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-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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-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.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2014
    • (edited Jan 30th 2014)

    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?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2014
    • (edited Jan 31st 2014)

    It seems not. Regarding that the Yoneda embedding is continuous, whenever the limit of C *C^\ast exists within C *C^\ast-algebras, it would of course coincide with the pro-object; but there are such examples when the limit exists in C *C^\ast but the corresponding pro-C *C^\ast-algebra (in the sense of Phillips, hence the limit within topological *-algebras) is not representable. The “sheaves of C *C^\ast-algebras” in the sense of Ara dwell on this difference. The limits within C *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).

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2014

    An interesting thing about pro-C *C^\ast-algebras is that there is a an extension of Gelfand duality to the duality between commutative pro-C *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.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2014
    • (edited Jan 31st 2014)

    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 (,1)(\infty,1)-categorical considerations.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2019

    More references.

    diff, v3, 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)