DOCSLIB.ORG

Pursuing Stacks

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pursuing Stacks PURSUINGSTACKS (À la poursuite des Champs) First episode: THEMODELIZINGSTORY (histoire de modèles) by Alexander Grothendieck 1983 ii Pursuing Stacks (À la poursuite des Champs) First episode: The modelizing story (histoire de modèles) by Alexander Grothendieck (* March 28, 1918 in Berlin; † November 13, 2014 Lasserre, Ariège) Original typescript written 1983 This 2015 edition (including all source files) by the scrivener is in the public domain. Typeset with LATEX and the fabulous memoir class. Composed with Bitstream Charter for the text type and Paul Pichaureau’s mathdesign package for the math type. All diagrams and illustrations were made with Till Tantau’s TikZ (TikZ ist kein Zeichenprogramm) and the tikz-cd package. Short contents Short contents iii Contents iv Scrivener’s preface xi I The Take-off (a letter to Daniel Quillen)1 II Test categories and test functors 21 III Grinding my way towards canonical modelizers 93 IV Asphericity structures and canonical modelizers 171 V Homology and cohomology (abelianization of homotopy types) 253 VI Schematization 371 VII Linearization of homotopy types (2) 459 Bibliography 489 iii Contents Short contents iii Contents iv Scrivener’s preface xi I The Take-off (a letter to Daniel Quillen)1 1 The importance of innocence.1 2 A short look into purgatory.2 3 “Fundamental -groupoids” as objects of a “model category”?4 4 A bit of ordering1 in the mess of “higher order structures”.5 5 Jumping over the abyss!7 6 The topological model: hemispheres building up the (tentative) “universal -(co)groupoid”.9 7 Gluing hemispheres: the “standard amalgamations”. 10 8 Description of the universal1 primitive structure. 11 9 The main inductive step: just add coherence arrows! The abridged story of an (inescapable and irrelevant) ambiguity 12 10 Cutting down redundancies – or: “l’embarras du choix”. 14 11 Returning to the topological model (the canonical functor from spaces to “ -groupoids”). 15 12 About replacing spaces by objects of a “model category”. 151 13 An urgent reflection on proper names: “Stacks” and “coherators”. 16 II Test categories and test functors 21 14 The unnoticed failure (of the present foundations of topology for expressing topological intuition). 21 15 Overall review of standard descriptions of homotopy types. 22 16 Stacks over topoi as unifying concept for homotopical and cohomological algebra. 24 16bis Categories as models for homotopy types. First glimpse upon an “impressive bunch” (of modelizers). 25 17 The Artin-Mazur cohomological criterion for weak equivalence. 27 iv Contents v 18 Corrections and contents to letter. Bénabou’s lonely approach. 28 19 Beginning of a provisional itinerary (through stacks). 29 20 Are model categories sites? 31 21 Further glimpse upon the “bunch” of possible model categories and a relation between n-complexes and n-stacks. 32 22 Oriented sets as models for homotopy types. 33 23 Getting a basic functor M (Hot) from a site structure M (altering beginning of a systematic! reflection). 35 24 A bunch of topologies on (Cat). 37 25 A tentative equivalence relation for topologists. 39 26 The dawn of test categories and test functors. 40 27 Digression on “geometric realization” functors. 43 28 The “inspiring assumption”. Modelizers. 44 29 The basic modelizer (Cat). Provisional definition of test categories and elementary modelizers. 47 30 Starting the “asphericity game”. 50 31 The end of the thin air conjecturing: a criterion for test categories. 52 32 Provisional program of work. 54 33 Necessity of conditions T1 to T3, and transcription in terms of elementary modelizers. 55 34 Examples of test categories. 59 35 The notion of a modelizing topos. Need for revising the Cech-Verdier-Artin-Mazurˇ construction. 61 36 Characterization of a particular type of test functors with values in (Cat). 65 37 The “asphericity story” told anew – the “key result”. 68 38 Asphericity story retold (cont’d): generalized nerve functors. 