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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics 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 finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory 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 lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number 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 string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2016
    • (edited Nov 7th 2016)

    Max New: at (129.10.9.38) has put a query on the generalized universal bundle entry. It says:

    I don’t understand the above diagram, what is the point *X* \to X in question? and how does this relate to the universal bundle? In particular, there is a sequence below that has a map from Ω ptE pt\Omega_{pt} \to \mathbf{E}_{pt} but I don’t see how to construct that from the above.

    So I think this is a typo, but I don’t know enough to correct it.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2016

    Hi, this was me (and my name really is Max New).

    After looking at the loop space object page more closely I’m pretty sure XX should be BB, gg should be the identity and then PP would be E ptE_{pt}, though the text is also not explicit about the fact that E ptE_{pt} can be constructed as a comma object, so I’d like confirmation before changing it.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2016
    • (edited Nov 7th 2016)

    Max, I carefully did not assume your title was a pseudonym. (The lowercase n was a typo, sorry). The ‘named’ was to allow for the possibility that it was! I have amended the wording.

    Welcome to the forum.

    My point in copying your query here was to draw the attention of others to your query. (Putting a query on a page is not that good a way of asking it as some pages are rarely visited.)

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2016

    On the other hand, the nForum is a good way to ask questions about nLab articles. :-)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 7th 2016

    Welcome to the forum, Max!

    Regarding the actual question, a couple of paragraphs above the text defined “a BB-bundle on some object XX”, so I expect the intent of the author is that we are still in that situation; gg is the classifying morphism of the BB-bundle PXP\to X. The point *X\ast\to X is arbitary; what the text would then be trying to say is that the fiber of PXP\to X over any point *X\ast \to X is Ω ptB\Omega_{pt} B, although if this is the intent then the surrounding text needs clarification. In particular I think the left-hand square in the diagram should be a strict pullback, hence have no \Downarrow in it; the right one would be a strict pullback if it had E ptBE_{pt} \to B on the right rather than *B\ast \to B. In the special case when XX is BB and gg is the identity, then P=E ptP = E_{pt}, and we see that the fiber of the generalized universal bundle itself over the basepoint is the loop space Ω ptB\Omega_{pt} B. Perhaps it would be clearer to state only that case, as you suggest. Anyone else have an opinion?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2016

    Mike, I don’t see how the same Ω ptB\Omega_{pt} B could arise from an arbitrary pointed XX. For instance, what if X=*X = * and gg picks out a point that has no paths from pt? Then PP would be empty and so would Ω pt\Omega_{pt}, but I think Ω pt\Omega_{pt} should be all the endomorphisms of pt.

  1. I would definitely state the basic case, where one just takes the fibre using the same point, on its own first, straight after the first definition in the section (i.e. before the XX enters).

    I also agree with Max: the claim is wrong as stated. What one gets in general is the ’object of paths’ from one of the points to the other. This is certainly not isomorphic or even homotopy equivalent (where this is defined using the interval object) to the loop object in general, as his example shows.

    I would say that the use of both ’lax pullback’ and ’comma object’ is also not optimal. I would be fine with ’homotopy pullback’, but best would probably be ’double mapping co-cylinder’.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2016

    You’re right, probably whoever wrote it was assuming that BB was connected. And I also would prefer “homotopy pullback” – “lax pullback” and “comma object” sound too directed.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2016
    • (edited Nov 8th 2016)

    Yes, if there is a path (with respect to the given interval object) between the two points (being careful about direction if the interval object does not an involution structure), then one will be able to use the universal property of the double mapping co-cylinder to construct a homotopy equivalence between the loop object and the object of paths.

    It seems that the original author did intend for directed-ness to be considered. However, I still think that ’homotopy pullback’ stays closer to the motivating examples, whilst not disallowing being understood to mean ’directed homotopy pullback’. Because probably, if one really wishes to keep the directed-ness in mind, then one should speak of a directed loop space object, etc: one has to be careful about this everywhere.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 8th 2016

    I don’t really think it makes sense to use any of this language in the directed case.

  2. Yes, I agree really. In particular, thinking about it fractionally more, I think one needs the involution structure to get both directions of the homotopy equivalence I was referring to in the first paragraph of #9.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2016

    It looks like Urs Schreiber added this: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/generalized+universal+bundle/12, is there an easy way to ping him to this thread (besides just e-mail of course)?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2016

    I don’t know of any ping mechanism, but my expectation is that Urs reads every nForum post. I’d email him if he doesn’t reply in a day or two.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2016

    Or at least give him the weekend off.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeNov 10th 2016

    Indeed, David. :-)

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2016

    It would be more in the wiki spirit to just fix it ourselves; Urs is plenty busy already.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2016

    Ok, I’ve updated it based on my understanding. I’d like to argue against making the section more homotopy-y because the page is explicitly meant to also describe various higher Grothendieck constructions, and I was using it to get a handle on the correspondence between functors into a category and normal lax functors to Dist, so the more categorical terminology was quite helpful.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2016

    Looks fine to me, thanks!

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)