DOCSLIB.ORG

19 Oct 2020 (∞,1)-Categorical Comprehension Schemes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
19 Oct 2020 (∞,1)-Categorical Comprehension Schemes (∞, 1)-Categorical Comprehension Schemes Raffael Stenzel October 20, 2020 Abstract In this paper we define and study a notion of comprehension schemes for cartesian fibrations over (∞, 1)-categories, generalizing Johnstone’s respective notion for ordinary fibered categories. This includes natural generalizations of smallness, local smallness and the notion of definability in the sense of B´enabou, as well as of Jacob’s comprehension cat- egories. Thereby, among others, we will characterize numerous categorical properties of ∞-toposes, the notion of univalence and the externalization of internal (∞, 1)-categories via comprehension schemes. An example of particular interest will be the universal carte- sian fibration given by externalization of the “freely walking chain” in the (∞, 1)-category of small (∞, 1)-categories. In the end, we take a look at the externalization construc- tion of internal (∞, 1)-categories from a model categorical perspective and review various examples from the literature in this light. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Preliminaries on indexed (∞, 1)-category theory 5 3 (∞, 1)-Comprehension schemes 9 3.1 Definitionsandexamples. 9 3.2 Definability and comprehension (∞, 1)-categories . 27 4 Externalization of internal (∞, 1)-categories 29 4.1 Definition and characterization via (∞, 1)-comprehension . 30 4.2 Univalence over (∞, 1)-categories . 38 arXiv:2010.09663v1 [math.CT] 19 Oct 2020 5 Indexed quasi-categories over model structures 41 1 Introduction What is a comprehension scheme? Comprehension schemes arose as crucial notions in the early work on the foundations of set theory, and hence found expression in a large variety of foundational settings for mathematics. Particularly, they have been introduced to the context of categorical logic first by Lawvere and then by B´enabou in the 1970s. Hence, they have been studied in different forms and have been applied to many examples throughout the literature of category theory. The notion of a comprehension scheme as used in this paper is ultimately The author acknowledges the support of the Grant Agency of the Czech Republic under the grant 19-00902S. 1 rooted in the Axiom scheme of Restricted Comprehension (often referred to as the Axiom scheme of Separation) which is part of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomatization of set theory. The scheme states that every definable subclass of a set is again a set. Or in other words, that the set theoretic universe satisfies every set theoretical comprehension scheme. In very general non-rigorous terms, given a model M of some fragment of mathematics (this may be a model of set theory, some notion of category, some model of type theory, . ) and some logical structure S over M defined by external “meta-mathematical” means, we say that M satisfies the comprehension scheme associated to S if this structure applied to any mathematical object M in M can be internalized in M. What any of these words exactly mean is very much context dependent, we refer to Table 1 for the context at hand. In his critique of the foundations of naive category theory [4], B´enabou provided an intuition to define the notion of comprehension schemes not only in category theory (over the topos of sets), but in category theory over any other category in a syntax-free way.1 In this generality, comprehension schemes become properties of Grothendieck fibrations over arbitrary categories. Which particular comprehension schemes are satisfied by a given Grothendieck fibration E ։ C then depends on the categorical constructions available in E over C and in C itself. The notion has been made precise in considerable generality by Johnstone in [13, B1.3], tieing together the elementary examples given in the glossary of [4] to a structurally well behaved theory. This theory turns out to be even better behaved in the (∞, 1)-categorical set-up and in fact easier to manage, given the following motivation. For the moment being think of the Yoneda embedding of an ordinary category C as a canonical elementary embedding of C into its presheaf category Cˆ. As such it converts for- mal/synthetic structure in C to real-world structure over C. Here, “real-world” structure means structure in the background theory, that is, set theory. In this sense, if we think of naive mathematics as the background theory of formal set theory, we may as well think of the inclusion Set ֒→ Cls of sets into proper classes as a Yoneda embedding, mapping the formal membership relation to the naive membership relation. Following [4, 6], the ZF-comprehension scheme of a set X associated to a proper class S is then equivalent to representability of the “presheaf” X ∩ S. In a series of abstractions from set theory to fibred higher category theory, and hence from properties to structures, a comprehension scheme S for a cartesian fibration E ։ C is defined as a presheaf of diagrams of fixed shape in E defined over C, as illustrated in Table 1 and made precise in Lemma 3.5. We then say that S is satisfied by the fibration E ։ C if this collection of diagrams is “small” over C in the sense that its associated presheaf is representable. The expressive power of comprehension schemes encompasses important examples in category theory, most notably sufficient and necessary conditions to characterize elemen- tary toposes (over other elementary toposes). The scope of Johnstone’s definition of comprehension schemes yields tools to discuss many other such notions defined in more specific contexts as well, including Jacob’s notion of comprehension categories ([11]), or even more specific Lawvere’s original notion of comprehension in the context of hyper- doctrines ([16], [11, 4]). It is therefore the (∞, 1)-categorical adaptation of Johnstone’s notion of comprehension which we will center this paper on. We will see that many characterizations of ordinary categorical constructions will carry over flawlessly, while others in fact will work out much better for the reason that “evil” equalities naturally arising in the context of ordinary category theory will be replaced by “good” instances of equivalences between (∞, 1)-categories. It eliminates the gymnastics with elementary fibrations in [28], and also affects the remarks on the “strangeness” 1It may be noteworthy to point out that B´enabou in this work purposefully did not even specify what exactly a “category” is ([4, (0.5)]), and that, on the basis of his effectively meta-“meta-mathematical” analysis, the framework of (∞, 1)-category theory over the base ∞-topos of spaces appears to yield a suitable notion of such a “category theory” in his sense. In this reading one then is to replace the occurrences of “ZF” in [4] by a suitable univalent type theory. 2 Mathematics: Set Theory Higher Category Theory The naive set theory of (∞, 1)-Category Theory over Meta-mathematics: proper classes the ∞-topos S of spaces A model of a fragment A set theoretic universe An indexed (∞, 1)-category of mathematics: V E : Cop → S A mathematical ob- A set X in V A diagram X : I →E over C ject: Some external logical A functor of (∞, 1)-categories A class S structure: G: I → J The induced structure The presheaf G∗ ↓ X of J- over a mathematical S ∩ X shaped diagrams in E extend- object: ing X in E over C E has G-comprehension if the V has S-comprehension Meaning of Compre- presheaf G∗ ↓ X is repre- if S ∩ X is small for all hension: sentable for all I-diagrams X X ∈ V . in E. Table 1: A short dictionary of comprehension of equality in [4, 8], because commutativity of squares in (∞, 1)-categories is a matter of equivalence, not of meta-mathematical equality. In this sense, the study of equality becomes a study of equivalence. The main sources for the ordinary categorical constructions and definitions we have adapted are Johnstone ([13]), Jacobs ([11], [12]) and Streicher ([28]). The results presented in this paper build to a large extent on the fundamental work on quasi-categories provided by Lurie in [17]. There are many alleys which lend themselves to be studied in the given context but were either only superficially glanced over or entirely omitted. An exhaustive treatment of fibred (∞, 1)-categories with a scope comparable to [13, B1] or [28] in the ordinary categorical context would naturally require (∞, 2)-categorical considerations, which are barely touched upon in this paper because the notions studied here are properties of one indexed (∞, 1)-category at a time. The collection of all C-indexed (∞, 1)-categories is only introduced in Section 2 to state its equivalence to the collection of fibred (∞, 1)-categories over C via Lurie’s Unstraightening construction, and therefore it is defined as an (∞, 1)- category itself. Partial treatments of fibred (∞, 1)-category theory in such generality can be found e.g. in [3], [17] and [23]. Outline of the paper and main results In Section 2 we recall the necessary material on cartesian fibrations from Lurie’s book [17]. We define the basic notions relevant to define