72 39 Returning upon terminology: strict test categories, and strict modelizers. 75 40 Digression on cartesian products of weak equivalences in (Cat); 4 weak equivalences relative to a given base object. 77 41 Role of the “inspiring assumption”, and of saturation conditions on “weak equivalences”. 78 42 Terminology revised (model preserving functors). Submodelizers of the basic modelizer (Cat). 79 43 The category f of simplices without degeneracies as a weak test category – or “face complexes” as models for homotopy types. 81 44 Overall review of the basic notions. 84 a) Weak test categories. 85 b) Test categories and local test categories. 87 c) Strict test categories. 88 d) Weak test functors and test functors (with values in (Cat)). 89 III Grinding my way towards canonical modelizers 93 vi Contents 45 It’s burning again! Review of some “recurring striking features” of modelizers and standard modelizing functors. 93 46 Test functors with values in any modelizer: an observation, with an inspiring “silly question”. 96 47 An approach for handling (Cat)-valued test functors, and promise of a “key result” revised. The significance of contractibility. 98 48 A journey through abstract homotopy notions (in terms of a set W of “weak equivalences”). 101 49 Contractible objects. Multiplicative intervals. 108 50 Reflection on some main impressions. The foresight of an “idyllic picture” (of would-be “canonical modelizers”). 110 51 The four basic “pure” homotopy notions with variations. 111 A) Homotopy relation between maps 112 B) Homotopisms, and homotopism structures 113 C) Homotopy interval structures 115 D) Contractibility structures 116 E) Generating sets of homotopy intervals. Two standard ways of generating multiplicative intervals. Contractibility of Hom(X , Y )’s 118 F) The canonical homotopy structure: preliminaries on π0. 121 52 Inaccuracies rectified. 122 53 Compatibility of a functor u : M N with a homotopy structure on M. 127 ! 54 Compatibility of a homotopy structure with a set W of “weak equivalences”. The homotopy structure hW . 128 55 Maps between homotopy structures. 130 56 Another glimpse upon canonical modelizers. Provisional working plan – and recollection of some questions. 131 57 Relation of homotopy structures to 0-connectedness and π0. The canonical homotopy structure hM of a category M. 134 58 Case of totally 0-connected category M. The category (Cat) of (small) categories and homotopy classes of functors. 137 59 Case of the “next best” modelizer (Spaces) – and need of introducing the π0-functor as an extra structure on a would-be modelizer M. 139 60 Case of strictly totally aspheric topos. A timid start on axiomatizing the set W of weak equivalences in (Cat). 141 61 Remembering about the promised “key result” at last! 143 62 An embarrassing case of hasty over-axiomatization. The unexpected riches. 147 63 Review of terminology (provisional). 150 W 64 Review of properties of the “basic localizer” (Cat). 152 65 Still another review of the test notions (relative to given basic localizer W). 156 A) Total asphericity. 158 B) Weak W-test categories. 159 C) W-test categories. 160 D) Strict W-test categories. 161 Contents vii E) Weak W-test functors and W-test functors. 161 F) W-test functors A (Cat) of strict W-test categories. 164 ! 66 Revising (and fixing?) terminology again. 165 IV Asphericity structures and canonical modelizers 171 67 Setting out for the asphericity game again: variance of the category (HotA), for arbitrary small category A and aspheric functors. 171 68 Digression on a “new continent”. 174 69 Digression on six weeks’ scratchwork: derivators, and integration of homotopy types. 177 70 Digression on scratchwork (2): cohomological properties of maps in (Cat) and in Aˆ. Does any topos admit a “dual” topos? Kan fibrations rehabilitated. 182 71 Working program and rambling questions (group objects as models, Dold-Puppe theorem. ). 186 72 Back to asphericity: criteria for a map in (Cat). 191 73 Asphericity criteria (continued). 