Not signed in (Sign In)

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 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 k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics 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 subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft 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.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2018

    I repaired the faulty ordering on the (n)\Im_{(n)} in Remark 2.6

    diff, v96, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2018

    Thanks! You deserve a special medal for chasing this error.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDean
    • CommentTimeNov 24th 2019
    • (edited Nov 24th 2019)

    Has anyone noticed that the lifting properties of a certain cohesion setup are similar to the lifting properties for a model category? The “domain and codomain fibration” section at Q-category makes me wonder how model categories might be defined in the langauge of differential cohesion (or just cohesion).

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2019

    I don’t know what you mean.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2019
    • (edited Nov 26th 2019)
    Differential cohesive toposes can be defined using various left Bousfield localizations of model categories of presheaves,
    equivalently, (reflective) ∞-localizations of ∞-categories of presheaves.

    Since Q-category is nothing but a reflective localization, this should explain the resemblance.
    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2023

    Maybe this is a better place to ask the question here. I want to understand the composites of the modalities ,,,&\flat,\sharp,\Im,\& on a differential cohesive topos. I’ve worked out the following composites so far just from the adjunctions \flat\dashv\sharp and &\Im\dashv\&, plus &\flat \Rightarrow \&, where the entry in the table is “rowcolumnrow \circ column”.

    & & & & \begin{array}{ccccc} \downarrow \circ \rightarrow & \flat & \sharp & \Im & \& \\ \flat & \flat & \flat & & \flat \\ \sharp & \sharp & \sharp & & \\ \Im & \flat & & \Im & \&\\ \& & \flat & & \Im & \& \\ \end{array}

    I think I’ve convinced myself now that &=\sharp\circ\& = \sharp, because:

    &= thΓ thi *i != thΓi ! thΓ th=. \sharp\circ\& = \nabla_{th} \circ \Gamma_{th} \circ i_* \circ i^! = \nabla_{th} \circ \Gamma \circ i^! \circ \nabla_{th} \circ \Gamma_{th} = \sharp.

    This uses Γ thi *=Γ\Gamma_{th} \circ i_* = \Gamma and Γi !=Γ th\Gamma\circ i^! = \Gamma_{th}, which are Proposition 2.5 on this page differential cohesive (infinity,1)-topos. Does that seem right?

    I could compute all the rest except one if I knew that Γi *=Γ th\Gamma \circ i^* = \Gamma_{th}. This seems plausible to me because Γ\Gamma and Γ th\Gamma_{th} are evaluation of (pre)sheaves at the terminal object and i *i^* is precomposition with an inclusion, so it ought to hold if i:CC thi:C \hookrightarrow C_{th} preserves the terminal object. This condition isn’t included in the definition of “infinitesimal neighborhood site” but it seems plausible – does it hold in examples?

    If Γi *=Γ th\Gamma \circ i^* = \Gamma_{th} holds then with similar calculations I think I can fill the table out to

    & & & & \begin{array}{ccccc} \downarrow \circ \rightarrow & \flat & \sharp & \Im & \& \\ \flat & \flat & \flat & \flat & \flat \\ \sharp & \sharp & \sharp & \sharp & \sharp \\ \Im & \flat & & \Im & \&\\ \& & \flat & \sharp & \Im & \& \\ \end{array}

    So the only one that would be missing is \Im \circ \sharp. That seems likely to be the most fraught, e.g. in ordinary cohesion ʃʃ \circ \sharp is strange, kind of like propositional truncation. But whatever it is, it’s an idempotent monad and we can compute its composites with all the other modalities, so if we include it as a primitive we’d have a complete 5×55\times 5 table.

    & & & & \begin{array}{ccccc} \downarrow \circ \rightarrow & \flat & \sharp & \Im & \& & \Im\sharp \\ \flat & \flat & \flat & \flat & \flat & \flat \\ \sharp & \sharp & \sharp & \sharp & \sharp & \sharp \\ \Im & \flat & \Im\sharp & \Im & \& & \Im\sharp \\ \& & \flat & \sharp & \Im & \& & \Im\sharp \\ \Im\sharp & \Im\sharp & \Im\sharp & \Im\sharp & \Im\sharp & \Im\sharp \\ \end{array}

    The composition rules are even easy to remember. When composing μν\mu\circ\nu, if μ\mu is \flat, \sharp, or \Im\sharp, then the result is μ\mu. Otherwise, the result is ν\nu, unless the composite is \Im\circ \sharp in which case the result is \Im\sharp.

    What would be a better name for \Im\sharp?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2023

    Oh hmm, I just found a comment back here that \Re is actually left exact in the intended models? So maybe I should be including it too.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    It’s great that you are looking into this!

    I’d need to think about the questions you ask. I’ll see if I get to it once some other urgent tasks are out of the way.

