DOCSLIB.ORG

An Introduction to Grothendieck Toposes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Introduction to Grothendieck Toposes An introduction to Grothendieck toposes Olivia Caramello Introduction Toposes as generalized spaces Sheaves on a topological space An introduction to Grothendieck toposes Sheaves on a site Geometric morphisms Toposes as mathematical universes Olivia Caramello Classifying toposes University of Insubria (Como) and IHÉS Toposes as bridges Examples of ‘bridges’ Topics in Category Theory Topological Edinburgh, 11-13 March 2020 Galois theory Theories of presheaf type Topos-theoretic Fraïssé theorem Stone-type dualities General remarks Future directions An introduction to Grothendieck The “unifying notion” of topos toposes Olivia Caramello Introduction “It is the topos theme which is this “bed” or “deep river” Toposes as where come to be married geometry and algebra, topology and arithmetic, generalized spaces mathematical logic and category theory, the world of the “continuous” and Sheaves on a that of “discontinuous” or discrete structures. It is what I have conceived of topological space most broad to perceive with finesse, by the same language rich of Sheaves on a site Geometric geometric resonances, an “essence” which is common to situations morphisms most distant from each other coming from one region or another Toposes as of the vast universe of mathematical things”. mathematical universes A. Grothendieck Classifying toposes Toposes as bridges Topos theory can be regarded as a unifying subject in Mathema- Examples of tics, with great relevance as a framework for systematically inves- ‘bridges’ Topological tigating the relationships between different mathematical theories Galois theory and studying them by means of a multiplicity of different points of Theories of presheaf type view. Its methods are transversal to the various fields and com- Topos-theoretic plementary to their own specialized techniques. In spite of their Fraïssé theorem generality, the topos-theoretic techniques are liable to generate in- Stone-type dualities sights which would be hardly attainable otherwise and to establish General remarks deep connections that allow effective transfers of knowledge bet- Future directions ween different contexts. 2 / 66 An introduction to Grothendieck The multifaceted nature of toposes toposes Olivia Caramello Introduction The role of toposes as unifying spaces is intimately tied to their Toposes as multifaceted nature. generalized spaces Sheaves on a topological space For instance, a topos can be seen as: Sheaves on a site Geometric morphisms • a generalized space Toposes as mathematical universes • a mathematical universe Classifying toposes Toposes as • a theory modulo ‘Morita-equivalence’ bridges Examples of ‘bridges’ Topological In this course we shall review each of these classical points of Galois theory view, and then present the more recent theory of topos-theoretic Theories of presheaf type ‘bridges’, which combines all of them to provide tools for making Topos-theoretic Fraïssé theorem toposes effective means for studying mathematical theories from Stone-type multiple points of view, relating and unifying theories with each dualities other and constructing ‘bridges’ across them. General remarks Future directions 3 / 66 An introduction to Grothendieck A bit of history toposes Olivia Caramello Introduction • Toposes were originally introduced by Alexander Grothendieck in the Toposes as early 1960s, in order to provide a mathematical underpinning for the generalized spaces ‘exotic’ cohomology theories needed in algebraic geometry. Every Sheaves on a topological space topological space gives rise to a topos and every topos in Sheaves on a site Geometric Grothendieck’s sense can be considered as a ‘generalized space’. morphisms Toposes as • At the end of the same decade, William Lawvere and Myles Tierney mathematical universes realized that the concept of Grothendieck topos also yielded an Classifying abstract notion of mathematical universe within which one could carry toposes out most familiar set-theoretic constructions, but which also, thanks to Toposes as bridges the inherent ‘flexibility’ of the notion of topos, could be profitably Examples of exploited to construct ‘new mathematical worlds’ having particular ‘bridges’ Topological properties. Galois theory • A few years later, the theory of classifying toposes added a further Theories of presheaf type fundamental viewpoint to the above-mentioned ones: a topos can be Topos-theoretic Fraïssé theorem seen not only as a generalized space or as a mathematical universe, Stone-type but also as a