DOCSLIB.ORG

GENERALIZED RINGED SPACES and SCHEMES November 29

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GENERALIZED RINGED SPACES and SCHEMES November 29 GENERALIZED RINGED SPACES AND SCHEMES DAVID I. SPIVAK November 29, 2011 Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Categorical Preliminaries 1 2.1. Basic category theory 1 2.2. Natural transformation diagrams 3 2.3. Correspondences 3 2.4. Downarrow categories 5 3. Sieves and Covering Sieves 6 3.1. First definitions 6 3.2. Covering Sieves 8 3.3. (C; CovC)-spaces 13 3.4. Sheaves 13 4. R-ringed Categories and R-ringed Spaces 14 4.1. R-ringed Categories 14 4.2. Examples 15 4.3. R-ringed spaces 16 5. The Structure theorem 17 6. Simplifying assumptions 17 6.1. Op(X) 17 6.2. C1-rings 17 7. Deleted stuff 17 7.1. 1 17 7.2. 2 21 7.3. 3 21 7.4. 4 23 7.5. 5 24 1. Introduction 2. Categorical Preliminaries 2.1. Basic category theory. For n 2 N, let [n] denote the \subdivided interval" category with n + 1 objects f0; 1; : : : ; ng and exactly one morphism i ! j for every i ≤ j ≤ n. 1 2 DAVID I. SPIVAK Let C be a category. A diagram in C is a functor X : I !C, where I is a small category (such a functor is also called an I-shaped diagram in C). The I- shaped diagrams in C form the objects of a category, whose morphisms are natural transformations. If i 2 I is an object, we sometimes denote X(i) by Xi. There is an isomorphism of categories C =∼ C[0]; that is we may identify objects in C with functors [0] !C, and morphisms with natural transformations between them. Any functor F : X ! Y naturally induces a functor F I : XI ! Y I , which we may denote simply by F : XI ! Y I . Let F : C!D be a functor. By an object in F we mean a functor [0] !D which factors through F . More generally, we refer to a diagram I !D which factors through F as an I-shaped diagram in F . If C = D and F is the identity, then diagrams in F are simply diagrams in C. Let Pre(C) denote the category of contravariant functors from C to Sets. It is called the category of presheaves on C. There is a natural functor r : C! Pre(C) given by r(C) = Hom(−;C) called the representation functor, or the Yoneda imbedding. Let C and D be categories. An adjunction from C to D is a triple (L; R; φ), where L: C!D and R: D!C are functors, and φ is a natural isomorphism of functors φ: HomD(L(−); −) ! HomC(−;R(−)): That is, for any C 2 C and D 2 D, there is a natural isomorphism Hom(LC; D) =∼ Hom(C; RD): The functor L is called a left adjoint and the functor R is called a right adjoint. If φ(β[) = β], then we refer to a pair of morphisms (β[ : LC ! D; β] : C ! RD) as a φ-partnership or (L; R)-partnership, and we refer to β[ and β] as the left and right partners, respectively . We denote such a φ-partnership by β : C ! D. We say that φ is the adjunction isomorphism of the adjoint pair L C o /D R: We sometimes suppress mention of φ when it is inconvenient. If F : A!B and X : A!C are functors, depicted in the diagram X A / C ? F λF X B then the left Kan extension of X along F (if it exists) is denoted λF X : B!C: A natural transformation ηF (X): X ! λF X ◦ F is part of the data of a left Kan extension, but is typically suppressed. By the term Basic Category Theory or BCT we will mean anything that can be proven using the following facts (all of which can be found in [?]). Lemma 2.1. Let C and D be categories, and let I be a small category. GENERALIZED RINGED SPACES AND SCHEMES 3 (1) Suppose that Y : I !C is a functor which has a limit Y C. Then for any object X 2 C, one has a natural isomorphism ∼ HomC(X; Y C) = lim(HomSets(X; Y )): (2) Suppose that X : I !C is a functor which has a colimit XB. Then for any object Y 2 C, one has a natural isomorphism ∼ HomC(XB;Y ) = lim(HomSets(X; Y )): (3) Suppose that L C o /D R is a pair of adjoint functors. Then L commutes with colimits and R com- mutes with limits. Explicitly, if a diagram X : I !C has a colimit XB, then the diagram LX : I !D has a colimit (LX)B, and there is a natural isomorphism ∼= (LX)B −! L(XB); (and similarly for R and limits). L (4) If C o /D is a pair of adjoint functors and I is a small category, then R L I I C o /D are also adjoint. R (5) The Yoneda imbedding r : C! Pre(C) is fully faithful. Moreover, for any presheaf F on C and object C 2 C, we have an isomorphism of sets ∼ HomPre(C)(rC; F ) = F (C): 2.2. Natural transformation diagrams. Let A; B; C, and D be categories, A −!w y B −! D and A −!x C −!z D pairs of composable functors, and β : zx ! yw a natural transformation of functors. We can express these, data in a natural transformation square: w AAB/ B β x ;C y Cz / D: This is an abbreviation of the diagram w AAB/ B yw β x ;C y zx + Cz / D: 4 DAVID I. SPIVAK A natural transformation square in which yw = zx and β is the identity trans- formation is called a commutative square (of categories), and is written w AAB/ B x y Cz / D: Similarly, there are natural transformation diagrams of any given shape; for exam- ple, see Lemma 2.8. There is one other special case worth mentioning. Suppose that y : B ! D has a right adjoint y0 : D ! B. Then if A = C and x: A ! C is the identity, then there is a natural isomorphism ∼ 0 HomDA (yw; z) = HomBA (w; y z): Any natural transformation β[ : yw ! z has a right partner β] : w ! y0z, and these two transformations represent the same data. We represent this data by the diagram w AAB/ B O id β y y0 ADA z / D 2.3. Correspondences. Definition 2.2. Let C and D be categories. A correspondence F from C to D, written F : C < D is a functor F ] : D! Pre(C). The correspondence F is called full (resp. faithful) if F ] is full (resp. faithful). The correspondence F can also be regarded as a functor F [ : Cop × D ! Sets via the Cartesian adjunction. Remark 2.3. There are several reasons for the notation F : C < D to denote a correspondence F : Cop ×D ! Sets. First, it is good to write C before D, since it is the contravariant variable. Second, correspondences generalize functors by saying that the correspondence underlying a functor F : D!C is [−;F (−)]C : C < D: Thus the direction on the tip on the arrow is preserved by the less-than symbol. We will sometimes denote a correspondence F : C < D by some variant of the notation [−; −]. There is often a way to do so which makes F clear. See Example 2.4. Example 2.4. Let G: D!C be a functor. It naturally induces two correspondences, op op [−;G(−)]C : C × D ! Sets and [G(−); −]C : D × C ! Sets; defined for C 2 C and D 2 D by [C; G(D)]C : = HomC(C; GD) and [G(D);C]C : = HomC(GD; C); respectively. In particular, the identity functor idC : C!C gives op the correspondence [−; −]C = HomC : C × C ! Sets. More generally, functors G: D!C and H : E!C induce correspondences [G(−);H(−)]C and [H(−);G(−)]C in the obvious way. GENERALIZED RINGED SPACES AND SCHEMES 5 As seen in Example 2.4, a functor G: D!C induces two correspondences. In op this work, we emphasize the correspondence [−;G(−)]C : C × D ! Sets. Definition 2.5. Let G: D!C be a functor. The correspondence associated to G is the composition of G with the Yoneda imbedding, D −!CG −!r Pre(C); and is denoted rG. Note that correspondences can be composed. If F : D < E and G : C < D are correspondences, we can define a correspondence F ◦ G : C < E as follows. Consider F as a functor E! Pre(D) and consider G as a functor D! Pre(C). The left Kan extension of G along the Yoneda imbedding is a functor λrG : Pre(D) ! Pre(C), and we define F ◦ G := F ◦ λrG: Let C and D be