and study comprehension schemes for fibred (∞, 1)-categories, give reference to the equivalence between indexed (∞, 1)-category theory and fibred (∞, 1)-category theory via the corresponding Grothendieck construction (“Unstraightening”) and discuss the most essential examples of indexed (∞, 1)-categories and their fibred counterparts. Section 3 introduces the definition of comprehension schemes and discusses many ex- amples like smallness, local smallness and definability of equivalences between objects and parallel pairs of arrows for different cartesian fibrations. We provide tools for mu- tual reduction and verification of various instances, several of which are generalizations of notions and results from [13, B1.3]. In Section 4 we define the externalization construction of internal (∞, 1)-categories in left exact (∞, 1)-categories C. We will see that the cartesian fibrations arising from 3 internal (∞, 1)-categories in this way can be characterized by two comprehension schemes (smallness and local smallness).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • [Math.AT] 2 May 2002
    WEAK EQUIVALENCES OF SIMPLICIAL PRESHEAVES DANIEL DUGGER AND DANIEL C. ISAKSEN Abstract. Weak equivalences of simplicial presheaves are usually defined in terms of sheaves of homotopy groups. We give another characterization us- ing relative-homotopy-liftings, and develop the tools necessary to prove that this agrees with the usual definition. From our lifting criteria we are able to prove some foundational (but new) results about the local homotopy theory of simplicial presheaves. 1. Introduction In developing the homotopy theory of simplicial sheaves or presheaves, the usual way to define weak equivalences is to require that a map induce isomorphisms on all sheaves of homotopy groups. This is a natural generalization of the situation for topological spaces, but the ‘sheaves of homotopy groups’ machinery (see Def- inition 6.6) can feel like a bit of a mouthful. The purpose of this paper is to unravel this definition, giving a fairly concrete characterization in terms of lift- ing properties—the kind of thing which feels more familiar and comfortable to the ingenuous homotopy theorist. The original idea came to us via a passing remark of Jeff Smith’s: He pointed out that a map of spaces X → Y induces an isomorphism on homotopy groups if and only if every diagram n−1 / (1.1) S 6/ X xx{ xx xx {x n { n / D D 6/ Y xx{ xx xx {x Dn+1 −1 arXiv:math/0205025v1 [math.AT] 2 May 2002 admits liftings as shown (for every n ≥ 0, where by convention we set S = ∅). Here the maps Sn−1 ֒→ Dn are both the boundary inclusion, whereas the two maps Dn ֒→ Dn+1 in the diagram are the two inclusions of the surface hemispheres of Dn+1.
    [Show full text]
  • Picard Groupoids and $\Gamma $-Categories
    PICARD GROUPOIDS AND Γ-CATEGORIES AMIT SHARMA Abstract. In this paper we construct a symmetric monoidal closed model category of coherently commutative Picard groupoids. We construct another model category structure on the category of (small) permutative categories whose fibrant objects are (permutative) Picard groupoids. The main result is that the Segal’s nerve functor induces a Quillen equivalence between the two aforementioned model categories. Our main result implies the classical result that Picard groupoids model stable homotopy one-types. Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. The Setup 4 2.1. Review of Permutative categories 4 2.2. Review of Γ- categories 6 2.3. The model category structure of groupoids on Cat 7 3. Two model category structures on Perm 12 3.1. ThemodelcategorystructureofPermutativegroupoids 12 3.2. ThemodelcategoryofPicardgroupoids 15 4. The model category of coherently commutatve monoidal groupoids 20 4.1. The model category of coherently commutative monoidal groupoids 24 5. Coherently commutative Picard groupoids 27 6. The Quillen equivalences 30 7. Stable homotopy one-types 36 Appendix A. Some constructions on categories 40 AppendixB. Monoidalmodelcategories 42 Appendix C. Localization in model categories 43 Appendix D. Tranfer model structure on locally presentable categories 46 References 47 arXiv:2002.05811v2 [math.CT] 12 Mar 2020 Date: Dec. 14, 2019. 1 2 A. SHARMA 1. Introduction Picard groupoids are interesting objects both in topology and algebra. A major reason for interest in topology is because they classify stable homotopy 1-types which is a classical result appearing in various parts of the literature [JO12][Pat12][GK11]. The category of Picard groupoids is the archetype exam- ple of a 2-Abelian category, see [Dup08].
