DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2001.09075V1 [Math.AG] 24 Jan 2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2001.09075V1 [Math.AG] 24 Jan 2020 A topos-theoretic view of difference algebra Ivan Tomašić Ivan Tomašić, School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary Uni- versity of London, London, E1 4NS, United Kingdom E-mail address: [email protected] arXiv:2001.09075v1 [math.AG] 24 Jan 2020 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary . Secondary . Key words and phrases. difference algebra, topos theory, cohomology, enriched category Contents Introduction iv Part I. E GA 1 1. Category theory essentials 2 2. Topoi 7 3. Enriched category theory 13 4. Internal category theory 25 5. Algebraic structures in enriched categories and topoi 41 6. Topos cohomology 51 7. Enriched homological algebra 56 8. Algebraicgeometryoverabasetopos 64 9. Relative Galois theory 70 10. Cohomologyinrelativealgebraicgeometry 74 11. Group cohomology 76 Part II. σGA 87 12. Difference categories 88 13. The topos of difference sets 96 14. Generalised difference categories 111 15. Enriched difference presheaves 121 16. Difference algebra 126 17. Difference homological algebra 136 18. Difference algebraic geometry 142 19. Difference Galois theory 148 20. Cohomologyofdifferenceschemes 151 21. Cohomologyofdifferencealgebraicgroups 157 22. Comparison to literature 168 Bibliography 171 iii Introduction 0.1. The origins of difference algebra. Difference algebra can be traced back to considerations involving recurrence relations, recursively defined sequences, rudi- mentary dynamical systems, functional equations and the study of associated dif- ference equations. Let k be a commutative ring with identity, and let us write R = kN for the ring (k-algebra) of k-valued sequences, and let σ : R R be the shift endomorphism given by → σ(x0, x1,...) = (x1, x2,...). The first difference operator ∆ : R R is defined as → ∆= σ id, − and, for r N, the r-th difference operator ∆r : R R is the r-th compositional power/iterate∈ of ∆, i.e., → r r ∆r = (σ id)r = ( 1)r−iσi. − i − i=0 X Classically, a difference equation is a polynomial expression involving an unknown x for a sequence in R, and its iterated differences. More precisely, given a polynomial F k[X ,X ,...,X ], an expression ∈ 0 1 r F (x, ∆(x),..., ∆r(x)) =0 is a polynomial difference equation in an unknown x. In view of the fact that iterated difference operators can be expressed in terms of iterated shifts, the above equation can be rewritten as F˜(x, σ(x),...,σr(x))=0, for some polynomial F˜ k[X0,X1,...,Xr]. Historically, the terminology∈ shifted in favour of the shift endomorphisms, so now we most commonly refer to the latter form as a polynomial difference equation, and its solutions are sought in an abstract difference k-algebra (R, σ), consisting of a k-algebra R and an endomorphism σ : R R. → 0.2. Algebraic structures with operators. Abstract difference and differential algebra were founded by Ritt in 1930s as the study of algebraic structures equipped with difference and differential operators. In this classical (or strict) point of view, the operators are superimposed onto classical algebraic structures. In particular, a difference ring is a pair (R, σR), where R is a commutative ring with identity and σ : R R is an endomorphism. A morphism f : (R, σ ) (S, σ ) is a commutative→ diagram R → S iv f R S σR σS f R S or ring homomorphisms. We obtain the category σ-Rng of difference rings. If R σ-Rng, a (difference) R-module is a pair ∈ (M, σM ), where M is a module for the underlying ring of R, and σM : M M is an additive endomorphism such that, for r R and m M, → ∈ ∈ σM (r.m)= σR(r).σM (m). A morphism f : (M, σM ) (N, σN ) is a homomorphism f of the underlying modules satisfying → f σ = σ f. ◦ M N ◦ We write R-Mod for the category of difference modules over the difference ring R. Similarly, we define difference analogues of other types of mathematical struc- tures, including sets, groups, abelian groups, algebras over a difference ring, etc. A differential ring is a pair (R,δ) consisting of a ring R with a derivation δ : R R. There exist suitable notions of differential modules and other algebraic objects.