suitable kind of first-order theory (considered up to a dualities general notion of equivalence of theories). General remarks Future directions 4 / 66 An introduction to Grothendieck Toposes as unifying ‘bridges’ toposes Olivia Caramello Introduction Since the times of my Ph.D. studies I have been developing a Toposes as theory and a number of techniques which allow to effectively use generalized spaces toposes as unifying spaces. Sheaves on a topological space Sheaves on a site The key idea is that the possibility of representing a topos in a Geometric morphisms multitude of different ways can be effectively exploited for building Toposes as unifying ‘bridges’ between theories having an equivalent, or mathematical universes strictly related, mathematical content. Classifying toposes These ‘bridges’ allow effective and often deep transfers of Toposes as notions, ideas and results across the theories. bridges Examples of ‘bridges’ In spite of the number of applications in different fields obtained Topological throughout the last years, the potential of these methods has just Galois theory started to be explored. Theories of presheaf type In fact, ‘bridges’ have proved useful not only for connecting Topos-theoretic Fraïssé theorem different theories with each other, but also for working inside a Stone-type given mathematical theory and investigating it from a multiplicity dualities General remarks of different points of view. Future directions 5 / 66 An introduction to Grothendieck Presheaves on a topological space toposes Olivia Caramello Definition Introduction Let X be a topological space. A presheaf F on X consists of the data: Toposes as generalized (i) for every open subset U of X, a set F (U) and spaces (ii) for every inclusion V ⊆ U of open subsets of X, a function Sheaves on a topological space rU;V : F (U) ! F (V ) subject to the conditions Sheaves on a site Geometric • rU;U is the identity map F (U) ! F (U) and morphisms • if W ⊆ V ⊆ U are three open subsets, then rU;W = rV ;W ◦ rU;V . Toposes as mathematical The maps r are called restriction maps, and we sometimes write sj universes U;V V instead of (s), if s 2 (U). Classifying rU;V F toposes A morphism of presheaves F ! G on a topological space X is a Toposes as collection of maps (U) ! (U) which is compatible with respect to bridges F G restriction maps. Examples of ‘bridges’ Topological Remark Galois theory Categorically, a presheaf F on X is a functor F : O(X)op ! Set, where Theories of presheaf type O(X) is the poset category corresponding to the lattice of open sets of Topos-theoretic the topological space X (with respect to the inclusion relation). Fraïssé theorem A morphism of presheaves is then just a natural transformation Stone-type dualities between the corresponding functors. op General remarks So we have a category [O(X) ;Set] of presheaves on X. Future directions 6 / 66 An introduction to Grothendieck Sheaves on a topological space toposes Olivia Caramello Definition Introduction A sheaf F on a topological space X is a presheaf on X satisfying the Toposes as additional conditions generalized spaces Sheaves on a (i) if U is an open set, if fVi | i 2 Ig is an open covering of U, and if topological space s;t 2 (U) are elements such that sj = tj for all i, then s = t; Sheaves on a site F Vi Vi Geometric (ii) if U is an open set, if fVi | i 2 Ig is an open covering of U, and if we morphisms have elements s 2 (V ) for each i, with the property that for each Toposes as i F i mathematical i;j 2 I, si jV \V = sj jV \V , then there is an element s 2 F (U) universes i j i j (necessarily unique by (i)) such that sj = s for each i. Classifying Vi i toposes A morphism of sheaves is defined as a morphism of the underlying Toposes as bridges presheaves. Examples of ‘bridges’ Examples Topological Galois theory • the sheaf of continuous real-valued functions on any topological Theories of space presheaf type • the sheaf of regular functions on a variety Topos-theoretic Fraïssé theorem • the sheaf of differentiable functions on a differentiable manifold Stone-type • the sheaf of holomorphic functions on a complex manifold dualities General remarks In each of the above examples, the restriction maps of the sheaf are the Future directions usual set-theoretic restrictions of functions to a subset. 