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 beauty bundle bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched etcs fibration 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 lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory 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 string string-theory subobject 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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2009

    created bifibration

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009
    • (edited Dec 18th 2009)

    I think that the pushforward in a bifibration should be called $$f_$$, not f_*, because it is left adjoint to the pullback f^* rather than right adjoint. Also in many bifibrations there is also a right adjoint to f^*, which it makes more sense to call f_*, although that adjoint is not concisely describable in fibrational language.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009

    Huh, that's supposed to say f_!, but for some reason it isn't parsing correctly.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009

    I personally agree and use that convention. Benabou-Raubaud use $f_*$ as well as many algebraic and categorical treatments (maybe even Borceux but have no time to check now). I prefer the way Mike suggests, it clicks the right way at least for us who do something between algebra and geometry.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009
    • (edited Dec 18th 2009)
    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009

    You used u_* in domain cofibration, so I fixed it to u_!.

    I also feel strongly that "cofibration" is the wrong word here. Cofibrations have an extension property, but "cofibered categories" still have a lifting property. So "opfibration" is better. I know that Grothendieck used "cofibration" but I maintain that he should have known better.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009
    • (edited Dec 18th 2009)

    Thanks Mike. I added Pierre Gabriel and references to group scheme (the latter are a subset of tyhe references at algebraic group, I ommitted those which are mainly about algebraic groups in narrow sense and variety techology and not about general group schemes and scheme language). Chanegs to several related items. I do not know of the bio data of Pierre Gabriel (strange enough, the wikipedia has so many irrelevant French and Swiss mathematicians covered but not a person of his stature...).

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009
    • (edited Dec 18th 2009)

    I changed the title to domain opfibration as Mike suggested. On the other hand I changed back the u_! to u_* in THAT entry.

    Unlike the case of codomain fibration, where I agreed with Mike that left adjoint to u^* should be called u_!, and NOT u_*, in the case of domain cofibration we can have right adjoint of u_* which is NOT u^* but u^!, at least in geometry. Thus one has u_! -| u^* -| u_* -| u^! as in algebraic geometry (in the cases when these functors exist). If you want to have one and the same notation for all bifibration then you do not fit the examples, I prefer to fit the examples with the respective standard which is in geometry self-consistent.

    To say differently, you can call a direct image in a co/opfibration either f_* or f_!, DEPENDING ON CONTEXT, however, once the context dictates one of them then you have no choice between f^* and f^! as the left versus right adjointness solely dictates the choice.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009

    maybe I am mixed up:

    Isn't the functor  dom : [I,C] \to C the one classified by

     (-)/C : C^{op} \to Cat

    and hence a fibration? I would have thought it's the codomain functor

     codom : [I,C] \to C that is an opfibration, as it is classified by

     C/(-) : C \to Cat
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009
    • (edited Dec 18th 2009)

    Urs, the fibration which is emphasised in domain fibration is about the pullback which is the usual INVERSE image. You obviously talk about the secondary cofibration structure via post-composition. I mean both are bifibrations but one strcuture is emphasised and that one is giving the name to (co)cartesian morphisms. (Co)cartesian arrows in these are exactly upper arrows of (co)cartesian squares in C.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009

    Urs notices that while the codomain fibration requires (to be a fibration) pullbacks, the cofibration part (though it did not play the same historical role) of the SAME functor does not need anything. We could in fact talk about historically motivating examples of codomain fibration and domain cofibration, as I listed, but also of "obvious" domain fibration and codomain cofibration which are used in treatment of sieves and cosieves for Grothendieck (co)topologies.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009

    I have now added plenty of "pedagogical" details to codomain fibration.

    I also linked to it in the respective example-sections at overcategory and at bifibration.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2009

    Okay, I'll go along with u_* and u^! for domain opfibration, but I added some explanation as to why it's different from the usual notation for bifibrations. (Why doesn't u_! work in latex on the forum?)

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 5th 2018

    I added a section on bifibrations between bicategories following Mike’s comments.

    diff, v17, current

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2018
    • (edited Jun 27th 2018)

    We have a section called ’Remark’ which has only

    A bifibration F:EBF:E\to B such that F op:E opBF^{op}:E^{op}\to B is a bifibration as well is called a trifibration (cf. Pavlović 1990, p.315).

    As this MO comment observes, it’s rather misleading. In that paper by Pavlović it says

    We say that EE is a trifibration if both EBE \to B and E opBE^{op} \to B are bifibrations. The category E opE^{op}, fibred over BB, is obtained by changing the direction of all the vertical arrows in EE. (The arrows of E opE^{op} are the equivalence classes of spans with a vertical arrow pointing at the source, and a cartesian arrow pointing at the target.)

    A fibration EBE \to B is a bifibration iff every inverse image functor t *:E JE It^{\ast}: E_{J} \to E_{I} has a left adjoint t !:E IE Jt^{!}: E_{I} \to E_{J}. It is a trifibration iff there is also a right adjoint t *:E IE Jt_{\ast}: E_{I} \to E_{J}.

    It sounds like it’s due its own page, so I’ll start one.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2018

    I moved the “Remark” with link to trifibration into the Related Concepts section.

    diff, v21, current

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)