→ It is possible to consider multiple difference or differential operators, and the two types of operators can be combined into difference-differential structures, where the interaction between the operators is often prescribed. The differential side of the story developed much quicker. Most notably, it was formulated in a manner analogous to the algebraic geometry of the time by Kolchin, who studied differential varieties over differential fields, developed the Galois theory of differential equations, and studied difference algebraic groups ([39]). A comparable level of development of difference algebra had to wait until Cohn’s monograph [19], where the difference analogue of commutative algebra needed for formulating ‘difference algebraic geometry’ was established. The Galois theory of difference equations was described by van der Put and Singer in [57]. The ultimate exposition of the classical view of difference algebra is Levin’s recent book [41], which covers Cohn’s material from a contemporary point of view and expands it with a selection of important developments established since. 0.3. Model theory of fields with operators. Model theory has been highly successful in the study of fields with operators, both difference and differential. To focus just on the difference side of the story, existentially closed difference fields were axiomatised by Macintyre [43] and Chatzidakis-Hrushovski [17] by the theory called ACFA, but the classification of definable sets was made difficult by the lack of full quantifier elimination for ACFA. v Nevertheless, Zilber’s trichotomy has been established by Chatzidakis, Hrushovski and Peterzil in [17] and [18], stating that a one-dimensional definable set is either in correspondence with an algebraic curve over a definable one-dimensional field, or it is locally modular (it arises from a definable group G such that every definable subset of Gn is a finite Boolean combination of cosets of definable groups), or it is trivial in the sense that all definable relations on X are reducible to binary relations. These results, coupled with methods and ideas of stability/simplicity theory, found spectacular applications in number theory, such as Hrushovski’s model- theoretic proof of the Manin-Mumford conjecture [29], and more recently in al- gebraic dynamics, such as in the work of Medvedev-Scanlon [46]. The long-standing conjecture by Macintyre that ACFA is the first-order theory of difference fields n (F¯ , x xp ) p 7→ consisting of the algebraic closure of a finite field Fp equipped with a power of the Frobenius automorphism was settled by Hrushovski in [30]. 0.4. Difference algebraic geometry. The scheme-theoretic development of dif- ference algebraic geometry originates in Hrushovski’s paper [30] with the definition of the fixed-point spectrum Specσ(A) of a difference ring (A, σ). Cohn’s monograph provides a wealth of information needed for studying such schemes, but a number of new results had to be developed from first principles. This context was further explored by Wibmer and the author. The drawback of this approach is that it is not possible to recover the difference ring (A, σ) by taking the global sections of the structure sheaf of Specσ(A) in general. More recently, Wibmer and the author adopted the position that it is beneficial to adopt a functorial view, where a difference scheme associated to the difference ring (A, σ) is treated as a representable functor from the category of difference rings to the category of sets R σ-Rng(A, R), 7→ to be thought of as the realisation functor of the difference scheme Spec(A, σ). By Yoneda’s lemma, the difference ring (A, σ) can be recovered from its realisation functor, which parallels the situation in classical algebraic geometry. 0.5. In search of difference cohomology. The goal of this manuscript is to identify the right context for introducing cohomology into difference algebra and geometry. The author took the following path to enlightenment in his quest for difference cohomology. Cartesian closed categories. Classical algebra is founded in the category of sets, where we have the natural ‘currying’ isomorphism Set(X Y,Z) Set(X, Set(Y,Z)). × ≃ Homological algebra is rooted in a few basic dualities that stem from it, such as the following hom-tensor duality. Given a commutative ring with identity R, and R-modules A, B, C, the object R-Mod(B, C) is again an R-module, and we have a natural isomorphism R-Mod(A B, C) R-Mod(A, R-Mod(B, C)). ⊗R ≃ vi Any attempt to develop homological algebra in the strict difference context described in 0.2 encounters the following insurmountable obstacles. If Y and Z are difference sets, the object σ-Set(Y,Z) is a bare set, and not a difference set, so we cannot hope for a difference analogue of the currying isomorphism in the strict difference context. Similarly, if R σ-Rng is a difference ring, and B, C are difference R-modules, the set of difference∈ R-module homomorphisms R-Mod(B, C) is not a difference R-module in general. Hence, we cannot hope for a difference analogue of the hom-tensor duality in the confines of the strict difference context. The above properties can be restated by saying that the category of sets is cartesian closed, and that the category of modules over a commutative unital ring is monoidal closed. We now show how to make difference sets into a cartesian closed category, and how to make the category of difference modules over a difference ring into a monoidal closed category. Enriching difference algebra. Consider the difference set N = (N,i i + 1).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1.Introduction Given a Class Σ of Morphisms of a Category X, We Can Construct a Cat- Egory of Fractions X[Σ−1] Where All Morphisms of Σ Are Invertible
