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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 18th 2014
   • (edited Jul 18th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI am _still_ trying to see that in non-archimedean analytic geometry the polydiscs are Artin-Mazur-etale contractible. One strategy would be this: show that the analytic spectrum functor from analytic domains to topological spaces is close enough to preserving split hypercovers. If it is close enough, then given any split hypercover by polydiscs (affinoid domains) of a polydisc, the corresponding etale homotopy type would be that of the image of that simplicial object under the [[analytic spectrum]] functor.That would hopefully be close to a split hypercover itself, and since this then would be a hypercover of the space underlying a polydisc, which is contractible, the etale homotopy type would be contractible. That's the strategy. Now to make it work. The first would seem to show that forming analytic spectra preserves fiber products along admissible maps ([[affinoid domain embeddings]]), so that intersections go to intersections. That seems straightforward, but I need to convince myself of this in detail. Then next a problem is that analytic spectra of affinoid covers are _closed covers_. So a priori we end up not with a hyper-cover like simplicial object of open topological sets but of closed sets. I suppose one will want to argue that passing to interiors everywhere is okay. This, too might be straightforward, but I need to convince myself of the details. So it seems easy enough. But some care is required, I suppose.

   I am still trying to see that in non-archimedean analytic geometry the polydiscs are Artin-Mazur-etale contractible.

   One strategy would be this: show that the analytic spectrum functor from analytic domains to topological spaces is close enough to preserving split hypercovers.

   If it is close enough, then given any split hypercover by polydiscs (affinoid domains) of a polydisc, the corresponding etale homotopy type would be that of the image of that simplicial object under the analytic spectrum functor.That would hopefully be close to a split hypercover itself, and since this then would be a hypercover of the space underlying a polydisc, which is contractible, the etale homotopy type would be contractible.

   That’s the strategy. Now to make it work.

   The first would seem to show that forming analytic spectra preserves fiber products along admissible maps (affinoid domain embeddings), so that intersections go to intersections. That seems straightforward, but I need to convince myself of this in detail.

   Then next a problem is that analytic spectra of affinoid covers are closed covers. So a priori we end up not with a hyper-cover like simplicial object of open topological sets but of closed sets. I suppose one will want to argue that passing to interiors everywhere is okay. This, too might be straightforward, but I need to convince myself of the details.

   So it seems easy enough. But some care is required, I suppose.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 19th 2014
   • (edited Jul 19th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexAh, the Huber affinoids are open (as oppsed to the Berkovich ones, which are closed). So using Huber spaces instead would deal with the second issue above.

   Ah, the Huber affinoids are open (as oppsed to the Berkovich ones, which are closed). So using Huber spaces instead would deal with the second issue above.