categories, and let F; G : C < D be two correspondences between them. A natural transformation of correspondences a: F!G is simply a natural transformation of left partners (F [ )G[): Cop × D ! Sets or equivalently of right partners (F ] )G]): D! Pre(C): Note that both of these ares equivalent to a correspondence a:(C × [1]) < D. Lemma 2.6. Let F : C < D be a correspondence. It determines an adjunction λr F Pre(D)o /Pre(C) ρr F of presheaf categories in which λrF(rD) = F(−;D) for any D 2 D. ] Proof. Let F = F : D! Pre(C), L = λrF and R = ρrF. For a presheaf P 2 Pre(D), one defines L(P ) = colimrX!P F (X). For a presheaf Q 2 Pre(C), one defines R(Q) = HomPre(C)(F (−);Q).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • EXERCISES 1 Exercise 1.1. Let X = (|X|,O X) Be a Scheme and I Is A
    EXERCISES 1 Exercise 1.1. Let X = (|X|, OX ) be a scheme and I is a quasi-coherent OX -module. Show that the ringed space X[I] := (|X|, OX [I]) is also a scheme. Exercise 1.2. Let C be a category and h : C → Func(C◦, Set) the Yoneda embedding. Show ∼ that for any arrows X → Y and Z → Y in C, there is a natural isomorphism hX×Z Y → hX ×hY hZ . Exercise 1.3. Let A → R be a ring homomorphism. Verify that under the identification 2 of DerA(R, ΩR/A) with the sections of the diagonal map R ⊗A R/J → R given in lecture, 1 the universal derivation d : R → ΩR/A corresponds to the section given by sending x ∈ R to 1 ⊗ x. Exercise 1.4. Let AffZ be the category of affine schemes. The Yoneda functor h gives rise to a related functor hAff : Sch → Func(Aff◦ , Set) Z Z which only considers the functor of points for affine schemes. Is this functor still fully faithful? Cultural note: since Aff◦ is equivalent to the category of rings ( -algebras!), we can also Z Z view h as defining a (covariant) functor on the category of rings. When X is an affine scheme Aff of the form Z[{xi}]/({fj}], the value of hX on A is just the set of solutions of the fj with coordinates in A. Exercise 1.5. Let R be a ring and H : ModR → Set a functor which commutes with finite products. Verify the claim in lecture that H(I) has an R-module structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Topos Theory
    Topos Theory Olivia Caramello Sheaves on a site Grothendieck topologies Grothendieck toposes Basic properties of Grothendieck toposes Subobject lattices Topos Theory Balancedness The epi-mono factorization Lectures 7-14: Sheaves on a site The closure operation on subobjects Monomorphisms and epimorphisms Exponentials Olivia Caramello The subobject classifier Local operators For further reading Topos Theory Sieves Olivia Caramello In order to ‘categorify’ the notion of sheaf of a topological space, Sheaves on a site Grothendieck the first step is to introduce an abstract notion of covering (of an topologies Grothendieck object by a family of arrows to it) in a category. toposes Basic properties Definition of Grothendieck toposes Subobject lattices • Given a category C and an object c 2 Ob(C), a presieve P in Balancedness C on c is a collection of arrows in C with codomain c. The epi-mono factorization The closure • Given a category C and an object c 2 Ob(C), a sieve S in C operation on subobjects on c is a collection of arrows in C with codomain c such that Monomorphisms and epimorphisms Exponentials The subobject f 2 S ) f ◦ g 2 S classifier Local operators whenever this composition makes sense. For further reading • We say that a sieve S is generated by a presieve P on an object c if it is the smallest sieve containing it, that is if it is the collection of arrows to c which factor through an arrow in P. If S is a sieve on c and h : d ! c is any arrow to c, then h∗(S) := fg | cod(g) = d; h ◦ g 2 Sg is a sieve on d.
