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
   • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
   • (edited Jun 20th 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexThere is an obvious similarity between the four adjoints describing cohesion for the Sierpinski $(\infty, 1)$-topos in Example 6.1.2 of [dcct](https://ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/differential+cohomology+in+a+cohesive+topos) and four of the seven adjoints (third to sixth) for arrow categories of pointed categories having pullbacks and pushouts [MO answer+comment](http://mathoverflow.net/a/46938/447). So * $\Pi([P \to X]) = X$ ; $Disc(X) = [X \to X]$; $\Gamma([P \to X]) = P$ ; $coDisc(Q) = [Q \to \ast]$. * $[f: A \to B] \mapsto coker(f)$; $A \mapsto [0 \to A]$; $[A \to B] \mapsto B$; $A \mapsto [A \to A]$; $[A \to B] \mapsto A$; $A \mapsto [A \to 0]$; $[f: A \to B] \mapsto ker(f)$. It seems there's a linearization happening, and we might want to consider, as [we did](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/5538/at-category/?Focus=43856#Comment_43856) a while ago, whether there is a Freyd-like result for AT-$(\infty, 1)$-categories between stable ones and toposes. Forming the (co)monads from the adjunction strings, the Sierpinski case gives us the expected three for cohesion, ʃ $\dashv\; \flat \;\dashv\; \sharp$. The other case gives us six. Now, are there traces of these extra three in the nonlinear case, trying to show themselves? Consulting the [[cohesion - table]], ʃ does have a left adjoint, that is, if one lifts it up to *infinitesimal* shape $\Im$. It's the reduction modality, $\Re$. And by the same move, its lift to $\rightsquigarrow$ has a further left adjoint $\rightrightarrows$. So is there a connection between $\Re$ and the modality $[A \to B] \to [0 \to B]$? Maybe we're not so far from the [[tangent (infinity,1)-category]] construction as a halfway house, with an element above a space $X$, a parameterized spectrum, as an infinitesimal there. And what of the other two modalities, $[A \to B] \mapsto [0 \to coker f]$ and $[A \to B] \mapsto [ker f \to 0]$?

   There is an obvious similarity between the four adjoints describing cohesion for the Sierpinski $(\infty, 1)$-topos in Example 6.1.2 of dcct and four of the seven adjoints (third to sixth) for arrow categories of pointed categories having pullbacks and pushouts MO answer+comment. So

   • $\Pi([P \to X]) = X$ ; $Disc(X) = [X \to X]$; $\Gamma([P \to X]) = P$ ; $coDisc(Q) = [Q \to \ast]$.

   • $[f: A \to B] \mapsto coker(f)$; $A \mapsto [0 \to A]$; $[A \to B] \mapsto B$; $A \mapsto [A \to A]$; $[A \to B] \mapsto A$; $A \mapsto [A \to 0]$; $[f: A \to B] \mapsto ker(f)$.

   It seems there’s a linearization happening, and we might want to consider, as we did a while ago, whether there is a Freyd-like result for AT-$(\infty, 1)$-categories between stable ones and toposes.

   Forming the (co)monads from the adjunction strings, the Sierpinski case gives us the expected three for cohesion, ʃ $\dashv\; \flat \;\dashv\; \sharp$. The other case gives us six. Now, are there traces of these extra three in the nonlinear case, trying to show themselves?

   Consulting the cohesion - table, ʃ does have a left adjoint, that is, if one lifts it up to infinitesimal shape $\Im$. It’s the reduction modality, $\Re$. And by the same move, its lift to $\rightsquigarrow$ has a further left adjoint $\rightrightarrows$.

   So is there a connection between $\Re$ and the modality $[A \to B] \to [0 \to B]$? Maybe we’re not so far from the tangent (infinity,1)-category construction as a halfway house, with an element above a space $X$, a parameterized spectrum, as an infinitesimal there.