    Pre-Publicac¸´ oes˜ do Departamento de Matematica´ Universidade de Coimbra Preprint Number 15–41 A CALCULUS OF LAX FRACTIONS LURDES SOUSA Abstract: We present a notion of category of lax fractions, where lax fraction stands for a formal composition s∗f with s∗s = id and ss∗ ≤ id, and a corresponding calculus of lax fractions which generalizes the Gabriel-Zisman calculus of frac- tions. 1.Introduction Given a class Σ of morphisms of a category X, we can construct a cat- egory of fractions X[Σ−1] where all morphisms of Σ are invertible. More X X Σ−1 precisely, we can define a functor PΣ : → [ ] which takes the mor- Σ phisms of to isomorphisms, and, moreover, PΣ is universal with respect to this property. As shown in [13], if Σ admits a calculus of fractions, then the morphisms of X[Σ−1] can be expressed by equivalence classes of cospans (f,g) of morphisms of X with g ∈ Σ, which correspond to the for- mal compositions g−1f . We recall that categories of fractions are closely related to reflective sub- categories and orthogonality. In particular, if A is a full reflective subcat- egory of X, the class Σ of all morphisms inverted by the corresponding reflector functor – equivalently, the class of all morphisms with respect to which A is orthogonal – admits a left calculus of fractions; and A is, up to equivalence of categories, a category of fractions of X for Σ. In [3] we presented a Finitary Orthogonality Deduction System inspired by the left calculus of fractions, which can be looked as a generalization of the Implicational Logic of [20], see [4].
    [Show full text]
  • Two Constructions in Monoidal Categories Equivariantly Extended Drinfel’D Centers and Partially Dualized Hopf Algebras
    Two constructions in monoidal categories Equivariantly extended Drinfel'd Centers and Partially dualized Hopf Algebras Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades an der Fakult¨atf¨urMathematik, Informatik und Naturwissenschaften Fachbereich Mathematik der Universit¨atHamburg vorgelegt von Alexander Barvels Hamburg, 2014 Tag der Disputation: 02.07.2014 Folgende Gutachter empfehlen die Annahme der Dissertation: Prof. Dr. Christoph Schweigert und Prof. Dr. Sonia Natale Contents Introduction iii Topological field theories and generalizations . iii Extending braided categories . vii Algebraic structures and monoidal categories . ix Outline . .x 1. Algebra in monoidal categories 1 1.1. Conventions and notations . .1 1.2. Categories of modules . .3 1.3. Bialgebras and Hopf algebras . 12 2. Yetter-Drinfel'd modules 25 2.1. Definitions . 25 2.2. Equivalences of Yetter-Drinfel'd categories . 31 3. Graded categories and group actions 39 3.1. Graded categories and (co)graded bialgebras . 39 3.2. Weak group actions . 41 3.3. Equivariant categories and braidings . 48 4. Equivariant Drinfel'd center 51 4.1. Half-braidings . 51 4.2. The main construction . 55 4.3. The Hopf algebra case . 61 5. Partial dualization of Hopf algebras 71 5.1. Radford biproduct and projection theorem . 71 5.2. The partial dual . 73 5.3. Examples . 75 A. Category theory 89 A.1. Basic notions . 89 A.2. Adjunctions and monads . 91 i ii Contents A.3. Monoidal categories . 92 A.4. Modular categories . 97 References 99 Introduction The fruitful interplay between topology and algebra has a long tradi- tion. On one hand, invariants of topological spaces, such as the homotopy groups, homology groups, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Categories of Modules with Differentials
