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 connection 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 galois-theory 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 history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories 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 stack string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological 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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2010

    expanded the discussion at equivariant homotopy theory

    • expanded the statement of the classical Elmendorf theorem

    • added the statement of the general Elmendorf theorem in general model categories

    • added remarks on G-equivariant oo-stacks, as special cases of this

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2010

    just for empahsis of a point that I think should be relevant, I amplified now at the very beginning of the entry that the G-homotopies that define the G-homotopy category on the left side of Elmendorf's equivalence are of course precisely those induced by the interval/line object  I = \mathbb{R} regarded as a G-space with trivial G-action.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2010

    just for emphasis, even though it may be a very obvious thing to say, I indluded a section that says how the homotopical category of G-spaces as usually considered is refined to a Kan-complex enriched category with hom-SSet

     G Top(X,Y) = Hom_{G Top}( X \times \Delta_I^\bullet, Y  ),

    where \Delta_I : \Delta \to G Top is the cosimplicial object induced from the geometric interval  I = \mathbb{R} with trivial G-action.

    Even though a very obvious thing to say, this (oo,1)-perspective now suggests that we stabilize this (oo,1)-category at the geometric loopings by I^n/\partial I^n.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2010

    It would be nice to extend the treatment of G-equivariant homotopy theory to closely related orbispace homotopy theory.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 29th 2010
    • (edited Jan 29th 2010)

    put in the Morel-Voevodsky discussion of how the equivariant homotopy category is the homotopy category of oo-sheaves on G Top localized at the interval object

    (oo,1)-cat of G-equivariant spaces.

    I think I got this right, but check with the given reference.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2015
    • (edited Aug 12th 2015)

    have added a pointer to

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2015

    I was wondering if there was a connection to Charles Rezk’s global equivariant cohesion. Now I see you added a reference to Mike’s paper at global equivariant homotopy theory. Do you see a connection?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2015
    • (edited Aug 12th 2015)

    I was thinking of the sliced version of the global equivariant cohesion here.

    Because the \infty-site that Charles writes Glo 𝔹GGlo_{\mathbb{B}G} on p. 16 of his note is an EI-\infty-category in Mike’s sense.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2015

    But there’s no sign of cohesion appearing in Mike’s paper, is there?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2015

    Here I am not sure what your “but” refers to.

    Regarding cohesion, Mike has a note in preparation with a comprehensive account of cohesive HoTT. Combing that with what seems (unless I am mixed up) a consequence of his present preprint should say that Charles’ sliced version of the equivariant cohesion is a model for cohesive HoTT with strict univalent universes.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2015

    I just meant, from my cursory glance, it didn’t seem to me that Mike’s paper was motivated by anything to do with cohesion.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2015
    • (edited Aug 12th 2015)

    Right it isn’t, but I don’t see what you mean to imply by saying so.

    What Charles Rezk discusses in 5.2, 5.3 is an \infty-topos that he writes Top Glo/𝔹GPSh (Glo 𝔹G)Top_{Glo}/\mathbb{B}G \simeq PSh_\infty(Glo_{\mathbb{B}G}). What I said in #8 is that Glo 𝔹GGlo_{\mathbb{B}G} is an EI-\infty-category. And I was guessing that that finiteness condition holds here, too. If so, then by Mike’s preprint Top Glo/𝔹GTop_{Glo}/\mathbb{B}G would be a model of HoTT with univalent strict universes. Unless I am missing something.

    Now it is true that on top of that Charles has the nice statement that Top Glo/𝔹GTop_{Glo}/\mathbb{B}G is cohesive over GTopPSh (𝒪 G)G Top \simeq PSh_{\infty}(\mathcal{O}_G). The latter is also presheaves over an EI-\infty-category, that’s the example that Mike makes explicit in his preprint.

    Put together, these two statements would seem to imply that this gives a model for cohesive HoTT with univalent strict universes.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2015

    Can you explain why Glo 𝔹GGlo_{\mathbb{B}G} is an inverse EI-\infty-category?

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 12th 2015

    Yeah, I am wrong, it’s not. Sorry for the distraction.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2016
    • (edited Jan 12th 2016)

    In the Idea-section both at equivariant homotopy theory and at topological G-spaces I have added a paragraph that makes more explicit where the fixed-point wise homotopy equivalences come from

    The canonical homomorphisms of topological GG-spaces are GG-equivariant continuous functions, and the canonical choice of homotopies between these are GG-equivariant continuous homotopies (for trivial GG-action on the interval). A GG-equivariant version of the Whitehead theorem says that on G-CW complexes these GG-equivariant homotopy equivalences are equivalently those maps that induce weak homotopy equivalences on all fixed point spaces for all subgroups of GG (compact subgroups, if GG is allowed to be a Lie group). By Elmendorf’s theorem, this, in turn, is equivalent to the (∞,1)-presheaves over the orbit category of GG. See below at In topological spaces – Homotopy theory.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2016

    That’s the clearest description I’ve seen of the naive/genuine distinction. Is the difference expressible in HoTT in terms of working in the context BG\mathbf{B} G, dependent sum/product for co(invariants), etc.? Perhaps the genuine version is more simply expressed?

