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.
1 to 2 of 2
I am wondering about some basic issues in higher geometry and specifically in E-infinity geometry (“spectral geometry”), maybe somebody has a hint for me:
in Structured Spaces we get the very general formulation of what it means to have a structure sheaf . In Deformation Theory we get the very general formulation of what it means to be a module. One would hope that in this generality there is a definition of quasicoherent -modules, too. But at least in Quasi-Coherent Sheaves and Tannaka Duality Theorems the definition of is given in a more traditional way. Is there anything on away from -geometry in a more general context as in Structured Spaces?
What can we say about sufficient conditions for morphisms in -geoemtry to induce closed monoidal ? I don’t care for the moment so much about and /or being regular (schemes, algebraic spaces, DM-stacks,…) but am looking for answers for generally -presheaves on .
for an -algebra and an -groupoid, is closely related to the twisted generalized -cohomology of the homotopy type of . Joost and I are currently playing with rephrasing the constructions in his thesis in terms of six operations yoga in -geometry under this identification. Part of this is at least implicit in A Survey of Elliptic Cohomology. Has this been developed/spelled out further anywhere?
I don’t know the answers, but I would like you just to have in mind that in generalized algebraic geometry of Nikolai Durov thesis where the local model is based on a finitary monad in Set (very fundamental and basic setup, everything commutative), the categories of quasicoherent sheaves of -modules are not forming an abelian category, hence the infinity analogue would not form a stable (infinity,1)-category. Sufficiently general treatment should have this in mind.
1 to 2 of 2