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 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 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 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory 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 newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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 subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMar 28th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexI was talking to an ex-Adelaide student now at Oxford about some technicalities they were trying to track down regarding locally ringed spaces. I checked [[locally ringed topological space]], and found the Stacks Project reference was out of date. I replaced it with a link to the specific tag for the definition, at least.

   I was talking to an ex-Adelaide student now at Oxford about some technicalities they were trying to track down regarding locally ringed spaces. I checked locally ringed topological space, and found the Stacks Project reference was out of date. I replaced it with a link to the specific tag for the definition, at least.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeMar 28th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexI added a reformulation of the locality condition which doesn't refer to points. Out of curiosity, what technicalities did they want to track down?

   I added a reformulation of the locality condition which doesn’t refer to points.

   Out of curiosity, what technicalities did they want to track down?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMar 28th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexIngo, Something in EGA about fibred products of locally ringed spaces that referred to a proof in the first edition of Bourbaki's Algèbre Chapter 8. I found that Martin B linked on MO to some (now missing) notes. They would be handy I'm sure.

   Ingo,

   Something in EGA about fibred products of locally ringed spaces that referred to a proof in the first edition of Bourbaki’s Algèbre Chapter 8. I found that Martin B linked on MO to some (now missing) notes. They would be handy I’m sure.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMar 29th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIsn't it an even better formulation to just say that it is a "local ring" in the internal language of the topos of sheaves?

   Isn’t it an even better formulation to just say that it is a “local ring” in the internal language of the topos of sheaves?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMar 29th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexMaybe. But this student may wish to do something different. We were really just tracking down a reference chain to see what the algebraic "meat" of the construction is.

   Maybe. But this student may wish to do something different. We were really just tracking down a reference chain to see what the algebraic “meat” of the construction is.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMar 30th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexThat said, is the construction of products and pullbacks of locally ringed spaces, seen via the topos lens, easier? The hard nut at the core of this is that the pushout of local rings in the category of rings is not local anymore. One needs to reflect it back into the category of local rings. Even in the case of affine schemes one can't get away from this, methinks.

   That said, is the construction of products and pullbacks of locally ringed spaces, seen via the topos lens, easier? The hard nut at the core of this is that the pushout of local rings in the category of rings is not local anymore. One needs to reflect it back into the category of local rings. Even in the case of affine schemes one can’t get away from this, methinks.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMar 30th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI've never thought about that question. But I would expect that it would be easier to construct the pushout of local rings in the internal language than to have to deal explicitly with stalks or sections. By "reflect" you don't mean a literal category-theoretic reflection, do you? I didn't think local rings were reflective in the category of arbitrary rings; for one thing they aren't even a full subcategory, are they?

   I’ve never thought about that question. But I would expect that it would be easier to construct the pushout of local rings in the internal language than to have to deal explicitly with stalks or sections. By “reflect” you don’t mean a literal category-theoretic reflection, do you? I didn’t think local rings were reflective in the category of arbitrary rings; for one thing they aren’t even a full subcategory, are they?

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
   • CommentTimeMar 30th 2017
   • (edited Mar 30th 2017)
   • PermaLink
   Author: IngoBlechschmidt
   Format: MarkdownItexIndeed, I'd prefer to just say "local ring" in the internal language. And indeed, constructing fiber products $X \times_Z Y$ in the category of locally ringed locales is quite nice using the internal language. First, you construct the fiber product in the category of ringed locales. This is done in the naive way – take the fiber product $|X| \times_{|Y|} |Z|$ of the underlying locales, pull back the structure sheaves, and take their tensor product: $\mathcal{A} \coloneqq \pi_X^{-1}\mathcal{O}_X \otimes_{(...)^{-1}\mathcal{O}_Z} \pi_Y^{-1}\mathcal{O}_Y$. This ring will in general not be local [*]. Then, to obtain the fiber product in the category of locally ringed locales, construct, from the internal point of view of $Sh(|X| \times_{|Y|} |Z|)$, the spectrum of $\mathcal{A}$ (in a constructively sensible way, as a locale). Externally, this will result in a locale $P$ over $|X| \times_{|Y|} |Z|$ which is equipped with a local sheaf of rings. However, we are not quite done yet: There are morphisms $P \to X$ and $P \to Y$ as required for a fiber product, but these are only morphisms of ringed locales, not of locally ringed locales. To fix this, we have to restrict to a certain sublocale of $P$ – the greatest sublocale $P'$ where $P' \to X$ and $P' \to Y$ are morphisms of locally ringed locales [**]. This sublocale, together with the ring $\mathcal{A}|_{P'}$, is the desired fiber product. [*] Even in the easiest case – that all rings involved are fields – locality is not preserved: The rings $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$ are local, and the homomorphism $\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{C}$ is local, but $\mathbb{C} \otimes_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{C} \cong \mathbb{C} \otimes_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{R}[X]/(X^2+1) \cong \mathbb{C}[X]/(X^2+1) \cong \mathbb{C} \times \mathbb{C}$ is not. [**] This sublocale can be explicitly described. Recall that $P = Spec(\mathcal{A})$ is the classifying locale of the theory of filters in $\mathcal{A}$ (a filter is a constructively sensible substitute for the complement of a prime ideal). The sublocale $P'$ is the classifying locale of the theory of those filters $F$ in $\mathcal{A}$ which enjoy the following special property: If $x \otimes 1 \in F$, where $x : \pi_X^{-1}\mathcal{O}_X$, then $x$ is invertible in $\pi_X^{-1}\mathcal{O}_X$; and similarly with $\mathcal{O}_Y$ instead of $\mathcal{O}_X$. It's also possible to explicitly write down the frame of opens of this sublocale.

   Indeed, I’d prefer to just say “local ring” in the internal language.