    JOURNAL OF ALGEBRA 185, 50]73Ž. 1996 ARTICLE NO. 0312 Categories of Modules with Differentials Paul Popescu Department of Mathematics, Uni¨ersity of Craio¨a, 13, A.I. Cuza st., Craio¨a, 1100, Romania Communicated by Walter Feit CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Received August 1, 1994 Provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector 1. INTRODUCTION The definitions of the module with arrow Ž.module fleche , the infinitesi- mal module, and the Lie pseudoalgebra, as used here, are considered inwx 7 . Moreover, we define the preinfinitesimal module, called inwx 1 ``un pre- espace d'Elie Cartan regulier.'' Inwx 7 the Lie functor is constructed from the category of differentiable groupoids in the category of Lie algebroids, but it is inwx 2 that the first general and abstract treatment of the algebraic properties of Lie alge- broids is made, giving a clear construction of the morphisms of Lie algebroids. We shall use it fully in this paper to define completely the categories M W A Ž.Ž.modules and arrows , P I M preinfinitesimal modules , IMŽ.Ž.infinitesimal modules , and L P A Lie pseudoalgebras ; we call these categories the categories of modules with differentials. We notice that in wx7 and wx 1 the objects of these categories and the subcategories of modules over a fixed algebra are considered. Inwx 3 the category of L P A of Lie pseudoalgebras is defined and some aspects related to the functional covariance or contravariance correspondence with categories constructed with additional structures on vector bundles are studied. In Section 2 we give a brief description of the category MA , of modules over commutative k-algebrasŽ considered also inwx 3.
    [Show full text]
  • SHORT INTRODUCTION to ENRICHED CATEGORIES FRANCIS BORCEUX and ISAR STUBBE Département De Mathématique, Université Catholique
    SHORT INTRODUCTION TO ENRICHED CATEGORIES FRANCIS BORCEUX and ISAR STUBBE Departement de Mathematique, Universite Catholique de Louvain, 2 Ch. du Cyclotron, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. e-mail: [email protected] — [email protected] This text aims to be a short introduction to some of the basic notions in ordinary and enriched category theory. With reasonable detail but always in a compact fashion, we have brought together in the rst part of this paper the denitions and basic properties of such notions as limit and colimit constructions in a category, adjoint functors between categories, equivalences and monads. In the second part we pass on to enriched category theory: it is explained how one can “replace” the category of sets and mappings, which plays a crucial role in ordinary category theory, by a more general symmetric monoidal closed category, and how most results of ordinary category theory can be translated to this more general setting. For a lack of space we had to omit detailed proofs, but instead we have included lots of examples which we hope will be helpful. In any case, the interested reader will nd his way to the references, given at the end of the paper. 1. Ordinary categories When working with vector spaces over a eld K, one proves such theorems as: for all vector spaces there exists a base; every vector space V is canonically included in its bidual V ; every linear map between nite dimensional based vector spaces can be represented as a matrix; and so on. But where do the universal quantiers take their value? What precisely does “canonical” mean? How can we formally “compare” vector spaces with matrices? What is so special about vector spaces that they can be based? An answer to these questions, and many more, can be formulated in a very precise way using the language of category theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Abelian Categories
    Abelian Categories Lemma. In an Ab-enriched category with zero object every finite product is coproduct and conversely. π1 Proof. Suppose A × B //A; B is a product. Define ι1 : A ! A × B and π2 ι2 : B ! A × B by π1ι1 = id; π2ι1 = 0; π1ι2 = 0; π2ι2 = id: It follows that ι1π1+ι2π2 = id (both sides are equal upon applying π1 and π2). To show that ι1; ι2 are a coproduct suppose given ' : A ! C; : B ! C. It φ : A × B ! C has the properties φι1 = ' and φι2 = then we must have φ = φid = φ(ι1π1 + ι2π2) = ϕπ1 + π2: Conversely, the formula ϕπ1 + π2 yields the desired map on A × B. An additive category is an Ab-enriched category with a zero object and finite products (or coproducts). In such a category, a kernel of a morphism f : A ! B is an equalizer k in the diagram k f ker(f) / A / B: 0 Dually, a cokernel of f is a coequalizer c in the diagram f c A / B / coker(f): 0 An Abelian category is an additive category such that 1. every map has a kernel and a cokernel, 2. every mono is a kernel, and every epi is a cokernel. In fact, it then follows immediatly that a mono is the kernel of its cokernel, while an epi is the cokernel of its kernel. 1 Proof of last statement. Suppose f : B ! C is epi and the cokernel of some g : A ! B. Write k : ker(f) ! B for the kernel of f. Since f ◦ g = 0 the map g¯ indicated in the diagram exists.