    But in Def. 3.5.6 of dcct (p. 264) the functor i:CC thi \,\colon\, C \hookrightarrow C_{th} is required to preserve finite products, hence the terminal object.

    This is certainly the case in the standard models of Cartesian spaces included into (graded-)infinitesimally thickened Cartesian spaces: 0\mathbb{R}^0 is the terminal object in all of these sites.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    Nice, thanks! That condition seems to be missing from the definition here, should we add it?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    Yes, I don’t remember any reason for not including that clause.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    Added product-preservation to definition of infinitesimal neighborhood site.

    diff, v102, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    I guess Γi *=Γ th\Gamma \circ i^* = \Gamma_{th} would also follow for the same reasons as Γi !=Γ th\Gamma \circ i^! = \Gamma_{th} and Γ thi *=Γ\Gamma_{th} \circ i_* = \Gamma if we knew that i !i_! was left exact, since then i !i *i_! \dashv i^* would also be a geometric morphism. And I guess i !i_! being left exact is equivalent to \Re being left exact, which maybe does hold in the models?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    It seems clear that i:CC thi \,\colon\, C \hookrightarrow C_{th} preserves finite limits in the intended examples/models. This should be sufficient for i !i_! to be left exact, by the Proposition recorded here. (?)

  1. I think the reduction \Re is not left exact (if I understand the setup correctly, reduction is an endofunctor on the differential cohesive topos). A counterexample is the intersection of a circle with a tangent, which can be computed as a pullback of reduced spaces with a non-reduced result.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    Yes, reduction is an endofunctor of the differential cohesive topos, which is =i !i *\Re = i_! i^* in terms of the adjoint quadruple i !i *i *i !i_! \dashv i^* \dashv i_* \dashv i^! relating the differential cohesive topos to an ordinary cohesive topos. If what you say is right, Felix, then that means that ii doesn’t preserve finite limits, so that i !i_! isn’t left exact? And so I guess at the level of sites, you would be saying that reduced C C^\infty-algebras may not be closed under pushout?

    I assume this must also be true in pure algebra. For instance, consider the parabola y=x 2y=x^2 and the line y=0y=0 sitting inside the affine plane. The corresponding cospan is R[x,y]/(yx 2)R[x,y]R[x]R[x,y]/(y-x^2) \leftarrow R[x,y] \to R[x], which consists of reduced algebras, but whose pushout R[x]/(x 2)R[x]/(x^2) is not reduced. That seems right to me.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    (Are we saying “differential cohesive” or “elastic” these days?)

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    True, my first “clear” statement in #13 was clearly wrong.

    I’d like to say “elastic” instead of “differential cohesive”.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    Re #17: Something to be aware of is a recent article by Christian Blohmann, which uses the adjective “elastic” with a different meaning, but essentially in the same context (sheaves on cartesian spaces).

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJan 18th 2023

    Yes, when I first saw the title of Blohmann’s preprint, I thought it was adopting the terminology from here, then quickly found it wasn’t.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2023
    • (edited Jan 19th 2023)

    For what it’s worth, the term “elastic \infty-topos” appears on the arXiv in 2020 (arXiv:2008.01101, p. 45)

    I have been using it since at least 2017, when it was meant to be the terminology adopted in version 2 of dcct (p. 325 in the version from August 2017).

    In August 2018 I gave the lecture series Categories and Toposes (schreiber) at Nesin Math Village, on the progression of cohesive, elastic and solid toposes, for which I used the lecture notes geometry of physics – categories and toposes in which the term “elastic toposes” is used since June 2018.

    I understand that a proper publication would be good; the above arXiv:2008.01101 is still waiting for its first referee report, though…

    But on absolute grounds, you’ll find that the terminology is beautifully evocative:

    • “cohesion” for (differential) topology, where points stick together, but loosely,

    • “elasticity” for differential geometry, where in manifolds the points stick together more stiffly, and where GG-structure (metric structure) models genuine elasticity phenomena such as in “hearing the shape of a drum

    • “solidity” for super-geometry where… but never mind this for the moment.

    It’s also a profound hat tip to Lawvere’s original choice of the Hegelian “cohesion”; since after “cohesion” the next quality which Hegel assigns to the “unity of space and time”, as it were, is “elasticity”, saying that this is the place of “Zeno’s dialectic of motion” (as referenced at elasticity – In natural philosophy) — and of course it’s exactly the differential calculus made available in elastic toposes which resolves Zeno’s paradox of motion.

    Looking now at Blohmann’s more recent arXiv:2301.02583 it seems he means to understand “elasticity” quite in this spirit. On p. 2 he wants elasticity to provide jet bundle calculus on diffeological spaces. That of course is what is provided by embedding diffeological spaces into the ambient elastic topos, where the jet comonad is the base change comonad along the infinitesimal shape modality. Maybe he might want to cite arXiv:1701.06238 on this topic.