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.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeJan 30th 2014
   • (edited Jan 30th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexI note that Zoran has started an entry [[pro-C-star-algebra]]. I was wondering if inverse limits in topological *-algebras are exact. If not then taking the limit seems a strange thing to do. It would be better to handle the pro-object as such. I.e. within the pro-category. Zoran, can you enlighten me? :-) I suspect that if the C*-algebras are finite dimensional as vecor space then there would be not much difference... any thoughts?

   I note that Zoran has started an entry pro-C-star-algebra. I was wondering if inverse limits in topological -algebras are exact. If not then taking the limit seems a strange thing to do. It would be better to handle the pro-object as such. I.e. within the pro-category. Zoran, can you enlighten me? :-) I suspect that if the C-algebras are finite dimensional as vecor space then there would be not much difference… any thoughts?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJan 31st 2014
   • (edited Jan 31st 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexIt seems not. Regarding that the Yoneda embedding is continuous, whenever the limit of $C^\ast$ exists within $C^\ast$-algebras, it would of course coincide with the [[pro-object]]; but there are such examples when the limit exists in $C^\ast$ but the corresponding pro-$C^\ast$-algebra (in the sense of Phillips, hence the limit within topological *-algebras) is not representable. The "sheaves of $C^\ast$-algebras" in the sense of Ara dwell on this difference. The limits within $C^\ast$ kind of truncate unbounded information. If I understand the point, this is then obviously very important for the [[noncommutative geometry]], I think, but I am not yet understanding the technical side of the story (in process, I hope).

   It seems not. Regarding that the Yoneda embedding is continuous, whenever the limit of $C^\ast$ exists within $C^\ast$-algebras, it would of course coincide with the pro-object; but there are such examples when the limit exists in $C^\ast$ but the corresponding pro-$C^\ast$-algebra (in the sense of Phillips, hence the limit within topological *-algebras) is not representable. The “sheaves of $C^\ast$-algebras” in the sense of Ara dwell on this difference. The limits within $C^\ast$ kind of truncate unbounded information. If I understand the point, this is then obviously very important for the noncommutative geometry, I think, but I am not yet understanding the technical side of the story (in process, I hope).

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeJan 31st 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexAn interesting thing about pro-$C^\ast$-algebras is that there is a an extension of Gelfand duality to the duality between _commutative_ pro-$C^\ast$-algebras and compactly generated Hausdorff spaces in the sense of Steenrod. One should point out the papers of Dubuc and Porta on convenient categories of [[topological algebra]]s to see the background to this.

   An interesting thing about pro-$C^\ast$-algebras is that there is a an extension of Gelfand duality to the duality between commutative pro-$C^\ast$-algebras and compactly generated Hausdorff spaces in the sense of Steenrod. One should point out the papers of Dubuc and Porta on convenient categories of topological algebras to see the background to this.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeJan 31st 2014
   • (edited Jan 31st 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexZoran: as you probably know, according to WIkipedia compactly generated spaces were studied by Hurewicz (and are in Kelley's book as well) so predate Steenrod's interest in them. My point was that profinite groups work well because the pro-object / projective system gives the limit group and the limit group returns the projective system as asystem of finite quotients. If you go away from pro-finite, of course, that property fails and usually the 'right' object is the pro-object rather than the limit, because of non-exactness of theinverse limit. Looking at the homotopy theory of the simplicial profinite spaces that arise in alg. geom. (commutative, I'm afradi, at least for the moment) the proofs simplify enormously if one replaces the limiting space by that corresponding pro-obnject. The duality between pro-objects and ind-objects then extends to give duality results in this setting. If one then looks at shape and strong shape and the duality between strong shape and proper homotopy, one is possibly seeing the same phenomenon (perhaps replace 'the same' by 'similar' here!), but in a setting nearer to $(\infty,1)$-categorical considerations.

   Zoran: as you probably know, according to WIkipedia compactly generated spaces were studied by Hurewicz (and are in Kelley’s book as well) so predate Steenrod’s interest in them.

   My point was that profinite groups work well because the pro-object / projective system gives the limit group and the limit group returns the projective system as asystem of finite quotients. If you go away from pro-finite, of course, that property fails and usually the ’right’ object is the pro-object rather than the limit, because of non-exactness of theinverse limit. Looking at the homotopy theory of the simplicial profinite spaces that arise in alg. geom. (commutative, I’m afradi, at least for the moment) the proofs simplify enormously if one replaces the limiting space by that corresponding pro-obnject. The duality between pro-objects and ind-objects then extends to give duality results in this setting. If one then looks at shape and strong shape and the duality between strong shape and proper homotopy, one is possibly seeing the same phenomenon (perhaps replace ’the same’ by ’similar’ here!), but in a setting nearer to $(\infty,1)$-categorical considerations.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeOct 24th 2019
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexMore references. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/pro-C-star-algebra/3">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/pro-C-star-algebra/3">v3</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/pro-C-star-algebra">current</a>

   More references.

   diff, v3, current