    [Show full text]
  • Fibrations II - the Fundamental Lifting Property
    Fibrations II - The Fundamental Lifting Property Tyrone Cutler July 13, 2020 Contents 1 The Fundamental Lifting Property 1 2 Spaces Over B 3 2.1 Homotopy in T op=B ............................... 7 3 The Homotopy Theorem 8 3.1 Implications . 12 4 Transport 14 4.1 Implications . 16 5 Proof of the Fundamental Lifting Property Completed. 19 6 The Mutal Characterisation of Cofibrations and Fibrations 20 6.1 Implications . 22 1 The Fundamental Lifting Property This section is devoted to stating Theorem 1.1 and beginning its proof. We prove only the first of its two statements here. This part of the theorem will then be used in the sequel, and the proof of the second statement will follow from the results obtained in the next section. We will be careful to avoid circular reasoning. The utility of the theorem will soon become obvious as we repeatedly use its statement to produce maps having very specific properties. However, the true power of the theorem is not unveiled until x 5, where we show how it leads to a mutual characterisation of cofibrations and fibrations in terms of an orthogonality relation. Theorem 1.1 Let j : A,! X be a closed cofibration and p : E ! B a fibration. Assume given the solid part of the following strictly commutative diagram f A / E |> j h | p (1.1) | | X g / B: 1 Then the dotted filler can be completed so as to make the whole diagram commute if either of the following two conditions are met • j is a homotopy equivalence. • p is a homotopy equivalence.
    [Show full text]
  • When Is the Natural Map a a Cofibration? Í22a
    transactions of the american mathematical society Volume 273, Number 1, September 1982 WHEN IS THE NATURAL MAP A Í22A A COFIBRATION? BY L. GAUNCE LEWIS, JR. Abstract. It is shown that a map/: X — F(A, W) is a cofibration if its adjoint/: X A A -» W is a cofibration and X and A are locally equiconnected (LEC) based spaces with A compact and nontrivial. Thus, the suspension map r¡: X -» Ü1X is a cofibration if X is LEC. Also included is a new, simpler proof that C.W. complexes are LEC. Equivariant generalizations of these results are described. In answer to our title question, asked many years ago by John Moore, we show that 7j: X -> Í22A is a cofibration if A is locally equiconnected (LEC)—that is, the inclusion of the diagonal in A X X is a cofibration [2,3]. An equivariant extension of this result, applicable to actions by any compact Lie group and suspensions by an arbitrary finite-dimensional representation, is also given. Both of these results have important implications for stable homotopy theory where colimits over sequences of maps derived from r¡ appear unbiquitously (e.g., [1]). The force of our solution comes from the Dyer-Eilenberg adjunction theorem for LEC spaces [3] which implies that C.W. complexes are LEC. Via Corollary 2.4(b) below, this adjunction theorem also has some implications (exploited in [1]) for the geometry of the total spaces of the universal spherical fibrations of May [6]. We give a simpler, more conceptual proof of the Dyer-Eilenberg result which is equally applicable in the equivariant context and therefore gives force to our equivariant cofibration condition.