197 74 Application to products of test categories. 198 75 Asphericity structures: a bunch of useful tautologies. 205 76 Examples. Totally aspheric asphericity structures. 211 77 The canonical functor (HotM ) (Hot). 213 78 Test functors and modelizing asphericity! structures: the outcome (at last!) of an easy “observation”. 214 79 Asphericity structure generated by a contractibility structure: the final shape of the “awkward main result” on test functors. 218 80 Reminders and questions around canonical modelizers. 224 81 Contractibility as the common expression of homotopy, asphericity and 0-connectedness notions. (An overall review of the notions met with so far.) 227 82 Proof of injectivity of α : Contr(M) , W-Asph(M). Application to Hom objects and to products! of aspheric functors A M. 233 83 Tautologies! on Im α, and related questions. 238 84 A silly (provisional) answer to the “silly question” – and the new perplexity f!(Mas) Mas0 ? 239 85 Digression on left exactness⊂ properties of f! functors, application to the inclusion i : , (Cat). 244 86 Bimorphisms of contractibility structure! as the (final?) answer. Does the notion of a map of asphericity structures exist? 248 V Homology and cohomology (abelianization of homotopy types) 253 87 Comments on Thomason’s paper on closed model structure on (Cat). 253 88 Review of pending questions and topics (questions 1) to 5), including characterizing canonical modelizers). 254 89 Digression (continued) on left exactness properties of f! functors. 260 viii Contents 90 Review of questions (continued): 6) Existence of test functors and related questions. Digression on strictly generating subcategories. 261 91 Review of questions (continued): 7) Homotopy types of finite type, 8) test categories with boundary operations, 9) miscellaneous. 269 92 Short range working program, and an afterthought on abelianization of homotopy types: a handful of questions around the Whitehead and Dold-Puppe theorems. 274 93 The afterthought continued: abelianizators, and “standard” abelianizators for categories with boundary operators. 283 94 Afterthought (continued): retrospective on the “De Rham complex with divided powers” and on some wishful thinking about linearization of homotopy types and arbitrary ground-ring extension in homotopy types.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Complex Oriented Cohomology Theories and the Language of Stacks
    COMPLEX ORIENTED COHOMOLOGY THEORIES AND THE LANGUAGE OF STACKS COURSE NOTES FOR 18.917, TAUGHT BY MIKE HOPKINS Contents Introduction 1 1. Complex Oriented Cohomology Theories 2 2. Formal Group Laws 4 3. Proof of the Symmetric Cocycle Lemma 7 4. Complex Cobordism and MU 11 5. The Adams spectral sequence 14 6. The Hopf Algebroid (MU∗; MU∗MU) and formal groups 18 7. More on isomorphisms, strict isomorphisms, and π∗E ^ E: 22 8. STACKS 25 9. Stacks and Associated Stacks 29 10. More on Stacks and associated stacks 32 11. Sheaves on stacks 36 12. A calculation and the link to topology 37 13. Formal groups in prime characteristic 40 14. The automorphism group of the Lubin-Tate formal group laws 46 15. Formal Groups 48 16. Witt Vectors 50 17. Classifying Lifts | The Lubin-Tate Space 53 18. Cohomology of stacks, with applications 59 19. p-typical Formal Group Laws. 63 20. Stacks: what's up with that? 67 21. The Landweber exact functor theorem 71 References 74 Introduction This text contains the notes from a course taught at MIT in the spring of 1999, whose topics revolved around the use of stacks in studying complex oriented cohomology theories. The notes were compiled by the graduate students attending the class, and it should perhaps be acknowledged (with regret) that we recorded only the mathematics and not the frequent jokes and amusing sideshows which accompanied it. Please be wary of the fact that what you have in your hands is the `alpha- version' of the text, which is only slightly more than our direct transcription of the stream-of- consciousness lectures.