7 / 66 An introduction to Grothendieck Sheaves from a categorical point of view toposes Olivia Caramello Sheaves arising in Mathematics are often equipped with more structure Introduction than the mere set-theoretic one; for example, one may wish to consider Toposes as sheaves of modules (resp. rings, abelian groups, ...) on a topological generalized space X. spaces Sheaves on a The natural categorical way of looking at these notions is to consider topological space Sheaves on a site them as models of certain (geometric) theories in a category Sh(X) of Geometric morphisms sheaves of sets. Toposes as mathematical Remarks universes op Classifying • Categorically, a sheaf is a functor O(X) ! Set which satisfies toposes certain conditions expressible in categorical language entirely in Toposes as ( ) bridges terms of the poset category O X and of the usual notion of Examples of covering on it. The category Sh(X) of sheaves on a topological ‘bridges’ space X is thus a full subcategory of the category [O(X)op;Set] of Topological presheaves on X. Galois theory • Theories of Many important properties of topological spacesX can be naturally presheaf type formulated as (invariant) properties of the categories Sh(X) of Topos-theoretic sheaves of sets on the spaces.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sheaves and Homotopy Theory
    SHEAVES AND HOMOTOPY THEORY DANIEL DUGGER The purpose of this note is to describe the homotopy-theoretic version of sheaf theory developed in the work of Thomason [14] and Jardine [7, 8, 9]; a few enhancements are provided here and there, but the bulk of the material should be credited to them. Their work is the foundation from which Morel and Voevodsky build their homotopy theory for schemes [12], and it is our hope that this exposition will be useful to those striving to understand that material. Our motivating examples will center on these applications to algebraic geometry. Some history: The machinery in question was invented by Thomason as the main tool in his proof of the Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture for Bott-periodic algebraic K-theory. He termed his constructions `hypercohomology spectra', and a detailed examination of their basic properties can be found in the first section of [14]. Jardine later showed how these ideas can be elegantly rephrased in terms of model categories (cf. [8], [9]). In this setting the hypercohomology construction is just a certain fibrant replacement functor. His papers convincingly demonstrate how many questions concerning algebraic K-theory or ´etale homotopy theory can be most naturally understood using the model category language. In this paper we set ourselves the specific task of developing some kind of homotopy theory for schemes. The hope is to demonstrate how Thomason's and Jardine's machinery can be built, step-by-step, so that it is precisely what is needed to solve the problems we encounter. The papers mentioned above all assume a familiarity with Grothendieck topologies and sheaf theory, and proceed to develop the homotopy-theoretic situation as a generalization of the classical case.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Grothendieck: a Country Known Only by Name Pierre Cartier
    Alexander Grothendieck: A Country Known Only by Name Pierre Cartier To the memory of Monique Cartier (1932–2007) This article originally appeared in Inference: International Review of Science, (inference-review.com), volume 1, issue 1, October 15, 2014), in both French and English. It was translated from French by the editors of Inference and is reprinted here with their permission. An earlier version and translation of this Cartier essay also appeared under the title “A Country of which Nothing is Known but the Name: Grothendieck and ‘Motives’,” in Leila Schneps, ed., Alexandre Grothendieck: A Mathematical Portrait (Somerville, MA: International Press, 2014), 269–88. Alexander Grothendieck died on November 19, 2014. The Notices is planning a memorial article for a future issue. here is no need to introduce Alexander deepening of the concept of a geometric point.1 Such Grothendieck to mathematicians: he is research may seem trifling, but the metaphysi- one of the great scientists of the twenti- cal stakes are considerable; the philosophical eth century. His personality should not problems it engenders are still far from solved. be confused with his reputation among In its ultimate form, this research, Grothendieck’s Tgossips, that of a man on the margin of society, proudest, revolved around the concept of a motive, who undertook the deliberate destruction of his or pattern, viewed as a beacon illuminating all the work, or at any rate the conscious destruction of incarnations of a given object through their various his own scientific school, even though it had been ephemeral cloaks. But this concept also represents enthusiastically accepted and developed by first- the point at which his incomplete work opened rank colleagues and disciples.