    [Show full text]
  • Fibrations I
    Fibrations I Tyrone Cutler May 23, 2020 Contents 1 Fibrations 1 2 The Mapping Path Space 5 3 Mapping Spaces and Fibrations 9 4 Exercises 11 1 Fibrations In the exercises we used the extension problem to motivate the study of cofibrations. The idea was to allow for homotopy-theoretic methods to be introduced to an otherwise very rigid problem. The dual notion is the lifting problem. Here p : E ! B is a fixed map and we would like to known when a given map f : X ! B lifts through p to a map into E E (1.1) |> | p | | f X / B: Asking for the lift to make the diagram to commute strictly is neither useful nor necessary from our point of view. Rather it is more natural for us to ask that the lift exist up to homotopy. In this lecture we work in the unpointed category and obtain the correct conditions on the map p by formally dualising the conditions for a map to be a cofibration. Definition 1 A map p : E ! B is said to have the homotopy lifting property (HLP) with respect to a space X if for each pair of a map f : X ! E, and a homotopy H : X×I ! B starting at H0 = pf, there exists a homotopy He : X × I ! E such that , 1) He0 = f 2) pHe = H. The map p is said to be a (Hurewicz) fibration if it has the homotopy lifting property with respect to all spaces. 1 Since a diagram is often easier to digest, here is the definition exactly as stated above f X / E x; He x in0 x p (1.2) x x H X × I / B and also in its equivalent adjoint formulation X B H B He B B p∗ EI / BI (1.3) f e0 e0 # p E / B: The assertion that p is a fibration is the statement that the square in the second diagram is a weak pullback.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Spectral Sequence
    Notes on spectral sequence He Wang Long exact sequence coming from short exact sequence of (co)chain com- plex in (co)homology is a fundamental tool for computing (co)homology. Instead of considering short exact sequence coming from pair (X; A), one can consider filtered chain complexes coming from a increasing of subspaces X0 ⊂ X1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ X. We can see it as many pairs (Xp; Xp+1): There is a natural generalization of a long exact sequence, called spectral sequence, which is more complicated and powerful algebraic tool in computation in the (co)homology of the chain complex. Nothing is original in this notes. Contents 1 Homological Algebra 1 1.1 Definition of spectral sequence . 1 1.2 Construction of spectral sequence . 6 2 Spectral sequence in Topology 12 2.1 General method . 12 2.2 Leray-Serre spectral sequence . 15 2.3 Application of Leray-Serre spectral sequence . 18 1 Homological Algebra 1.1 Definition of spectral sequence Definition 1.1. A differential bigraded module over a ring R, is a collec- tion of R-modules, fEp;qg, where p, q 2 Z, together with a R-linear mapping, 1 H.Wang Notes on spectral Sequence 2 d : E∗;∗ ! E∗+s;∗+t, satisfying d◦d = 0: d is called the differential of bidegree (s; t). Definition 1.2. A spectral sequence is a collection of differential bigraded p;q R-modules fEr ; drg, where r = 1; 2; ··· and p;q ∼ p;q ∗;∗ ∼ p;q ∗;∗ ∗;∗ p;q Er+1 = H (Er ) = ker(dr : Er ! Er )=im(dr : Er ! Er ): In practice, we have the differential dr of bidegree (r; 1 − r) (for a spec- tral sequence of cohomology type) or (−r; r − 1) (for a spectral sequence of homology type).
    [Show full text]
  • We Begin with a Review of the Classical Fibration Replacement Construction