    [Show full text]
  • Stable Equivariant Motivic Homotopy Theory and Motivic Borel Cohomology
    STABLE EQUIVARIANT MOTIVIC HOMOTOPY THEORY AND MOTIVIC BOREL COHOMOLOGY Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades (Dr. rer. nat.) des Fachbereichs Mathematik/Informatik an der Universit¨atOsnabr¨uck vorgelegt von Philip Herrmann aus Bielefeld Institut f¨urMathematik Universit¨atOsnabr¨uck Osnabr¨uck, den 19. Juni 2012 Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my advisor Oliver R¨ondigsfor all the discus- sions, his care and encouragement. I have always benefited a lot from his advice. It is also a pleasure to thank Paul Arne Østvær for his invitation to a one month research visit in Oslo in May 2011, for valuable conversations, and for writing a report about this thesis. Further, I need to emphasize huge gratitude to my office mate Florian Strunk for sharing his mathematical passion with me since we were undergraduates and for having become a great friend. Many discussions with Florian have enriched [HS11] my life in several ways. Also I am indebted to Ben Williams for sharing his interest in the particular topic of this dissertation and for several related discussions. While working on this dissertation I was supported by the Graduate School 'Combinatorial Structures in Algebra and Topology' and the Mathematical In- stitute of the University of Osnabr¨uck. I am deeply grateful for the excellent working environment and the support of many conference visits they provided to me. Some of these visits were partially financed by different institutions and I am thankful to the Universit¨atsgesellschaft Osnabr¨uck, the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut Oberwolfach, the UCLA, and the Universities of Bonn and M¨unster. Many other people deserve my thanks and I am deeply thankful to my friends, to my colleagues in Osnabr¨uck, and to the group of those that I have forgot to mention on this page.
    [Show full text]
  • Complex Analysis on Riemann Surfaces Contents 1
    Complex Analysis on Riemann Surfaces Math 213b | Harvard University C. McMullen Contents 1 Introduction . 1 2 Maps between Riemann surfaces . 14 3 Sheaves and analytic continuation . 28 4 Algebraic functions . 35 5 Holomorphic and harmonic forms . 45 6 Cohomology of sheaves . 61 7 Cohomology on a Riemann surface . 72 8 Riemann-Roch . 77 9 The Mittag–Leffler problems . 84 10 Serre duality . 88 11 Maps to projective space . 92 12 The canonical map . 101 13 Line bundles . 110 14 Curves and their Jacobians . 119 15 Hyperbolic geometry . 137 16 Uniformization . 147 A Appendix: Problems . 149 1 Introduction Scope of relations to other fields. 1. Topology: genus, manifolds. Algebraic topology, intersection form on 1 R H (X; Z), α ^ β. 3 2. 3-manifolds. (a) Knot theory of singularities. (b) Isometries of H and 3 3 Aut Cb. (c) Deformations of M and @M . 3. 4-manifolds. (M; !) studied by introducing J and then pseudo-holomorphic curves. 1 4. Differential geometry: every Riemann surface carries a conformal met- ric of constant curvature. Einstein metrics, uniformization in higher dimensions. String theory. 5. Complex geometry: Sheaf theory; several complex variables; Hodge theory. 6. Algebraic geometry: compact Riemann surfaces are the same as alge- braic curves. Intrinsic point of view: x2 +y2 = 1, x = 1, y2 = x2(x+1) are all `the same' curve. Moduli of curves. π1(Mg) is the mapping class group. 7. Arithmetic geometry: Genus g ≥ 2 implies X(Q) is finite. Other extreme: solutions of polynomials; C is an algebraically closed field. 8. Lie groups and homogeneous spaces. We can write X = H=Γ, and ∼ g M1 = H= SL2(Z).
    [Show full text]
  • Categorification of Gromov–Witten Invariants and Derived Algebraic Geometry
    Master’s thesis M2 Mathématiques fondamentales — UPMC Categorification of Gromov–Witten invariants and derived algebraic geometry David Kern Supervisor: Étienne Mann LAREMA, Université d’Angers April–July 2018 Abstract Following [MR18a] and its companion [MR18b], we describe a categorification of genus 0 Gromov–Witten theory. The moduli stacks M0;n(X; β) of stable maps to a variety X allow one to exhibit a structure of Cohomological Field Theory on the Chow ring • A X, seen as a structure of algebra over the operad (A•M0;n)n. Introducing the derived enhancements RM0;n(X; β), we lift this structure to a lax algebra over (M0;n)n seen as an operad in correspondences in derived stacks. Acknowledgements My thanks go first to my supervisor Étienne Mann, who agreed to take me onformy master’s thesis and offered me a subject to continue on a PhD. He has taken the timeto help me work out the parts that caused me trouble and to give me insight into how to connect the technical constructions with Gromov–Witten theory. He has also been very active in securing funding for the upcoming PhD, and organising meetings to prepare me for the subject. I wish to thank Navid Nabijou for his explanations on quasimap theory and virtual classes, and Alexis Roquefeuil for his helpful introduction to Givental’s formalism for mirror symmetry. I also thank the team of PhD students for welcoming me into the LAREMA. Finally, I also wish to thank Alexandra Le Petitcorps for precious help in the organ- isation of my internship and travels.
