in headlines. They say it “scares” them. For them I think saying “geometric homotopy theory” instead of “$\infty$-topos theory” is a real treat.
I am drowned this week in other tasks, but then I will work on editing dcct again. I’ll see what I can do. But let’s all try generally not to be “saddened” and “scared” by mathematics too much. Let’s go for the good feelings. Life outside maths is sad and scary enough…
Re: connectedness, I’m looking at and around the top of p44.
I’ve never heard anyone say “homotopy-type theory”. The word used to be “algebraic topology”, then “homotopy theory”, and now “$\infty$-category theory”. Have you actually heard people say “homotopy-type theory” to mean that subject?
ah, p. 44, right, I’ll change that.
and I’ll try to make me think about what I’ll do with the conflating-seeming section titles (but not tonight, and maybe not this week)
Typos on p. 196:
to be regared
as a generally covarnat,
supporessing
Thanks! I’ll get back to editing dcct from next week, Wednesday on. No chance before that.
Few bibliography corrections. First general one: many references miss comma after the title name, before the journal name, e.g. HeTe92, KaKrMi87, Mur96, Sc13a, Schw84, Sha97, Stee67, Stol96, Stre04, Zan05, Zi04, Wei89 etc.
Some other bib typoi:
Wi87 Wittem instead of Witten
Hor89 Exactly soluable
Law91, comma after Lawvere
Toppan page number probably 518–583 (dash missing)
I am very surprised that among the listed papers of B. Toën, G. Vezzosi, the most important one (from the point of view of this paper, I think), the HAG I paper, which is the first paper which proves in great detail and with systematic theory and rather clean exposition (in Segal category model) the Giraud’s theorem for (infinity,1)-topoi is missing. HAG II is however listed, as well as shorter proceedings version of Segal topoi theory. HAG II, full reference is Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 193 (2008), no. 902.
Now, more scientific question. I am sure you thought it through when I was not following those threads in $n$Forum, but the usage of shape theory in the paper confuses me. Page 243 says
If by “size” we mean “nontriviality of homotopy groups”, hence nontriviality of shape of a > space, there is the notion of
• shape of an ∞-topos ([L-Topos], section 7.1.6);
which coincides with the topological shape of X in the case that H = Sh∞ (X), as above.
This is very confusing. The shape theory is made precisely to study the topological spaces which are not CW complexes and for which homotopy groups are not useful, nor contain useful information. The classical example, Warsaw circle has all homotopy groups $0$, but its shape is not the shape of a point, but the shape of a circle. Thus the topological shape of $X$ is by no means about “nontriviality of homotopy groups”, i.e. not about its weak homotopy type.
p. 198
$\infty$-Lie algrboid
Thanks for all this!
I am still intensely busy with some other tasks. Will get back to this as soon as there is a free slot. Thanks for all the input, everyone!
I am (or so I sincerly hope) slowly climbing out of the black hole that my time budget collapsed into when with enlarged family the fact that I am not working in the same country in which I live finally turned from curious into deadly. (This maybe as an excuse for the immense delay between this and the previous post.)
I have now implemented the fixes pointed out above and added attribution. In particular I briefly fixed the issue pointed out by Marc Hoyois and added a pointer to his MO post for the fix. (That’s just the bare minimum one should do, I know, but at least it’s that.)
Looking back at the document, there are a thousand things I should and would want to improve on (besides eventually adding a genuine section on quantization via linear cohesive homotopy types). I have to see what the gods decided how this is going to work out.
Until the next arXiv version (which may take a while) I’ll keep a document with the latest changes at
Urs, would you mind uploading the second version to the arXiv? I see a lot of people referencing the first version on the arXiv, instead of the second version on your home page.
Yeah, I was wondering about that. Maybe I should.
1 to 96 of 96