    Contents 11 Injective model structure 1 11.1 The existence theorem . 1 11.2 Injective fibrant models and descent . 13 12 Other model structures 18 12.1 Injective model structure for simplicial sheaves . 18 12.2 Intermediate model structures . 21 11 Injective model structure 11.1 The existence theorem We begin with a review of the classical fibration replacement construction. 1) Suppose that f : X ! Y is a map of Kan com- plexes, and form the diagram I f∗ I d1 X ×Y Y / Y / Y s f : d0∗ d0 / X f Y Then d0 is a trivial fibration since Y is a Kan com- plex, so d0∗ is a trivial fibration. The section s of d0 (and d1) induces a section s∗ of d0∗. Then (d1 f∗)s∗ = d1(s f ) = f 1 Finally, there is a pullback diagram I f∗ I X ×Y Y / Y (d0∗;d1 f∗) (d0;d1) X Y / Y Y × f ×1 × and the map prR : X ×Y ! Y is a fibration since X is fibrant, so that prR(d0∗;d1 f∗) = d1 f∗ is a fibra- tion. I Write Z f = X ×Y Y and p f = d1 f∗. Then we have functorial replacement s∗ d0∗ X / Z f / X p f f Y of f by a fibration p f , where d0∗ is a trivial fibra- tion such that d0∗s∗ = 1. 2) Suppose that f : X ! Y is a simplicial set map, and form the diagram j ¥ X / Ex X q f s∗ f∗ # f ˜ / Z f Z f∗ p f∗ ¥ { / Y j Ex Y 2 where the diagram ˜ / Z f Z f∗ p˜ f p f∗ ¥ / Y j Ex Y is a pullback.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes on Homotopy Theory and Applications
    LAURENTIUMAXIM UNIVERSITYOFWISCONSIN-MADISON LECTURENOTES ONHOMOTOPYTHEORY ANDAPPLICATIONS i Contents 1 Basics of Homotopy Theory 1 1.1 Homotopy Groups 1 1.2 Relative Homotopy Groups 7 1.3 Homotopy Extension Property 10 1.4 Cellular Approximation 11 1.5 Excision for homotopy groups. The Suspension Theorem 13 1.6 Homotopy Groups of Spheres 13 1.7 Whitehead’s Theorem 16 1.8 CW approximation 20 1.9 Eilenberg-MacLane spaces 25 1.10 Hurewicz Theorem 28 1.11 Fibrations. Fiber bundles 29 1.12 More examples of fiber bundles 34 1.13 Turning maps into fibration 38 1.14 Exercises 39 2 Spectral Sequences. Applications 41 2.1 Homological spectral sequences. Definitions 41 2.2 Immediate Applications: Hurewicz Theorem Redux 44 2.3 Leray-Serre Spectral Sequence 46 2.4 Hurewicz Theorem, continued 50 2.5 Gysin and Wang sequences 52 ii 2.6 Suspension Theorem for Homotopy Groups of Spheres 54 2.7 Cohomology Spectral Sequences 57 2.8 Elementary computations 59 n 2.9 Computation of pn+1(S ) 63 3 2.10 Whitehead tower approximation and p5(S ) 66 Whitehead tower 66 3 3 Calculation of p4(S ) and p5(S ) 67 2.11 Serre’s theorem on finiteness of homotopy groups of spheres 70 2.12 Computing cohomology rings via spectral sequences 74 2.13 Exercises 76 3 Fiber bundles. Classifying spaces. Applications 79 3.1 Fiber bundles 79 3.2 Principal Bundles 86 3.3 Classification of principal G-bundles 92 3.4 Exercises 97 4 Vector Bundles. Characteristic classes. Cobordism. Applications. 99 4.1 Chern classes of complex vector bundles 99 4.2 Stiefel-Whitney classes of real vector bundles 102 4.3 Stiefel-Whitney classes of manifolds and applications 103 The embedding problem 103 Boundary Problem.
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Smooth Field Theories and Homotopy Field Theories Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8049k3bs Author Wilder, Alan Cameron Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Smooth Field Theories and Homotopy Field Theories by Alan Cameron Wilder A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Peter Teichner, Chair Associate Professor Ian Agol Associate Professor Michael Hutchings Professor Mary K. Gaillard Fall 2011 Smooth Field Theories and Homotopy Field Theories Copyright 2011 by Alan Cameron Wilder 1 Abstract Smooth Field Theories and Homotopy Field Theories by Alan Cameron Wilder Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Professor Peter Teichner, Chair In this thesis we assemble machinery to create a map from the field theories of Stolz and Teichner (see [ST]), which we call smooth field theories, to the field theories of Lurie (see [Lur1]), which we term homotopy field theories. Finally, we upgrade this map to work on inner-homs. That is, we provide a map from the fibred category of smooth field theories to the Segal space of homotopy field theories. In particular, along the way we present a definition of symmetric monoidal Segal space, and use this notion to complete the sketch of the defintion of homotopy bordism category employed in [Lur1] to prove the cobordism hypothesis. i To Kyra, Dashiell, and Dexter for their support and motivation.