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2016

    Maybe you’re warning against this here

    For G a discrete group (geometrically discrete) the homotopy theory of G-spaces which enters Elmendorf’s theorem is different (finer) than the standard homotopy theory of G-∞-actions, which is presented by the Borel model structure

    But then what allows the expression of the finer aspects? Something geometric? Cohesive, at least?

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2016

    re #16: sorry, I didn’t put that well after all.

    I had been prompted by the paragraphs in Goodwillie 03, p.5, 6 (of 67) but maybe some care is due here. In any case, I have rephrased a bit more, just to bring out the “G-Whitehead theorem” better, which says that those fixed-point wise weak homotopy equivalences are, on G-CW-complexes, the evident G-equivariant homotopy equivalences.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2016
    • (edited Jan 12th 2016)

    Well anyway, it would interest me to see how renderings in HoTT allow expression in something closer to natural language, as Mike does in Univalence for inverse EI diagrams, example 7.5:

    from a propositions-as-types point of view, we might say that A consists of a type with a G-action together with, for each fixed point of this action, a type of “special reasons” why that point should be considered fixed (which might be empty). That is, in passing from (the naive homotopy theory of) G-spaces to O opGO^{op}G -diagrams, we make “being a fixed point” from a property into data.

    Is ’naive’ being used in the sense as opposed to ’genuine’ here? So then, especially with a GG with many subgroups, the expression of the genuine would be rather complicated. Is there a reason why we need to range over all subgroups?

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2016
    • (edited Jan 12th 2016)

    That quote gives natural language for speaking about the homotopy theory that is presented by the orbit category. But I would think that what you were after is something like an intrinsic internal characterization of this homotopy theory.

    The following vague thought had occured to me:

    if we consider global equiviance not under Lie groups but under finite groups, then the global orbit category is just the (2,1)(2,1)-category of homotopy 1-types with finite π 1\pi_1. If we did this for “2-equivariance” as in “2-equivariant elliptic cohomology” then we’d be looking at 2-groupoids with finite homotopy groups. Generally then we could consider the \infty-category of homotopy types with finite homotopy groups as a site for “global \infty-equivariance”.

    This reminds us of the (opposite) of finite homotopy types, which is the site for the classifying topos for an object. As we are discussing elsewhere, this is the origin of Goodwillie calculus.

    Now, of course, despite the similarity in name, finite homotopy types are different, in fact pretty much complementary to, homotopy types with finite homotopy groups. So maybe we’d want to combine them, somehow, to merge Goodwillie theory with global equivariant homotopy theory. And maybe the \infty-category which suitably subsumes both finite homotopy types and homotopy types with finite homotopy groups is the site for a good classifying \infty-topos, i.e. maybe that \infty-topos has a good internal characterization.

    Just speculating.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2016

    Sounds interesting. What already exists as equivariant Goodwillie theory? I see there is

    which refers to another couple of his own papers.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2016

    BTW, this is different from the naive/genuine distinction for GG-spectra; that’s a further bifurcation within the world of fixed-point-wise equivariant homotopy theory. So perhaps “naive” is a poor choice of word here…

    Note that there’s actually a whole range of possible “GG-equivariant homotopy theories” parametrized by a family of subgroups of GG; the “most naive” one corresponds to choosing only the trivial subgroup.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJan 12th 2016

    Re #20, what if anything stands in the way of global equivariance for all homotopy types with finite homotopy groups? I see Charles Rezk thought things should work out with 2-groups here.

    Is there a suitable sense of compactness for Lie n-groups?

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2018

    Made explicit the pointer to the equivariant Whitehead theorem (notably in the statement of this theorem)

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2018

    added the following diagram, for illustration purposes

    Ho(GTop cof) Ho(Top cof) equivariantWhitehead Whitehead Ho(GTop loc) Ho(Top loc) Elmendorf = Ho(PSh(Orb G,Top loc)) proj Ho(*,Top loc) proj \array{ Ho(G Top_{cof}) &\underset{}{\longrightarrow}& Ho(Top_{cof}) \\ {\mathllap{\text{equivariant} \atop \text{Whitehead}}}\big\downarrow{\mathrlap{\simeq}} && {\mathllap{\simeq}}\big\downarrow{\mathrlap{\text{Whitehead}}} \\ Ho(G Top_{loc}) &\overset{}{\longrightarrow}& Ho(Top_{loc}) \\ {\mathllap{Elmendorf}}\big\downarrow{\mathrlap{\simeq}} && \downarrow^{\mathrlap{=}} \\ Ho( PSh( Orb_G, Top_{loc} ) )_{proj} &\longrightarrow& Ho( \ast, Top_{loc} )_{proj} }

    wanted to assign a name to the top left arrow (Bredon?) but maybe there is no particular name associated with it besides Whitehead

    diff, v36, current

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2018

    added some links

    diff, v39, current

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 11th 2019

    added pointer to today’s

    • Mehmet Akif Erdal, Aslı Güçlükan İlhan, A model structure via orbit spaces for equivariant homotopy (arXiv:1903.03152)

    (just for completeness)

    diff, v46, 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)