    [Show full text]
  • Topos Theory
    Topos Theory Olivia Caramello Sheaves on a site Grothendieck topologies Grothendieck toposes Basic properties of Grothendieck toposes Subobject lattices Topos Theory Balancedness The epi-mono factorization Lectures 7-14: Sheaves on a site The closure operation on subobjects Monomorphisms and epimorphisms Exponentials Olivia Caramello The subobject classifier Local operators For further reading Topos Theory Sieves Olivia Caramello In order to ‘categorify’ the notion of sheaf of a topological space, Sheaves on a site Grothendieck the first step is to introduce an abstract notion of covering (of an topologies Grothendieck object by a family of arrows to it) in a category. toposes Basic properties Definition of Grothendieck toposes Subobject lattices • Given a category C and an object c 2 Ob(C), a presieve P in Balancedness C on c is a collection of arrows in C with codomain c. The epi-mono factorization The closure • Given a category C and an object c 2 Ob(C), a sieve S in C operation on subobjects on c is a collection of arrows in C with codomain c such that Monomorphisms and epimorphisms Exponentials The subobject f 2 S ) f ◦ g 2 S classifier Local operators whenever this composition makes sense. For further reading • We say that a sieve S is generated by a presieve P on an object c if it is the smallest sieve containing it, that is if it is the collection of arrows to c which factor through an arrow in P. If S is a sieve on c and h : d ! c is any arrow to c, then h∗(S) := fg | cod(g) = d; h ◦ g 2 Sg is a sieve on d.
    [Show full text]
  • Noncommutative Stacks
    Noncommutative Stacks Introduction One of the purposes of this work is to introduce a noncommutative analogue of Artin’s and Deligne-Mumford algebraic stacks in the most natural and sufficiently general way. We start with quasi-coherent modules on fibered categories, then define stacks and prestacks. We define formally smooth, formally unramified, and formally ´etale cartesian functors. This provides us with enough tools to extend to stacks the glueing formalism we developed in [KR3] for presheaves and sheaves of sets. Quasi-coherent presheaves and sheaves on a fibered category. Quasi-coherent sheaves on geometric (i.e. locally ringed topological) spaces were in- troduced in fifties. The notion of quasi-coherent modules was extended in an obvious way to ringed sites and toposes at the moment the latter appeared (in SGA), but it was not used much in this generality. Recently, the subject was revisited by D. Orlov in his work on quasi-coherent sheaves in commutative an noncommutative geometry [Or] and by G. Laumon an L. Moret-Bailly in their book on algebraic stacks [LM-B]. Slightly generalizing [R4], we associate with any functor F (regarded as a category over a category) the category of ’quasi-coherent presheaves’ on F (otherwise called ’quasi- coherent presheaves of modules’ or simply ’quasi-coherent modules’) and study some basic properties of this correspondence in the case when the functor defines a fibered category. Imitating [Gir], we define the quasi-topology of 1-descent (or simply ’descent’) and the quasi-topology of 2-descent (or ’effective descent’) on the base of a fibered category (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1307.5568V2 [Math.AG]
    PARTIAL POSITIVITY: GEOMETRY AND COHOMOLOGY OF q-AMPLE LINE BUNDLES DANIEL GREB AND ALEX KURONYA¨ To Rob Lazarsfeld on the occasion of his 60th birthday Abstract. We give an overview of partial positivity conditions for line bundles, mostly from a cohomological point of view. Although the current work is to a large extent of expository nature, we present some minor improvements over the existing literature and a new result: a Kodaira-type vanishing theorem for effective q-ample Du Bois divisors and log canonical pairs. