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.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2016
   • (edited May 5th 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexGiven the HoTT activity we've just seen at [[regular action]], is there anything similarly interesting to say at [[transitive action]] for $\infty$-actions? We have a result there >Let $\rho : G \times X \to X$ be a transitive action and suppose that $X$ is [[inhabited]]. Then $\rho$ is equivalent to the action of $G$ by multiplication on a [[coset]] space $G/H$, where the subgroup $H$ is taken as the [[stabilizer subgroup]] $H = G_x = \{ g \in G \mid g x = x \}$ of some arbitrary element $x \in X$. In particular, the transitivity of $\rho$ guarantees that the $G$-equivariant map $G/H \to X$ defined by $g H \mapsto g x$ is a bijection. I guess Urs has done everything at [[stabilizer+group#ForInfinityGroupActions]], but with a transitive action $\mathbf{B}Stab_\rho(x)$ becomes $X/G$. Given that transitivity concerns connectness of quotient, there could be a generalization to $k$-connectness. There's also $n$-transitivity to consider.

   Given the HoTT activity we’ve just seen at regular action, is there anything similarly interesting to say at transitive action for $\infty$-actions?

   We have a result there

   Let $\rho : G \times X \to X$ be a transitive action and suppose that $X$ is inhabited. Then $\rho$ is equivalent to the action of $G$ by multiplication on a coset space $G/H$, where the subgroup $H$ is taken as the stabilizer subgroup $H = G_x = \{ g \in G \mid g x = x \}$ of some arbitrary element $x \in X$. In particular, the transitivity of $\rho$ guarantees that the $G$-equivariant map $G/H \to X$ defined by $g H \mapsto g x$ is a bijection.

   I guess Urs has done everything at stabilizer+group#ForInfinityGroupActions, but with a transitive action $\mathbf{B}Stab_\rho(x)$ becomes $X/G$.

   Given that transitivity concerns connectness of quotient, there could be a generalization to $k$-connectness. There’s also $n$-transitivity to consider.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexAn action would be transitive if, I guess, $\prod_x \prod_y x=y$ is inhabited, for $x,y:X//G$

   An action would be transitive if, I guess, $\prod_x \prod_y x=y$ is inhabited, for $x,y:X//G$

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2016
   • (edited May 5th 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexThat would allow empty $X$. Should we do that? The main definition speaks of a single orbit, yet later we're supposing that $X$ is inhabited. If we opt for $isContr(||X//G||_0)$, that would have to have $X$ inhabited.

   That would allow empty $X$. Should we do that? The main definition speaks of a single orbit, yet later we’re supposing that $X$ is inhabited.

   If we opt for $isContr(||X//G||_0)$, that would have to have $X$ inhabited.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexLooking about, the consensus is that $X$ is non-empty. So then we should stop after 'action' in >Let $\rho : G \times X \to X$ be a transitive action and suppose that $X$ is [[inhabited]], or is there something subtle going on with 'inhabited'? I see Mike and Toby were thrashing out what it meant at [[inhabited object]].

   Looking about, the consensus is that $X$ is non-empty. So then we should stop after ’action’ in

   Let $\rho : G \times X \to X$ be a transitive action and suppose that $X$ is inhabited,

   or is there something subtle going on with ’inhabited’?

   I see Mike and Toby were thrashing out what it meant at inhabited object.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2016
   • (edited May 5th 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexDavid #3 that's probably what I was thinking. I guess 'exactly one orbit' is the thing that is used.

   David #3 that’s probably what I was thinking. I guess ’exactly one orbit’ is the thing that is used.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorNoam_Zeilberger
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Noam_Zeilberger
   Format: MarkdownItexIn terms of whether the definition of transitive action should require the set to be inhabited, I've seen it both ways and like the more general definition. Something in the background for this particular fact is that really there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between _pointed_ transitive G-actions and subgroups of G, by the stabilizer and coset action constructions. I do not know whether this has been explained nicely somewhere in terms of an equivalence of categories--I first learned about it from Samuel Vidal's thesis and later in a nice series of blog posts by Qiaochu Yuan. I am kind of offline for a few days, but it would be great to incorporate this into the article at some point.

   In terms of whether the definition of transitive action should require the set to be inhabited, I’ve seen it both ways and like the more general definition. Something in the background for this particular fact is that really there is a 1-to-1 correspondence between pointed transitive G-actions and subgroups of G, by the stabilizer and coset action constructions. I do not know whether this has been explained nicely somewhere in terms of an equivalence of categories–I first learned about it from Samuel Vidal’s thesis and later in a nice series of blog posts by Qiaochu Yuan. I am kind of offline for a few days, but it would be great to incorporate this into the article at some point.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexAs I said in #1, all ingredients for the full $\infty$-action story are at [[stabilizer group]].

   As I said in #1, all ingredients for the full $\infty$-action story are at stabilizer group.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeNov 30th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexWe never got round to settling which version (inhabited or possibly empty) to adopt. What we had was inconsistent, so I added to make it at least consistent. But then now the discussion of $k$-transitivity needs attention. Do people want a 3-transitive action on $X$ to require at least 3 elements?

   We never got round to settling which version (inhabited or possibly empty) to adopt. What we had was inconsistent, so I added to make it at least consistent. But then now the discussion of $k$-transitivity needs attention. Do people want a 3-transitive action on $X$ to require at least 3 elements?