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 beauty 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 constructive-mathematics cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 k-theory lie lie-theory limit 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010
    • (edited Feb 17th 2010)

    I made the former entry "fibered category" instead a redirect to Grothendieck fibration. It didn't contain any addition information and was just mixing up links. I also made category fibered in groupoids redirect to Grothendieck fibration

    I also edited the "Idea"-section at Grothendieck fibration slightly.

    That big query box there ought to be eventually removed, and the important information established in the discussion filled into a proper subsection in its own right.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010

    So what's a less evil idea, a Grothendieck fibration or a pseudofunctor? It seems like the grothendieck fibration is the "strictification" of a pseudofunctor (strictification as in how all bicategories are equivalent to strict 2-categories, not as in taking equivalence classes).

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010

    The fact that the equivalence of 2-categories is provided in one direction by a functor which can be understood as the strictification is a notion about a particular equivalence of 2-functors, not about the intrinsic properties of the definition of members in one of the 2-categories. True strictification is of course the composition and is called the first Street's construction on a lax functor (his paper Two constructions on a lax functor in Cahiers, now online). Fibration is much better having a property instead of non/motivated particular choice of the structure; but I have no arguments at which level would these be evil. I think the concept of a pseudofunctor is not evil as it has the inner cells where needed, but the particular choice of a pseudofunctor should be evil as a chocie of a member of the sub-2-category of all pseudofunctors corresponding to the same fibered category. But Toby and Mike will know much better this time.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010

    That's true, it's just that the notion of a pseudofunctor as a presheaf of categories (or groupoids) seems really useful to motivate algebraic stacks.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010
    • (edited Feb 17th 2010)

    really useful to motivate algebraic stacks.

    Now where did algebraic stacks come from here? Do you mean it is useful to motivate stacks ?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2010

    I'm writing an expository thing up about algebraic stacks, so that's what first came to mind, but yeah, I meant stacks.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2010
    • (edited Feb 18th 2010)

    Okay, I see.

    This is related to the general observation that I keep making, that there is a certain school of thinking in which happily all sorts of abstract category theory are used -- except that whenever a choice of site has to be made, alwyays only the algebraic site is considered. I find this curious. I know how it came about historically, but it's funny how people stick to it.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2010
    • (edited Feb 18th 2010)

    Toen has lecture notes on a generalization of algebraic stacks to general "geometric contexts", about which I might write something up on nLab. The thing is, defining a "generic" stack is probably only a quarter of the work required to define an algebraic, or more generally, geometric stack. Here are the notes if you haven't seen them before.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2010

    There is a stub entry geometric stack that is badly in need of attention. You'd do me a grand favor if you could put some items from your "expository thing" in there.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2010

    I'll first have to write up something about geometric contexts (tbh I haven't gotten to geometric stacks yet. I'm in the process of reading those notes.).

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2010
    • (edited Feb 18th 2010)

    good, whatever you have, put it in that entry. For instance you already gave me a useful reference here on the forum. You know that it is forbidden to mention anything useful here on the forum without making sure that it survived on the wiki in some form! ;-)

    So at least archive the reference to Toen's lecture notes in the entry on geometric stacks.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 10th 2010

    added two more references to Grothendieck fibration: Joyal's CatLab entry and Vistoli's notes.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2011

    I added a section “Properties” to Grothendieck fibration, as a place to put remarks about various things one can lift along a fibration (limits, colimits, factorizations).

  1. I have a small technical question here. It it true (as the article says) that “In a fibration, every weakly cartesian arrow is cartesian”? If so, can someone explain how to demonstrate this? I can see how to show that in an opfibration, every weakly cartesian arrow is cartesian, and dually, in a fibration that every weakly opcarteesian arrow is opcartesian, but I can’t see how to show the quoted statement.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 6th 2014

    I thought the following argument works. Suppose ϕ:ee\phi:e'\to e is weakly cartesian for p:EBp:E\to B. Since pp is a fibration, there is a cartesian arrow ψ:ee\psi:e''\to e with p(ψ)=p(ϕ)p(\psi) = p(\phi). Then the universal properties of ϕ\phi and ψ\psi give inverse isomorphisms eee'\to e'' and eee''\to e' lying over the identity. Thus, since ϕ\phi is isomorphic to a cartesian arrow, it is also cartesian.

  2. Yes, I think that works!

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 7th 2014

    Please be so kind to add a remark on this to the entry, so that the next reader stumbling over this will know.

  3. Alright, I added a summary of Mike’s hint that I think would have been enough to get me by. (I also explicitly introduced the terminology “cartesian lifting of f to e”, which I hope is okay with you all.)

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorJon Beardsley
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2017

    made “weakly cartesian” link to prefibered category since these seem like they should either be the same thing or are closely related. Would be interested to know if I’m wrong.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2017

    Thanks, I agree; I added more links and made the terminology align.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2020
    • (edited Mar 16th 2020)

    Sharon Hollander’s thesis constructs a Quillen equivalence between three model categories: Grothendieck fibrations in groupoids, pseudofunctors valued in groupoids, and presheaves valued in groupoids.

    Is there a written reference for the same statement with groupoids replaced by categories?

    There are in fact two ways to rectify a Grothendieck fibration: the left adjoint “adds formal pullbacks” and the right adjoint “chooses pullbacks along all possible morphisms”. Ideally, both would be discussed in such a source.

    I am only aware of a quasicategorical analog, as explained in the work of Joyal, Lurie, and Heuts-Moerdijk. But these sources do not talk about the middle category (the one with pseudofunctors), which, of course, can also be treated using available rectification tools. In any case, quasicategories are a bit of an overkill here.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2020

    Added a paragraph explaining Grothendieck fibrations versus presheaves of categories.

    diff, v84, current

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTime3 days ago

    Add a bit more language to the “idea” section to ensure the reader doesn’t start off with the mistaken assumption that Fib(B)Fib(B) is a full subcategory of Cat/BCat/B.

    diff, v87, current

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)