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Overview of the theory of q-ample line bundles 4 2.1. Vanishing of cohomology groups and partial ampleness 4 2.2. Basic properties of q-ampleness 7 2.3. Sommese’s geometric q-ampleness 15 2.4. Ample subschemes, and a Lefschetz hyperplane theorem for q-ample divisors 17 3. q-Kodaira vanishing for Du Bois divisors and log canonical pairs 19 References 23 1. Introduction Ampleness is one of the central notions of algebraic geometry, possessing the extremely useful feature that it has geometric, numerical, and cohomological characterizations. Here we will concentrate on its cohomological side. The fundamental result in this direction is the theorem of Cartan–Serre–Grothendieck (see [Laz04, Theorem 1.2.6]): for a complete arXiv:1307.5568v2 [math.AG] 23 Jan 2014 projective scheme X, and a line bundle L on X, the following are equivalent to L being ample: ⊗m (1) There exists a positive integer m0 = m0(X, L) such that L is very ample for all m ≥ m0. (2) For every coherent sheaf F on X, there exists a positive integer m1 = m1(X, F, L) ⊗m for which F ⊗ L is globally generated for all m ≥ m1.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2008.10677V3 [Math.CT] 9 Jul 2021 Space Ha Hoyepiil Ea Ihtewr Fj Ea N194 in Leray J
    On sheaf cohomology and natural expansions ∗ Ana Luiza Tenório, IME-USP, [email protected] Hugo Luiz Mariano, IME-USP, [email protected] July 12, 2021 Abstract In this survey paper, we present Čech and sheaf cohomologies – themes that were presented by Koszul in University of São Paulo ([42]) during his visit in the late 1950s – we present expansions for categories of generalized sheaves (i.e, Grothendieck toposes), with examples of applications in other cohomology theories and other areas of mathematics, besides providing motivations and historical notes. We conclude explaining the difficulties in establishing a cohomology theory for elementary toposes, presenting alternative approaches by considering constructions over quantales, that provide structures similar to sheaves, and indicating researches related to logic: constructive (intuitionistic and linear) logic for toposes, sheaves over quantales, and homological algebra. 1 Introduction Sheaf Theory explicitly began with the work of J. Leray in 1945 [46]. The nomenclature “sheaf” over a space X, in terms of closed subsets of a topological space X, first appeared in 1946, also in one of Leray’s works, according to [21]. He was interested in solving partial differential equations and build up a strong tool to pass local properties to global ones. Currently, the definition of a sheaf over X is given by a “coherent family” of structures indexed on the lattice of open subsets of X or as étale maps (= local homeomorphisms) into X. Both arXiv:2008.10677v3 [math.CT] 9 Jul 2021 formulations emerged in the late 1940s and early 1950s in Cartan’s seminars and, in modern terms, they are intimately related by an equivalence of categories.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes on Sheaves, Stacks, and Higher Stacks
    Lecture Notes on Sheaves, Stacks, and Higher Stacks Adrian Clough September 16, 2016 2 Contents Introduction - 26.8.2016 - Adrian Cloughi 1 Grothendieck Topologies, and Sheaves: Definitions and the Closure Property of Sheaves - 2.9.2016 - NeˇzaZager1 1.1 Grothendieck topologies and sheaves.........................2 1.1.1 Presheaves...................................2 1.1.2 Coverages and sheaves.............................2 1.1.3 Reflexive subcategories.............................3 1.1.4 Coverages and Grothendieck pretopologies..................4 1.1.5 Sieves......................................6 1.1.6 Local isomorphisms..............................9 1.1.7 Local epimorphisms.............................. 10 1.1.8 Examples of Grothendieck topologies..................... 13 1.2 Some formal properties of categories of sheaves................... 14 1.3 The closure property of the category of sheaves on a site.............. 16 2 Universal Property of Sheaves, and the Plus Construction - 9.9.2016 - Kenny Schefers 19 2.1 Truncated morphisms and separated presheaves................... 19 2.2 Grothendieck's plus construction........................... 19 2.3 Sheafification in one step................................ 19 2.3.1 Canonical colimit................................ 19 2.3.2 Hypercovers of height 1............................ 19 2.4 The universal property of presheaves......................... 20 2.5 The universal property of sheaves........................... 20 2.6 Sheaves on a topological space............................ 21 3 Categories
