Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
edited Grothendieck's Galois theory
a bit, added hyperlinks here and there, in particular linked to homotopy group of an infinity-stack -- also referenced the chapter in Johnstone's book.
It would be good if we could highlight what exactly the theorem described there actually says. Currently it is easy to miss for the reader what the punchline is. But I have to do something else right now...
I added ref. J. P. Murre, Lectures on an introduction to Grothendieck’s theory of the fundamental group, Tata Inst. of Fund. Res. Lectures on Mathematics 40, Bombay, 1967. iv+176+iv pp. and references of Joyal Tierney and Borceux Janelidze. By the way I think that the axioms in Dubuc are just literally taken from Murre.
New entry categorical Galois theory. Just the main reference to start.
Thanks! Wasn't aware of that.
Can you give me a hint on how that relates to the discussion in Johnstone's book chapter 8?
I must go to the bus immediately. BUt categorical Glaois theory is discovered later...see works of Janelidze. I might have sent you the book long time ago, look at old emails. if not ask me tomorrow. Running now...
Urs, The main reference to Galois Theories in category theory is as Zoran says: F. Borceux and G. Janelidze, 2001, Galois theories , volume 72 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics , Cambridge University Press.
That book has a very good treatment of all the earlier stuff. It introduced Janelidze's theory as well but one really has to look at the original papers (or do the exercises in the book) to get the full picture. There is also the earlier AMS Memoir by Joyal and Tierney.
The main reference to Galois Theories in category theory is as Zoran says:
I do believe you two on that. But can you give me a shortcut by just sayingh roughly how what is discussed in that book relates to what Jonstone discusses in chapter 8 of Topos theory . Is one of these a special case of the other. If not, what's the difference?
Is this in reply to me?
shows how to reconstruct the category of G-sets from a fibre functor ?,
Yes, I know, and in Johnstone's chapter 8 this is done in great generality over any object in any topos.
All I want to know is if this is already what people call "categorical Galois theory" or if it's something else.
In other words, all I want to know is how the first sentence of the entry categorical Galois theory, once that sentence is written, will distinguish it from the material that we already have at Grothendieck's Galois theory and at fundamental group of a topos.
Who of you has read the reference
F. Borceux, G. Janelidze, Galois theories, Cambridge Studies in Adv. Math. 72, 2001. xiv+341 pp.
given at categorical Galois theory? If you have read it, write two sentences into that entry saying what it is about and how it is different from the material at the other entries.
I wrote a review of it for the Edinburgh Math Soc. I will look at that and then create a new entry based on it. (Copyright means I cannot use it as it.) Needl;ess to say I have read it from end to end!
<blockquote>
<p>I guess jack34 is spam</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Oh, I see. Stupid me. <blush> I had been wondering about that link...</p>
No, categorical Galois theory is not a special case of Grothendieck Galois theory. It is a theory which among the rest does generalize the Grothendieck version of Galois correspondence but does not generalize the general framework of Grothendieck Galois theory. So in a sense neither is generalization of another. Categorical Galois theory is cleaner as it requires some data which are just categorical, actually less, it requires precategories.
But can you give me a shortcut by just sayingh roughly how what is discussed in that book relates to what Jonstone discusses in chapter 8 of Topos theory .
Urs, I can't. The book is about Categorical Galois Theory. It is too abstract for me, and few attempts I made to read it failed. It was 3-4 years ago, maybe I could do it now, but it would take me a lot of time. For guys who are categorically unclined like you may be a better reading than for a noncommutative geometer like me (I was pretty unhappy that the book skips the general case which can cover the Hopf Galois descent in noncommutative case, though it claims it can do it; but that example was THE example of my interest).
It seems Tim will be able to say something more meaningful.
Urs, I have extracted the statement of the Grothendieck's Galois theorem for the classical case of fields as a new section in Grothendieck's Galois theory. It would be a pity having an entry of a theory, without its main theorem.