    [Show full text]
  • Cech Theory: Its Past, Present, and Future
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Volume 10, Number 3, Summer 1980 CECH THEORY: ITS PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE DAVID A. EDWARDS AND HAROLD M. HASTINGS1 ABSTRACT. We survey the development of Cech Theory with an eye towards certain recent developments in the homotopy theory of pro-spaces. CONTENTS §1. Introduction 429 §2. Cech Theory 430 §3. Étale Homotopy Theory 431 §4. Shape Theory 438 §5. Steenrod Homotopy Theory 452 §6. Open Problems 460 References 462 1. Introduction. The main problem in topology is the classification of topological spaces up to homeomorphism. Recall that two topological spaces X and Y are said to be homeomorphic if there exist continuous maps/: A"-» Fandg: Y-+ A" such that/og = lrandgo/= lx. This prob­ lem is very difficult. As is usual in mathematics, when one is faced by a very difficult problem, one first tries to solve an easier problem. Hence arises homotopy theory. The main problem in homotopy theory is the classification of topological spaces up to homotopy equivalence. Recall that two continuous maps/, g: X-+ Fare said to be nomotopic, denoted f ^ g, if there exists a continuous map F: X x [0, 1] -> Y such that F(x, 0) = f(x) and F(x, 1) = g(x). Two topological spaces Zand Fare now said to be homotopy equivalent (or to have the same homotopy type) if there exists continuous maps /: X -• F and g: Y -> Xsuch that fog ~ \Y and gof ~ 1^. This is still too hard a problem in general. So one first attacks the problem for a particularly nice class of topological spaces, namely compact polyhedra.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Abelian Cohomology in a Topos
    Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories, No. 23, 2013, pp. 1{165. NON-ABELIAN COHOMOLOGY IN A TOPOS JOHN W. DUSKIN The following document was accepted as an AMS Memoir but was never published as I will now explain. When it was being typed in the final form for publication (before the day of TEX!) the secretary, who had never used the mathematical electronic text then required lost completely over one half of the manuscript. I had another student's thesis which needed typing and did not require the electronic text. I had her drop the paper and do the thesis, planning to come back to the paper at a later time. Much later I finally learned to type using TEX and planned to come back to the paper. Unfortunately, a stroke prevented my ever completing it myself. Recently, a former student of mine, Mohammed Alsani, an expert in TEX, offered to type the long manuscript and recently did so. The resulting paper, which I have left unchanged from its original form, except for minor changes made thanks to Mike Barr to make it compatible with TAC, is being presented here in the hope that it may still find some use in the mathematical community. The notion of morphism used here, which Grothendieck liked a lot, and its relation with that of Grothendieck, (see J. Giraud, Cohomologie non-Ab´elienne,Lect. Notes Math. Berlin-New York-Heidelberg: Springer, 1971), was explained in K.-H.Ulbrich, On the Correspondence between Gerbes and Bouquets, Math. Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc. (1990), Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopical Algebraic Geometry I: Topos Theory
    Homotopical Algebraic Geometry I: Topos theory Bertrand To¨en Gabriele Vezzosi Laboratoire Emile Picard Dipartimento di Matematica Applicata UMR CNRS 5580 “G. Sansone” Universit´ePaul Sabatier, Toulouse Universit`adi Firenze France Italy November 2002. Final version, to appear in Adv. Math., June 2004. Abstract This is the first of a series of papers devoted to lay the foundations of Algebraic Geometry in homotopical and higher categorical contexts. In this first part we investigate a notion of higher topos. For this, we use S-categories (i.e. simplicially enriched categories) as models for certain kind of ∞-categories, and we develop the notions of S-topologies, S-sites and stacks over them. We prove in particular, that for an S-category T endowed with an S-topology, there exists a model category of stacks over T , generalizing the model category structure on simplicial presheaves over a Grothendieck site of A. Joyal and R. Jardine. We also prove some analogs of the relations between topologies and localizing subcategories of the categories of presheaves, by proving that there exists a one-to-one correspodence between S-topologies on an S-category T , and certain left exact Bousfield localizations of the model category of pre-stacks on T . Based on the above results, we study the notion of model topos introduced by C. Rezk, and we relate it to our model categories of stacks over S-sites. In the second part of the paper, we present a parallel theory where S-categories, S-topologies and S-sites are replaced by model categories, model topologies and model sites.