   And what of the other two modalities, $[A \to B] \mapsto [0 \to coker f]$ and $[A \to B] \mapsto [ker f \to 0]$?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 20th 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexTo a certain extent at least, linearization is [characterized](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/pointed%20derivator#extraordinary_inverse_images) by the existence of extra adjoints.

   To a certain extent at least, linearization is characterized by the existence of extra adjoints.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexAbove I was wondering about the monad $[A \to B] \mapsto [0 \to coker f]$. Something similar but for a nonlinear base occurs in the [[Thom space]] construction: $$ \array{ S(V) &\overset{i_V}{\longrightarrow}& D(V) \\ \downarrow &(po)& \downarrow \\ \ast &\longrightarrow& Th(V) } \,. $$ So the nonlinear version is the [[cofiber]] construction, presumably. Do these get viewed as monads in an arrow category?

   Above I was wondering about the monad $[A \to B] \mapsto [0 \to coker f]$. Something similar but for a nonlinear base occurs in the Thom space construction:

   $$\array{ S(V) &\overset{i_V}{\longrightarrow}& D(V) \\ \downarrow &(po)& \downarrow \\ \ast &\longrightarrow& Th(V) } \,.$$

   So the nonlinear version is the cofiber construction, presumably. Do these get viewed as monads in an arrow category?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2016
   • (edited Jun 22nd 2016)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexPresumeably this is what Mike was meaning to allude to with his pointer in #2: to define $[A \overset{f}{\to} B] \mapsto [ker f \to \ast]$ and its dual, all one needs is basepoints (and existence of (co-)fibers). Passing from plain objects to pointed objects is like a 0th step in "linearizing", in that it makes a [[zero-object]] appear (the point) and gives rise (if starting from good enough objects) to a non-Cartesian (hence "non-non-linear") symmetric monoidal product, the [[smash product]].

   Presumeably this is what Mike was meaning to allude to with his pointer in #2: to define $[A \overset{f}{\to} B] \mapsto [ker f \to \ast]$ and its dual, all one needs is basepoints (and existence of (co-)fibers).

   Passing from plain objects to pointed objects is like a 0th step in “linearizing”, in that it makes a zero-object appear (the point) and gives rise (if starting from good enough objects) to a non-Cartesian (hence “non-non-linear”) symmetric monoidal product, the smash product.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2016
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks. I'm left with a couple of matters: (1) Is it ever the case that one would be better off when there are lots of commutative squares about, trying to express everything as maps in an arrow category? So, e.g., in [[differential cohomology diagram]], along with plenty of squares which are (co)units of modalities applied to arrows, one forms cofibers and fibers, but might it be better to remember the fourth corners (even when just $0$ or $\ast$), or take the $Spectra^I &\stackrel{cod}{\longrightarrow}& Spectra$ appearing there to be in full the monad $[A \to B] \mapsto [0 \to B]$, etc.? And the initial motivation for the thread: (2) Behind the string of 7 adjoints in the linear case, is there a nonlinear version struggling to emerge (requiring Aufhebung to express itself)? The connection between $\Re$ and the modality $[A \to B] \to [0 \to B]$ is quite plausible, no? Or maybe better the other way around, from the table and the 'defect' that the negative of the $\emptyset$ modality is the [[maybe monad]], it's not surprising that a linear (or non-non-linear) version of the table appears.

   Thanks. I’m left with a couple of matters:

   (1) Is it ever the case that one would be better off when there are lots of commutative squares about, trying to express everything as maps in an arrow category? So, e.g., in differential cohomology diagram, along with plenty of squares which are (co)units of modalities applied to arrows, one forms cofibers and fibers, but might it be better to remember the fourth corners (even when just $0$ or $\ast$), or take the appearing there to be in full the monad $Spectra^I &[A \to B] \mapsto [0 \to B]$, etc.?