    [Show full text]
  • The Elliptic Drinfeld Center of a Premodular Category Arxiv
    The Elliptic Drinfeld Center of a Premodular Category Ying Hong Tham Abstract Given a tensor category C, one constructs its Drinfeld center Z(C) which is a braided tensor category, having as objects pairs (X; λ), where X ∈ Obj(C) and λ is a el half-braiding. For a premodular category C, we construct a new category Z (C) which 1 2 i we call the Elliptic Drinfeld Center, which has objects (X; λ ; λ ), where the λ 's are half-braidings that satisfy some compatibility conditions. We discuss an SL2(Z)-action el on Z (C) that is related to the anomaly appearing in Reshetikhin-Turaev theory. This construction is motivated from the study of the extended Crane-Yetter TQFT, in particular the category associated to the once punctured torus. 1 Introduction and Preliminaries In [CY1993], Crane and Yetter define a 4d TQFT using a state-sum involving 15j symbols, based on a sketch by Ooguri [Oog1992]. The state-sum begins with a color- ing of the 2- and 3-simplices of a triangulation of the four manifold by integers from 0; 1; : : : ; r. These 15j symbols then arise as the evaluation of a ribbon graph living on the boundary of a 4-simplex. The labels 0; 1; : : : ; r correspond to simple objects of the Verlinde modular category, the semi-simple subquotient of the category of finite dimen- πi r 2 sional representations of the quantum group Uqsl2 at q = e as defined in [AP1995]. Later Crane, Kauffman, and Yetter [CKY1997] extend this~ definition+ to colorings with objects from a premodular category (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Stable Model Categories Are Categories of Modules 1
    STABLE MODEL CATEGORIES ARE CATEGORIES OF MODULES STEFAN SCHWEDE AND BROOKE SHIPLEY Abstract: A stable model category is a setting for homotopy theory where the suspension functor is invertible. The prototypical examples are the category of spectra in the sense of stable homotopy theory and the category of unbounded chain complexes of modules over a ring. In this paper we develop methods for deciding when two stable model categories represent ‘the same homotopy theory’. We show that stable model categories with a single compact generator are equivalent to modules over a ring spectrum. More generally stable model categories with a set of generators are characterized as modules over a ‘ring spectrum with several objects’, i.e., as spectrum valued diagram categories. We also prove a Morita theorem which shows how equivalences between module categories over ring spectra can be realized by smashing with a pair of bimodules. Finally, we characterize stable model categories which represent the derived category of a ring. This is a slight generalization of Rickard’s work on derived equivalent rings. We also include a proof of the model category equivalence of modules over the Eilenberg-Mac Lane spectrum HR and (unbounded) chain complexes of R-modules for a ring R. 1. Introduction The recent discovery of highly structured categories of spectra has opened the way for a new wholesale use of algebra in stable homotopy theory. In this paper we use this new algebra of spectra to characterize stable model categories, the settings for doing stable homotopy theory, as categories of highly structured modules. This characterization also leads to a Morita theory for equivalences between categories of highly structured modules.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1909.05807V1 [Math.RA] 12 Sep 2019 Cs T
    MODULES OVER TRUSSES VS MODULES OVER RINGS: DIRECT SUMS AND FREE MODULES TOMASZ BRZEZINSKI´ AND BERNARD RYBOLOWICZ Abstract. Categorical constructions on heaps and modules over trusses are con- sidered and contrasted with the corresponding constructions on groups and rings. These include explicit description of free heaps and free Abelian heaps, coprod- ucts or direct sums of Abelian heaps and modules over trusses, and description and analysis of free modules over trusses. It is shown that the direct sum of two non-empty Abelian heaps is always infinite and isomorphic to the heap associated to the direct sums of the group retracts of both heaps and Z. Direct sum is used to extend a given truss to a ring-type truss or a unital truss (or both). Free mod- ules are constructed as direct sums of a truss. It is shown that only free rank-one modules are free as modules over the associated truss. On the other hand, if a (finitely generated) module over a truss associated to a ring is free, then so is the corresponding quotient-by-absorbers module over this ring. 1. Introduction Trusses and skew trusses were defined in [3] in order to capture the nature of the distinctive distributive law that characterises braces and skew braces [12], [6], [9]. A (one-sided) truss is a set with a ternary operation which makes it into a heap or herd (see [10], [11], [1] or [13]) together with an associative binary operation that distributes (on one side or both) over the heap ternary operation. If the specific bi- nary operation admits it, a choice of a particular element could fix a group structure on a heap in a way that turns the truss into a ring or a brace-like system (which becomes a brace provided the binary operation admits inverses).