I added a Galois theorem for Grothendieck topoi.
I have created an entry SGA1 to anchor the original references.
I found some floating terms I needed to refer to Profinite spaces, they weren't there, so I created them and linked to Stone spaces, .... oh dear,they weren't there either!! They are now!
Entry category over a category cites SGA I with arXiv number and link, what is useful online, so I corrected the entry with a more useful multiple citation. To note that we also have entry EGA which should be the top entry from which all entries to EGA, SGA and FGA volumes should stem.
That is good. Perhaps we should have a SGA page with a brief summary of the contents (not a detailed list every time) of each SGA and the links to those that are available in NUMDAM or elsewhere. If we keep it brief that would not be dic=fficult to do but might prove useful for other researchers (and oursevles!!!!)
I guess jack34 is spam
I deleted that comment (#8) to reduce the risk that somebody might click on the link (which puts referer headers in their logs indicating that the ad is successful, encouraging more spam … I guess). If anyone wants to read it, it was (as domenico pointed out) from Wikipedia's article.
Great, Toby, thanks.
Thanks, Zoran. I added some hyperlinks to The classical case of fields
The Galois correspondence there is sort of descent "along torsors" theorem. Like equivariant sheavs on total space vs usual sheavs over base space. In categorical Galois theory also some case of an adjunction and some case of descent play a role; plus generalizations of profinite business. I am not getting it yet.
I just came upon a neat master’s thesis from IST Lisboa that gives a nice (classical) treatment of the Galois theory side of SGA1 . The link is here. It does nothing that is really needed for us but it may be useful in introducing the ideas to some students that you have.
This page has the following: “Let E be a Grothendieck topos. Then there exist an open localic groupoid G such that E is equivalent to the category of étale presheaves over G . One of the classical references is [J. P. Murre’s lecture notes]”.
But Murre’s lecture notes do not mention topos, nor locale, nor groupoid, nor localic groupoid; so as-stated, I am doubtful that this theorem is actually proved here but it may be that the results included in these lectures notes could be seen by experts to imply it. Since I’m not an expert in this topic, I wanted to see what was intended by the reference.
Thanks for the alert. I didn’t write this, but this must be referring to the results which are referenced here at classifying topos of a localic groupoid, where they are attributed to
Added to the first paragraph a pointer to fundamental theorem of covering spaces.
in On the Galois Theory of Grothendieck, the authors explained two cases of Grothendieck’s Galois Theory: the finite case, the not finite case, and G0) was introduced for the not finite case. I quote from the explanation above the axioms in original paper:
We consider now Grothendieck axioms as he wrote them in [6] and prove its fundamental theorem. He considered a category with, in particular, finite sums, and proved that it is equivalent to the category of finite continuous actions on a profinite group. However, in our proof of this result it can be seen clearly that the argument goes through if one assume arbitrary sums, and the conclusion is now that the category is equivalent to the category (in this case a topos) of all continuous actions of the same profinite group. We shall write this two results in parallel:
Convention.The word [finite] between brackets will mean that the statement stands in fact for two statements: one assuming finite and the other not assuming finite. When the word finite appears not in between brackets it has its usual meaning, and there is only one statement (which assumes finite).
The description above the G0):
First we introduce the axiom G0) necessary to deal with the not finite case:
The original statements of G2) and G5):
G2) C has initial object 0, [finite] coproducts and quotient of objects by a finite group.
G5) F preserves initial object, [finite] sums, quotients by actions on finite groups and sends strict epimorphisms to surjections.
But in Grothendieck’s Galois Theory in nLab, the axiom was written in the finite case but G0) was also added. I think it’s strange and it should be revised. But I’m not good at writing in English, so is there anyone who will revise that?
(above three is referred from IV in On the Galois Theory of Grothendieck)
I guess my above message is wrong. I probably couldn’t understand that “not finite case” above G0) means the case where there exists s.t. isn’t a finite set.
1 to 35 of 35