   And indeed, constructing fiber products $X \times_Z Y$ in the category of locally ringed locales is quite nice using the internal language. First, you construct the fiber product in the category of ringed locales. This is done in the naive way – take the fiber product $|X| \times_{|Y|} |Z|$ of the underlying locales, pull back the structure sheaves, and take their tensor product: $\mathcal{A} \coloneqq \pi_X^{-1}\mathcal{O}_X \otimes_{(...)^{-1}\mathcal{O}_Z} \pi_Y^{-1}\mathcal{O}_Y$. This ring will in general not be local [*].

   Then, to obtain the fiber product in the category of locally ringed locales, construct, from the internal point of view of $Sh(|X| \times_{|Y|} |Z|)$, the spectrum of $\mathcal{A}$ (in a constructively sensible way, as a locale). Externally, this will result in a locale $P$ over $|X| \times_{|Y|} |Z|$ which is equipped with a local sheaf of rings.

   However, we are not quite done yet: There are morphisms $P \to X$ and $P \to Y$ as required for a fiber product, but these are only morphisms of ringed locales, not of locally ringed locales. To fix this, we have to restrict to a certain sublocale of $P$ – the greatest sublocale $P'$ where $P' \to X$ and $P' \to Y$ are morphisms of locally ringed locales [**]. This sublocale, together with the ring $\mathcal{A}|_{P'}$, is the desired fiber product.

   [*] Even in the easiest case – that all rings involved are fields – locality is not preserved: The rings $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$ are local, and the homomorphism $\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{C}$ is local, but $\mathbb{C} \otimes_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{C} \cong \mathbb{C} \otimes_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{R}[X]/(X^2+1) \cong \mathbb{C}[X]/(X^2+1) \cong \mathbb{C} \times \mathbb{C}$ is not.

   [**] This sublocale can be explicitly described. Recall that $P = Spec(\mathcal{A})$ is the classifying locale of the theory of filters in $\mathcal{A}$ (a filter is a constructively sensible substitute for the complement of a prime ideal). The sublocale $P'$ is the classifying locale of the theory of those filters $F$ in $\mathcal{A}$ which enjoy the following special property: If $x \otimes 1 \in F$, where $x : \pi_X^{-1}\mathcal{O}_X$, then $x$ is invertible in $\pi_X^{-1}\mathcal{O}_X$; and similarly with $\mathcal{O}_Y$ instead of $\mathcal{O}_X$. It’s also possible to explicitly write down the frame of opens of this sublocale.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMar 30th 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks both. I asked early on in the discussion if spaces involved were sober, and it's possible they are not, so I'm not sure using locales will.help.

   Thanks both. I asked early on in the discussion if spaces involved were sober, and it’s possible they are not, so I’m not sure using locales will.help.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2017
    • (edited Mar 30th 2017)
    • PermaLink
    Author: IngoBlechschmidt
    Format: MarkdownItexMike: You are right that the non-full subcategory of local rings is not reflective in the category of arbitrary rings. [***] However, the situation is better if we allow for rings over arbitrary locales. The non-full subcategory of local rings over arbitrary locales is reflective in the category of arbitrary rings over arbitrary locales. The reflector maps a possibly non-local ring $\mathcal{A}$ over some locale $X$ to the structure sheaf of the spectrum of $\mathcal{A}$ (constructed inside $Sh(X)$). Note that, since the embedding is not full, the reflection of a ring which already happens to be local is not in general isomorphic to that ring. [***] One can show that a ring $A$ admits a universal homomorphism $A \to A'$ to a local ring $A'$ if and only if $A$ contains exactly one prime ideal. In this case, the ring $A$ is already local and the universal localization is given by $A$ itself. (In constructive mathematics, one should probably rephrase "contains exactly one prime ideal" as "every element of $A$ is either nilpotent or invertible".)

    Mike: You are right that the non-full subcategory of local rings is not reflective in the category of arbitrary rings. [***]

    However, the situation is better if we allow for rings over arbitrary locales. The non-full subcategory of local rings over arbitrary locales is reflective in the category of arbitrary rings over arbitrary locales. The reflector maps a possibly non-local ring $\mathcal{A}$ over some locale $X$ to the structure sheaf of the spectrum of $\mathcal{A}$ (constructed inside $Sh(X)$).

    Note that, since the embedding is not full, the reflection of a ring which already happens to be local is not in general isomorphic to that ring.

    [***] One can show that a ring $A$ admits a universal homomorphism $A \to A'$ to a local ring $A'$ if and only if $A$ contains exactly one prime ideal. In this case, the ring $A$ is already local and the universal localization is given by $A$ itself. (In constructive mathematics, one should probably rephrase “contains exactly one prime ideal” as “every element of $A$ is either nilpotent or invertible”.)

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2017
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexIngo: that is all very cool. You should record it somewhere on the nLab.

    Ingo: that is all very cool. You should record it somewhere on the nLab.

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMar 30th 2017
    • PermaLink
    Author: DavidRoberts
    Format: MarkdownItex@Mike >you don’t mean a literal category-theoretic reflection, do you? Sure, take that as an informal notion.

    @Mike

    you don’t mean a literal category-theoretic reflection, do you?

    Sure, take that as an informal notion.

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorIngoBlechschmidt
    • CommentTimeApr 1st 2017
    • PermaLink
    Author: IngoBlechschmidt
    Format: MarkdownItexRe 11: Sure, I'll do that. I'm currently in the very last steps of [finishing my PhD thesis](https://rawgit.com/iblech/internal-methods/master/notes.pdf) and will then incorporate some topics of interest into the nLab.

    Re 11: Sure, I’ll do that. I’m currently in the very last steps of finishing my PhD thesis and will then incorporate some topics of interest into the nLab.