    [Show full text]
  • Classical Motivic Polylogarithm According to Beilinson and Deligne
    Doc Math J DMV Classical Motivic Polylogarithm According to Beilinson and Deligne Annette Huber Jorg Wildeshaus Received February Revised September Communicated by Peter Schneider Abstract The main purp ose of this pap er is the construction in motivic cohomology of the cyclotomic or classical polylogarithm on the pro jective line minus three p oints and the identication of its image under the regula tor to absolute Deligne or l adic cohomology By sp ecialization to ro ots of unity one obtains a compatibility statement on cyclotomic elements in mo tivic and absolute cohomology of ab elian number elds As shown in BlK this compatibility completes the pro of of the Tamagawa number conjecture on sp ecial values of the Riemann zeta function The main constructions and ideas are contained in Beilinsons and Delignes unpublished preprint Motivic Polylogarithm and Zagier Conjecture BD We work out the details of the pro of setting up the foundational material which was missing from the original source the pap er contains an app endix on absolute Ho dge cohomology with co ecients and its inter pretation in terms of Saitos Ho dge mo dules The second app endix treats K theory and regulators for simplicial schemes Mathematics Sub ject Classication Primary F Secondary R R R D F Keywords Polylogarithm motivic and absolute cohomology regulators cy clotomic elements Introduction The aim of this work is to present the construction of the class of the cyclotomic or classical p olylogarithm in motivic cohomology It maps to the elements in Deligne and
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopical Algebra
    Homotopical Algebra Yuri Berest, Sasha Patotski Fall 2015 These are lecture notes of a graduate course MATH 7400 currently taught by Yuri Berest at Cornell University. The notes are taken by Sasha Patotski; the updates will appear every week. If you are reading the notes, please send us corrections; your questions and comments are also very much welcome. Emails: [email protected] and [email protected]. ii Contents 1 Simplicial sets 1 1 Basics of Simplicial sets . .1 1.1 Definitions . .1 1.2 Motivation . .3 1.3 Examples of (co-)simplicial sets . .5 1.4 Remarks on basepoints and reduced simplicial sets . .7 1.5 The nerve of a category . .7 1.6 Examples of nerves . .9 1.7 One example: the nerve of a groupoid . 10 2 Geometric realization . 12 2.1 General remarks on spaces . 12 2.2 Definition of geometric realization . 13 2.3 Two generalizations of geometric realization . 15 2.4 Kan extensions . 17 2.5 Comma categories . 19 2.6 Kan extensions using comma categories . 21 3 Homotopy theory of categories . 23 3.1 The classifying space of a small category . 23 3.2 Homotopy-theoretic properties of the classifying spaces . 25 3.3 Connected components . 27 3.4 Coverings of categories . 28 3.5 Explicit presentations of fundamental groups of categories . 29 3.6 Homology of small categories . 30 3.7 Quillen's Theorem A . 33 3.8 Fibred and cofibred functors . 36 3.9 Quillen's Theorem B . 38 A Topological and geometric background 41 1 Connections on principal bundles .
