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.
   • CommentAuthorMarc Hoyois
   • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Marc Hoyois
   Format: MarkdownItexFixed a couple incorrect statements at [[hypercomplete (infinity,1)-topos]]: - Remark 1 claimed that having enough points in the 1-topos sense implies having enough points in the ∞-sense. I replaced it with a counterexample from HTT. - In Proposition 1 I replaced "finite homotopy dimension" by "locally of homotopy dimension $\leq n$".

   Fixed a couple incorrect statements at hypercomplete (infinity,1)-topos:

   • Remark 1 claimed that having enough points in the 1-topos sense implies having enough points in the ∞-sense. I replaced it with a counterexample from HTT.
   • In Proposition 1 I replaced “finite homotopy dimension” by “locally of homotopy dimension $\leq n$”.
2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMarc Hoyois
   • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Marc Hoyois
   Format: MarkdownItexHere's a simple counterexample to “finite homotopy dimension implies hypercompleteness”: Let $\mathbf{H}$ be the [[big (∞,1)-topos]] on the site $Top$ of topological spaces. Then $\mathbf{H}$ has homotopy dimension $0$ but is not hypercomplete because it contains non-hypercomplete (∞,1)-topoi as essential retracts of its slices. More precisely, if $X$ is a topological space, the embedding $i\colon Open(X)\to Top_{/X}$ is continuous and cocontinuous, so that we have an adjunction $i_!\vdash i^*\vdash i_*$ with $i_!$ fully faithful. In that situation, $i^*$ preserves $n$-truncated morphisms, hence $i_!$ preserves $\infty$-connective morphisms, hence $i^*$ preserves hypercomplete objects, hence $i_!$ preserves non-hypercomplete objects. Thus, for appropriate $X$, $\mathbf{H}_{/X}$ and hence $\mathbf{H}$ are not hypercomplete.

   Here’s a simple counterexample to “finite homotopy dimension implies hypercompleteness”:

   Let $\mathbf{H}$ be the big (∞,1)-topos on the site $Top$ of topological spaces. Then $\mathbf{H}$ has homotopy dimension $0$ but is not hypercomplete because it contains non-hypercomplete (∞,1)-topoi as essential retracts of its slices. More precisely, if $X$ is a topological space, the embedding $i\colon Open(X)\to Top_{/X}$ is continuous and cocontinuous, so that we have an adjunction $i_!\vdash i^*\vdash i_*$ with $i_!$ fully faithful. In that situation, $i^*$ preserves $n$-truncated morphisms, hence $i_!$ preserves $\infty$-connective morphisms, hence $i^*$ preserves hypercomplete objects, hence $i_!$ preserves non-hypercomplete objects. Thus, for appropriate $X$, $\mathbf{H}_{/X}$ and hence $\mathbf{H}$ are not hypercomplete.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 24th 2013
   • (edited Nov 24th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Remark 1 claimed that having enough points in the 1-topos sense implies having enough points in the ∞-sense. I replaced it with a counterexample from HTT. Thanks for looking into this. But wait, the argument that you removed had just another "hypercomplete" implicit/missing. The argument said that in the Jardine model structure it is true that when the underlying 1-topos has enough points, then the Jardine weak equivalences are equivalently the stalkwise weak equivalences. Since the Jardine model structure presents the hypercomplete $\infty$-topos over the site, it does follow that this has enough points when the 1-topos does.

   Remark 1 claimed that having enough points in the 1-topos sense implies having enough points in the ∞-sense. I replaced it with a counterexample from HTT.

   Thanks for looking into this. But wait, the argument that you removed had just another “hypercomplete” implicit/missing.

   The argument said that in the Jardine model structure it is true that when the underlying 1-topos has enough points, then the Jardine weak equivalences are equivalently the stalkwise weak equivalences. Since the Jardine model structure presents the hypercomplete $\infty$-topos over the site, it does follow that this has enough points when the 1-topos does.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMarc Hoyois
   • CommentTimeNov 24th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Marc Hoyois
   Format: MarkdownItexI added the remark that the hypercompletion has enough points.

   I added the remark that the hypercompletion has enough points.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 24th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexOkay, thanks. (yeah, that darn hypercompletion subtlety... ;-)

   Okay, thanks.

   (yeah, that darn hypercompletion subtlety… ;-)