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Categorical Logic
    Notes on Categorical Logic Anand Pillay & Friends Spring 2017 These notes are based on a course given by Anand Pillay in the Spring of 2017 at the University of Notre Dame. The notes were transcribed by Greg Cousins, Tim Campion, L´eoJimenez, Jinhe Ye (Vincent), Kyle Gannon, Rachael Alvir, Rose Weisshaar, Paul McEldowney, Mike Haskel, ADD YOUR NAMES HERE. 1 Contents Introduction . .3 I A Brief Survey of Contemporary Model Theory 4 I.1 Some History . .4 I.2 Model Theory Basics . .4 I.3 Morleyization and the T eq Construction . .8 II Introduction to Category Theory and Toposes 9 II.1 Categories, functors, and natural transformations . .9 II.2 Yoneda's Lemma . 14 II.3 Equivalence of categories . 17 II.4 Product, Pullbacks, Equalizers . 20 IIIMore Advanced Category Theoy and Toposes 29 III.1 Subobject classifiers . 29 III.2 Elementary topos and Heyting algebra . 31 III.3 More on limits . 33 III.4 Elementary Topos . 36 III.5 Grothendieck Topologies and Sheaves . 40 IV Categorical Logic 46 IV.1 Categorical Semantics . 46 IV.2 Geometric Theories . 48 2 Introduction The purpose of this course was to explore connections between contemporary model theory and category theory. By model theory we will mostly mean first order, finitary model theory. Categorical model theory (or, more generally, categorical logic) is a general category-theoretic approach to logic that includes infinitary, intuitionistic, and even multi-valued logics. Say More Later. 3 Chapter I A Brief Survey of Contemporary Model Theory I.1 Some History Up until to the seventies and early eighties, model theory was a very broad subject, including topics such as infinitary logics, generalized quantifiers, and probability logics (which are actually back in fashion today in the form of con- tinuous model theory), and had a very set-theoretic flavour.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2012.08669V1 [Math.CT] 15 Dec 2020 2 Preface
    Sheaf Theory Through Examples (Abridged Version) Daniel Rosiak December 12, 2020 arXiv:2012.08669v1 [math.CT] 15 Dec 2020 2 Preface After circulating an earlier version of this work among colleagues back in 2018, with the initial aim of providing a gentle and example-heavy introduction to sheaves aimed at a less specialized audience than is typical, I was encouraged by the feedback of readers, many of whom found the manuscript (or portions thereof) helpful; this encouragement led me to continue to make various additions and modifications over the years. The project is now under contract with the MIT Press, which would publish it as an open access book in 2021 or early 2022. In the meantime, a number of readers have encouraged me to make available at least a portion of the book through arXiv. The present version represents a little more than two-thirds of what the professionally edited and published book would contain: the fifth chapter and a concluding chapter are missing from this version. The fifth chapter is dedicated to toposes, a number of more involved applications of sheaves (including to the \n- queens problem" in chess, Schreier graphs for self-similar groups, cellular automata, and more), and discussion of constructions and examples from cohesive toposes. Feedback or comments on the present work can be directed to the author's personal email, and would of course be appreciated. 3 4 Contents Introduction 7 0.1 An Invitation . .7 0.2 A First Pass at the Idea of a Sheaf . 11 0.3 Outline of Contents . 20 1 Categorical Fundamentals for Sheaves 23 1.1 Categorical Preliminaries .