    [Show full text]
  • Categories and Orbispaces 3
    Categories and orbispaces STEFAN SCHWEDE Constructing and manipulating homotopy types from categorical input data has been an important theme in algebraic topology for decades. Every category gives rise to a ‘classifying space’, the geometric realization of the nerve. Up to weak homotopy equivalence, every space is the classifying space of a small category. More is true: the entire homotopy theory of topological spaces and continuous mapscanbemodeledbycategoriesandfunctors. We establish a vast generalization of the equivalence of the homotopy theories of categories and spaces: small categoriesrepresentrefined homotopytypesof orbispaceswhose underlying coarse moduli space is the traditional homotopy type hitherto considered. A global equivalence is a functor Φ : C −→ D between small categories with the following property: for every finite group G, the functor GΦ : GC −→ GD induced on categories of G•objects is a weak equivalence. We show that the global equivalencesarepartofamodelstructureonthecategoryof small categories,which is moreover Quillen equivalent to the homotopy theory of orbispaces in the sense of Gepner and Henriques. Every cofibrant category in this global model structure is opposite to a complex of groups in the sense of Haefliger. 55P91 Introduction arXiv:1810.06632v2 [math.AT] 27 Feb 2019 Constructing and manipulating homotopy types from categorical input data has been an important theme in algebraic topology for decades. Every category gives rise to a topological space, sometimes called its ‘classifying space’, by taking the geometric realization of the nerve. Up to weak homotopy equivalence, every space is the clas• sifying space of a category. But much more is true: the entire homotopy theory of topological spaces and continuous maps can be modeled by categories and functors.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopical Algebraic Geometry. I. Topos Theory. Bertrand Toen, Gabriele Vezzosi
    Homotopical algebraic geometry. I. Topos theory. Bertrand Toen, Gabriele Vezzosi To cite this version: Bertrand Toen, Gabriele Vezzosi. Homotopical algebraic geometry. I. Topos theory.. Advances in Mathematics, Elsevier, 2005, 193 (2), pp.257-372. 10.1016/j.aim.2004.05.004. hal-00772995 HAL Id: hal-00772995 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00772995 Submitted on 11 Jan 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Homotopical Algebraic Geometry I: Topos theory Bertrand To¨en Gabriele Vezzosi Laboratoire Emile Picard Dipartimento di Matematica Applicata UMR CNRS 5580 \G. Sansone" Universit´ePaul Sabatier, Toulouse Universit`adi Firenze France Italy November 2002. Final version, to appear in Adv. Math., June 2004. Abstract This is the first of a series of papers devoted to lay the foundations of Algebraic Geometry in homotopical and higher categorical contexts. In this first part we investigate a notion of higher topos. For this, we use S-categories (i.e. simplicially enriched categories) as models for certain kind of 1-categories, and we develop the notions of S-topologies, S-sites and stacks over them. We prove in particular, that for an S-category T endowed with an S-topology, there exists a model category of stacks over T , generalizing the model category structure on simplicial presheaves over a Grothendieck site of A.
    [Show full text]
  • Leray Theorems in Bounded Cohomology Theory
    Leray theorems in bounded cohomology theory Nikolai V. Ivanov Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Cohomological Leray theorems 5 3. Homological Leray theorems 15 4. Extensions of coverings and bounded cohomology 19 5. A Leray theorem for l 1-homology 23 6. Uniqueness of Leray homomorphisms 26 7. Nerves of families and paracompact spaces 30 8. Closed subspaces and fundamental groups 38 9. Closed subspaces and homology groups 42 Appendix. Double complexes 49 References 57 © Nikolai V. Ivanov, 2020. Neither the work reported in the present paper, nor its preparation were supported by any corporate entity. 1 1. Introduction Leray theory. Let U be a covering of a topological space X, and let U \ be the collection of all non-empty finite intersection of elements of U . A classical theorem of Leray relates the cohomology of X with cohomology of the sets U U \ and the combinatorial structure 2 of the covering U . The latter is encoded in a simplicial complex N U , the nerve of U (see Section 2 for the definition). If every element of U \ is acyclic, i.e. has the same cohomol- ogy as a point, Leray theorem implies that the cohomology of X are equal to that of N U . Here “cohomology” are understood very broadly. Leray theorem applies to the cohomology of sheaves on X, as also to the singular cohomology theory (under moderate assumptions). Morally, Leray theorem applies to every cohomology theory which can be locally defined. For example, singular cohomology can be defined in terms of arbitrarily small simplices. Bounded cohomology. Suppose that elements of U \ are in an appropriate sense “acyclic” with respect to the bounded cohomology.
    [Show full text]