    [Show full text]
  • Homotopy Type Theory an Overview (Unfinished)
    Homotopy Type Theory An Overview (unfinished) Nicolai Kraus Tue Jun 19 19:29:30 UTC 2012 Preface This composition is an introduction to a fairly new field in between of math- ematics and theoretical computer science, mostly referred to as Homotopy Type Theory. The foundations for this subject were, in some way, laid by an article of Hofmann and Streicher [21] 1 by showing that in Intentional Type Theory, it is reasonable to consider different proofs of the same identity. Their strategy was to use groupoids for an interpretation of type theory. Pushing this idea forward, Lumsdaine [31] and van den Berg & Garner [8] noticed independently that a type bears the structure of a weak omega groupoid, a structure that is well-known in algebraic topology. In recent years, Voevodsky proposed his Univalence axiom, basically aiming to ensure nice behaviours like the ones found in homotopy theory. Claiming that set theory has inherent disadvantages, he started to develop his Univalent Foundations of Mathematics, drawing a notable amount of at- tention from researchers in many different fields: homotopy theory, construc- tive logic, type theory and higher dimensional category theory, to mention the most important. This introduction mainly consists of the first part of my first year report, which can be found on my homepage2 (as well as updates of this composition itself). Originally, my motivation for writing up these contents has been to teach them to myself. At the same time, I had to notice that no detailed written introduction seems to exist, maybe due to the fact that the research branch is fairly new.
    [Show full text]
  • Nontrivial Fundamental Groups
    8bis Nontrivial fundamental groups “One of the advantages of the category of nilpotent spaces over that of simply-connected spaces is that it is closed under certain constructions.” E. Dror-Farjoun The category of simply-connected spaces is blessed with certain features that make homotopy theory tractable. In the first place, there is the White- head Theorem (Theorem 4.5) that tells us when a mapping of spaces of the homotopy type of CW-complexes is a homotopy equivalence—the necessary condition that the mapping induces an isomorphism of integral homology groups is also sufficient. Secondly, the Postnikov tower of a simply-connected space is a tower of principal fibrations pulled back via the k-invariants of the space (Theorem 8bis.37). This makes cohomological obstruction theory accessible, if not computable ([Brown, E57], [Sch¨on90], [Sergeraert94]). Furthermore, the system of local coefficients that arises in the description of the E2-term of the Leray-Serre spectral sequence is simple when the base space of a fibration is simply-connected, and the cohomology Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequence converges strongly for a fibration pulled back from such a fibration. A defect of the category of simply-connected spaces is the fact that certain constructions do not stay in the category. The dishearteningly simple example is the based loop space functor—if (X, x0) is simply-connected, Ω(X, x0) need not be. Furthermore, the graded group-valued functor, the homotopy groups of a space, does not always distinguish distinct homotopy types of spaces that are not 2m 2n simply-connected. A classic example is the pair of spaces X1 = P S and X = S2m P 2n; the homotopy groups in each degree k are abstractly× 2 × isomorphic, πk(X1) ∼= πk(X2).
    [Show full text]
  • MATH 227A – LECTURE NOTES 1. Obstruction Theory a Fundamental Question in Topology Is How to Compute the Homotopy Classes of M
    MATH 227A { LECTURE NOTES INCOMPLETE AND UPDATING! 1. Obstruction Theory A fundamental question in topology is how to compute the homotopy classes of maps between two spaces. Many problems in geometry and algebra can be reduced to this problem, but it is monsterously hard. More generally, we can ask when we can extend a map defined on a subspace and then how many extensions exist. Definition 1.1. If f : A ! X is continuous, then let M(f) = X q A × [0; 1]=f(a) ∼ (a; 0): This is the mapping cylinder of f. The mapping cylinder has several nice properties which we will spend some time generalizing. (1) The natural inclusion i: X,! M(f) is a deformation retraction: there is a continous map r : M(f) ! X such that r ◦ i = IdX and i ◦ r 'X IdM(f). Consider the following diagram: A A × I f◦πA X M(f) i r Id X: Since A ! A × I is a homotopy equivalence relative to the copy of A, we deduce the same is true for i. (2) The map j : A ! M(f) given by a 7! (a; 1) is a closed embedding and there is an open set U such that A ⊂ U ⊂ M(f) and U deformation retracts back to A: take A × (1=2; 1]. We will often refer to a pair A ⊂ X with these properties as \good". (3) The composite r ◦ j = f. One way to package this is that we have factored any map into a composite of a homotopy equivalence r with a closed inclusion j.
    [Show full text]