    [Show full text]
  • SHEAVES, TOPOSES, LANGUAGES Acceleration Based on A
    Chapter 7 Logic of behavior: Sheaves, toposes, and internal languages 7.1 How can we prove our machine is safe? Imagine you are trying to design a system of interacting components. You wouldn’t be doing this if you didn’t have a goal in mind: you want the system to do something, to behave in a certain way. In other words, you want to restrict its possibilities to a smaller set: you want the car to remain on the road, you want the temperature to remain in a particular range, you want the bridge to be safe for trucks to pass. Out of all the possibilities, your system should only permit some. Since your system is made of components that interact in specified ways, the possible behavior of the whole—in any environment—is determined by the possible behaviors of each of its components in their local environments, together with the precise way in which they interact.1 In this chapter, we will discuss a logic wherein one can describe general types of behavior that occur over time, and prove properties of a larger-scale system from the properties and interaction patterns of its components. For example, suppose we want an autonomous vehicle to maintain a distance of some safe R from other objects. To do so, several components must interact: a 2 sensor that approximates the real distance by an internal variable S0, a controller that uses S0 to decide what action A to take, and a motor that moves the vehicle with an 1 The well-known concept of emergence is not about possibilities, it is about prediction.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Grothendieck Heng Li
    Alexander Grothendieck Heng Li Alexander Grothendieck's life Alexander Grothendieck was a German born French mathematician. Grothendieck was born on March 28, 1928 in Berlin. His parents were Johanna Grothendieck and Alexander Schapiro. When he was five years old, Hitler became the Chancellor of the German Reich, and called to boycott all Jewish businesses, and ordered civil servants who were not of the Aryan race to retire. Grothendieck's father was a Russian Jew and at that time, he used the name Tanaroff to hide his Jewish Identity. Even with a Russian name it is still too dangerous for Jewish people to stay in Berlin. In May 1933, his father, Alexander Schapiro, left to Paris because the rise of Nazism. In December of the same year, his mother left Grothendieck with a foster family Heydorns in Hamburg, and joined Schapiro in Paris. While Alexander Grothendieck was with his foster family, Grothendieck's parents went to Spain and partici- pated in the Spanish Civil War. After the Spanish Civil War, Johanna(Hanka) Grothendieck and Alexander Schapiro returned to France. In Hamburg, Alexander Grothendieck attended to elementary schools and stud- ied at the Gymnasium (a secondary school). The Heydorns family are a part of the resistance against Hitler; they consider that it was too dangerous for young Grothendieck to stay in Germany, so in 1939 the Heydorns sent him to France to join his parents. However, because of the outbreak of World War II all German in France were required by law to be sent to special internment camps. Grothendieck and his parents were arrested and sent to the camp, but fortunately young Alexander Grothendieck was allowed to continue his education at a village school that was a few miles away from the camp.
    [Show full text]
  • A Grothendieck Site Is a Small Category C Equipped with a Grothendieck Topology T
    Contents 5 Grothendieck topologies 1 6 Exactness properties 10 7 Geometric morphisms 17 8 Points and Boolean localization 22 5 Grothendieck topologies A Grothendieck site is a small category C equipped with a Grothendieck topology T . A Grothendieck topology T consists of a collec- tion of subfunctors R ⊂ hom( ;U); U 2 C ; called covering sieves, such that the following hold: 1) (base change) If R ⊂ hom( ;U) is covering and f : V ! U is a morphism of C , then f −1(R) = fg : W ! V j f · g 2 Rg is covering for V. 2) (local character) Suppose R;R0 ⊂ hom( ;U) and R is covering. If f −1(R0) is covering for all f : V ! U in R, then R0 is covering. 3) hom( ;U) is covering for all U 2 C . 1 Typically, Grothendieck topologies arise from cov- ering families in sites C having pullbacks. Cover- ing families are sets of maps which generate cov- ering sieves. Suppose that C has pullbacks. A topology T on C consists of families of sets of morphisms ffa : Ua ! Ug; U 2 C ; called covering families, such that 1) Suppose fa : Ua ! U is a covering family and y : V ! U is a morphism of C . Then the set of all V ×U Ua ! V is a covering family for V. 2) Suppose ffa : Ua ! Vg is covering, and fga;b : Wa;b ! Uag is covering for all a. Then the set of composites ga;b fa Wa;b −−! Ua −! U is covering. 3) The singleton set f1 : U ! Ug is covering for each U 2 C .
    [Show full text]