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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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.
    • CommentAuthorJon Beardsley
    • CommentTimeMar 27th 2014

    I made a new page called twisted form. Unfortunately, this stole the redirect from a sub-heading on differential form. The page is still pretty much a stub. I hope to enlarge it soon.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 27th 2014
    • (edited Mar 27th 2014)


    I just made some minor formatting edits: added a few more hyperlinks, a table of contents and a floating context.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 27th 2014

    Is the claim that this definition includes the differential-geometric notion of twisted differential form? If so, we should explain why; otherwise we should have at least a hatnote mentioning the other meaning.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorJon Beardsley
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2014

    Hey Mike,

    Sorry, so yeah, I was thinking about this. I mean, I guess the two are just sort of, analogous? Both are classified by cocycles. I’m unfortunately sort of biased, since I don’t really know the differential geometric notion very well. I suppose the claim would be that if we think of a module MM as an 𝒪 Spec(A)\mathcal{O}_{Spec(A)}-module FF on an affine scheme Spec(A)Spec(A), then we can get twisted forms of MM by looking at twisted forms of FF (where we twist by line bundles, necessarily, since the thing must still locally look like FF) and taking global sections.

    One problem is that this notion is kind of… really spread out, and has acquired several different names in several different contexts. Part of me would like to codify it all top down from the standpoint of nonabelian cohomology, and then point to these other things as special cases.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorJon Beardsley
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2014

    I’m editing it now to try to make it more general. By the way - what’s a hatnote?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2014
    • (edited Mar 28th 2014)
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeMar 29th 2014
    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2014

    Part of me would like to codify it all top down from the standpoint of nonabelian cohomology, and then point to these other things as special cases.

    This is decidedly not my area, but there has been some work on descent, torsors, cohomology etc. done at a fairly high level of abstraction, which seems as though it should be relevant; you may well know about it already, but if not here are a couple of references:

    • Street. Characterization of bicategories of stacks, LNM 962, 1982.

    • Janelidze, Schumacher, Street. Galois theory in variable categories, Applied Categorical Structures 1, 1993.

    The introductions and bibliographies of these have some good references to other work too.

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)