   And the initial motivation for the thread:

   (2) Behind the string of 7 adjoints in the linear case, is there a nonlinear version struggling to emerge (requiring Aufhebung to express itself)? The connection between $\Re$ and the modality $[A \to B] \to [0 \to B]$ is quite plausible, no? Or maybe better the other way around, from the table and the ’defect’ that the negative of the $\emptyset$ modality is the maybe monad, it’s not surprising that a linear (or non-non-linear) version of the table appears.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexAgain the idea of an adjoint 7-tuple appears, here for pointed derivators, in Mike's * Generalized stability for abstract homotopy theories, [arXiv:1704.08084](https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.08084) and this is infinitely extendable in the stable case with a periodicity 6.

   Again the idea of an adjoint 7-tuple appears, here for pointed derivators, in Mike’s

   • Generalized stability for abstract homotopy theories, arXiv:1704.08084

   and this is infinitely extendable in the stable case with a periodicity 6.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeDec 27th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexComing back to this thread and the string of adjoints >$[f: A \to B] \mapsto coker(f)$; $A \mapsto [0 \to A]$; $[A \to B] \mapsto B$; $A \mapsto [A \to A]$; $[A \to B] \mapsto A$; $A \mapsto [A \to 0]$; $[f: A \to B] \mapsto ker(f)$, I hadn't seen above that $[A \to B] \mapsto A$ is a dependent sum map, so we see the positive and negative polarities of the [[dependent sum type]] via the adjunctions on each side. And, as suggested in #1, we did [observe](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Sierpinski%20topos#DifferentialCohesion) that a form of reduction modality appears.

   Coming back to this thread and the string of adjoints

   $[f: A \to B] \mapsto coker(f)$; $A \mapsto [0 \to A]$; $[A \to B] \mapsto B$; $A \mapsto [A \to A]$; $[A \to B] \mapsto A$; $A \mapsto [A \to 0]$; $[f: A \to B] \mapsto ker(f)$,

   I hadn’t seen above that $[A \to B] \mapsto A$ is a dependent sum map, so we see the positive and negative polarities of the dependent sum type via the adjunctions on each side.

   And, as suggested in #1, we did observe that a form of reduction modality appears.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJan 11th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexRe #7, with cartesian product as a (nondependent) dependent sum, we might expect the third adjoint, $[A \to B] \mapsto B$, to have something to do with coproduct. I guess it does, since we can see $$ \mathcal{C}^{\,2} \stackrel{\stackrel{+}{\longrightarrow}}{\stackrel{\stackrel{\Delta}{\longleftarrow}}{\stackrel{\times}{\longrightarrow}}} \mathcal{C} $$ as the composite $$ \mathcal{C}^{\,2} \stackrel{\stackrel{p_1 \to p_1 + p_2}{\longrightarrow}}{\stackrel{\stackrel{(dom, cod)}{\longleftarrow}}{\stackrel{p_1 \times p_2 \to p_2}{\longrightarrow}}} \mathcal{C}^{\,\to} \stackrel{\stackrel{cod}{\longrightarrow}} {\stackrel{\stackrel{Id}{\longleftarrow}}{\stackrel{dom}{\longrightarrow}}} \mathcal{C}. $$

   Re #7, with cartesian product as a (nondependent) dependent sum, we might expect the third adjoint, $[A \to B] \mapsto B$, to have something to do with coproduct.

   I guess it does, since we can see

   $$\mathcal{C}^{\,2} \stackrel{\stackrel{+}{\longrightarrow}}{\stackrel{\stackrel{\Delta}{\longleftarrow}}{\stackrel{\times}{\longrightarrow}}} \mathcal{C}$$

   as the composite

   $$\mathcal{C}^{\,2} \stackrel{\stackrel{p_1 \to p_1 + p_2}{\longrightarrow}}{\stackrel{\stackrel{(dom, cod)}{\longleftarrow}}{\stackrel{p_1 \times p_2 \to p_2}{\longrightarrow}}} \mathcal{C}^{\,\to} \stackrel{\stackrel{cod}{\longrightarrow}} {\stackrel{\stackrel{Id}{\longleftarrow}}{\stackrel{dom}{\longrightarrow}}} \mathcal{C}.$$