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Math/0310146V1 [Math.AT] 10 Oct 2003 Usinis: Question Fr Most Aut the the of Algebra”
    MORITA THEORY IN ABELIAN, DERIVED AND STABLE MODEL CATEGORIES STEFAN SCHWEDE These notes are based on lectures given at the Workshop on Structured ring spectra and their applications. This workshop took place January 21-25, 2002, at the University of Glasgow and was organized by Andy Baker and Birgit Richter. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Morita theory in abelian categories 2 3. Morita theory in derived categories 6 3.1. The derived category 6 3.2. Derived equivalences after Rickard and Keller 14 3.3. Examples 19 4. Morita theory in stable model categories 21 4.1. Stable model categories 22 4.2. Symmetric ring and module spectra 25 4.3. Characterizing module categories over ring spectra 32 4.4. Morita context for ring spectra 35 4.5. Examples 38 References 42 1. Introduction The paper [Mo58] by Kiiti Morita seems to be the first systematic study of equivalences between module categories. Morita treats both contravariant equivalences (which he calls arXiv:math/0310146v1 [math.AT] 10 Oct 2003 dualities of module categories) and covariant equivalences (which he calls isomorphisms of module categories) and shows that they always arise from suitable bimodules, either via contravariant hom functors (for ‘dualities’) or via covariant hom functors and tensor products (for ‘isomorphisms’). The term ‘Morita theory’ is now used for results concerning equivalences of various kinds of module categories. The authors of the obituary article [AGH] consider Morita’s theorem “probably one of the most frequently used single results in modern algebra”. In this survey article, we focus on the covariant form of Morita theory, so our basic question is: When do two ‘rings’ have ‘equivalent’ module categories ? We discuss this question in different contexts: • (Classical) When are the module categories of two rings equivalent as categories ? Date: February 1, 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Derived Categories of Modules and Coherent Sheaves
    Derived Categories of Modules and Coherent Sheaves Yuriy A. Drozd Abstract We present recent results on derived categories of modules and coherent sheaves, namely, tame{wild dichotomy and semi-continuity theorem for derived categories over finite dimensional algebras, as well as explicit calculations for derived categories of modules over nodal rings and of coherent sheaves over projective configurations of types A and A~. This paper is a survey of some recent results on the structure of derived categories obtained by the author in collaboration with Viktor Bekkert and Igor Burban [6, 11, 12]. The origin of this research was the study of Cohen{ Macaulay modules and vector bundles by Gert-Martin Greuel and myself [27, 28, 29, 30] and some ideas from the work of Huisgen-Zimmermann and Saor´ın [42]. Namely, I understood that the technique of \matrix problems," briefly explained below in subsection 2.3, could be successfully applied to the calculations in derived categories, almost in the same way as it was used in the representation theory of finite-dimensional algebras, in study of Cohen{ Macaulay modules, etc. The first step in this direction was the semi-continuity theorem for derived categories [26] presented in subsection 2.1. Then Bekkert and I proved the tame{wild dichotomy for derived categories over finite di- mensional algebras (see subsection 2.2). At the same time, Burban and I described the indecomposable objects in the derived categories over nodal rings (see Section 3) and projective configurations of types A and A~ (see Sec- tion 4). Note that it follows from [23, 29] that these are the only cases, where such a classification is possible; for all other pure noetherian rings (or projec- tive curves) even the categories of modules (respectively, of vector bundles) are wild.
    [Show full text]
  • All (,1)-Toposes Have Strict Univalent Universes
    All (1; 1)-toposes have strict univalent universes Mike Shulman University of San Diego HoTT 2019 Carnegie Mellon University August 13, 2019 One model is not enough A (Grothendieck{Rezk{Lurie)( 1; 1)-topos is: • The category of objects obtained by \homotopically gluing together" copies of some collection of \model objects" in specified ways. • The free cocompletion of a small (1; 1)-category preserving certain well-behaved colimits. • An accessible left exact localization of an (1; 1)-category of presheaves. They are a powerful tool for studying all kinds of \geometry" (topological, algebraic, differential, cohesive, etc.). It has long been expected that (1; 1)-toposes are models of HoTT, but coherence problems have proven difficult to overcome. Main Theorem Theorem (S.) Every (1; 1)-topos can be given the structure of a model of \Book" HoTT with strict univalent universes, closed under Σs, Πs, coproducts, and identity types. Caveats for experts: 1 Classical metatheory: ZFC with inaccessible cardinals. 2 We assume the initiality principle. 3 Only an interpretation, not an equivalence. 4 HITs also exist, but remains to show universes are closed under them. Towards killer apps Example 1 Hou{Finster{Licata{Lumsdaine formalized a proof of the Blakers{Massey theorem in HoTT. 2 Later, Rezk and Anel{Biedermann{Finster{Joyal unwound this manually into a new( 1; 1)-topos-theoretic proof, with a generalization applicable to Goodwillie calculus. 3 We can now say that the HFLL proof already implies the (1; 1)-topos-theoretic result, without manual translation. (Modulo closure under HITs.) Outline 1 Type-theoretic model toposes 2 Left exact localizations 3 Injective model structures 4 Remarks Review of model-categorical semantics We can interpret type theory in a well-behaved model category E : Type theory Model category Type Γ ` A Fibration ΓA Γ Term Γ ` a : A Section Γ ! ΓA over Γ Id-type Path object .
    [Show full text]
  • Enriched Categories
    Enriched Categories Ross Tate May 16, 2018 Definition (Enriched Category over a Multicategory). For a multicategory M, an M-enriched category is made of: Objects A set Ob of objects Morphisms For each A and B in Ob, an object Hom(A; B) of M Identities For each A in Ob, a nullary multimorphism idA :[] !M Hom(A; A) Compositions For each A, B, and C in Ob, a multimorphism compA;B;C : [Hom(A; B); Hom(B; C)] !M Hom(A; C) Identity With the property that comp and comp equal id aidA;idHom(A;B) A;B;C aid Hom(A;B);idB A;B;C Hom(A;B) Associativity And the property that comp equals comp acompA;B;C ;idHom(C;D) A;C;D aidHom(A;B);compB;C;D A;B;D Example. A Set-enriched category is simply a category. Ob is the set of objects of the category, and Hom(A; B) is the set of morphisms from A to B. idA is the identity morphism id A, and compA;B;C is the composition function mapping f : A ! B and g : B ! C to f ; g : A ! C. The identity and associativity requirements of Set-enriched categories are exactly the identity and associativity requirements of categories. Example. Many examples of enriched categories are enriched over a multicategory M with an obvious faithful functor to Set. In such cases, M-enriched categories can be viewed as categories whose sets of morphisms are enriched with additional M-structure, and whose identities and compositions respect that structure.
    [Show full text]