    [Show full text]
  • SHEAVES of MODULES 01AC Contents 1. Introduction 1 2
    SHEAVES OF MODULES 01AC Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Pathology 2 3. The abelian category of sheaves of modules 2 4. Sections of sheaves of modules 4 5. Supports of modules and sections 6 6. Closed immersions and abelian sheaves 6 7. A canonical exact sequence 7 8. Modules locally generated by sections 8 9. Modules of finite type 9 10. Quasi-coherent modules 10 11. Modules of finite presentation 13 12. Coherent modules 15 13. Closed immersions of ringed spaces 18 14. Locally free sheaves 20 15. Bilinear maps 21 16. Tensor product 22 17. Flat modules 24 18. Duals 26 19. Constructible sheaves of sets 27 20. Flat morphisms of ringed spaces 29 21. Symmetric and exterior powers 29 22. Internal Hom 31 23. Koszul complexes 33 24. Invertible modules 33 25. Rank and determinant 36 26. Localizing sheaves of rings 38 27. Modules of differentials 39 28. Finite order differential operators 43 29. The de Rham complex 46 30. The naive cotangent complex 47 31. Other chapters 50 References 52 1. Introduction 01AD This is a chapter of the Stacks Project, version 77243390, compiled on Sep 28, 2021. 1 SHEAVES OF MODULES 2 In this chapter we work out basic notions of sheaves of modules. This in particular includes the case of abelian sheaves, since these may be viewed as sheaves of Z- modules. Basic references are [Ser55], [DG67] and [AGV71]. We work out what happens for sheaves of modules on ringed topoi in another chap- ter (see Modules on Sites, Section 1), although there we will mostly just duplicate the discussion from this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture Notes on Sheaves, Stacks, and Higher Stacks
    Lecture Notes on Sheaves, Stacks, and Higher Stacks Adrian Clough September 16, 2016 2 Contents Introduction - 26.8.2016 - Adrian Cloughi 1 Grothendieck Topologies, and Sheaves: Definitions and the Closure Property of Sheaves - 2.9.2016 - NeˇzaZager1 1.1 Grothendieck topologies and sheaves.........................2 1.1.1 Presheaves...................................2 1.1.2 Coverages and sheaves.............................2 1.1.3 Reflexive subcategories.............................3 1.1.4 Coverages and Grothendieck pretopologies..................4 1.1.5 Sieves......................................6 1.1.6 Local isomorphisms..............................9 1.1.7 Local epimorphisms.............................. 10 1.1.8 Examples of Grothendieck topologies..................... 13 1.2 Some formal properties of categories of sheaves................... 14 1.3 The closure property of the category of sheaves on a site.............. 16 2 Universal Property of Sheaves, and the Plus Construction - 9.9.2016 - Kenny Schefers 19 2.1 Truncated morphisms and separated presheaves................... 19 2.2 Grothendieck's plus construction........................... 19 2.3 Sheafification in one step................................ 19 2.3.1 Canonical colimit................................ 19 2.3.2 Hypercovers of height 1............................ 19 2.4 The universal property of presheaves......................... 20 2.5 The universal property of sheaves........................... 20 2.6 Sheaves on a topological space............................ 21 3 Categories
    [Show full text]
  • Compact Ringed Spaces
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector JOURNAL OF ALGEBRA 52, 41 l-436 (1978) Compact Ringed Spaces CHRISTOPHER J. MULVEY * Department of Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York 10027 and Mathematics Division, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BNl9QH, England Communicated by Saunders MacLane Received April 16, 1976 The properties of complete regularity, paracompactness, and compactness of a topological space X all may be described in terms of the ring R(X) of continuous real functions on X. In this paper we are concerned with extending these concepts from topological to ringed spaces, replacing the ring of continuous real functions on the space by the ring of sections of the ringed space. Our interest in the problem arose from attempting to construct the tangent module 7M of a smooth manifold IM directly from the sheaf QM of smooth real functions. For each open set U of M, the module rM( U)is the s2,( U)-module of derivations of In,(U). Yet, since taking derivations is not functorial, the evident restriction maps are not canonically forthcoming. For paracompact manifolds the construction needed was known to Boardman [5]. In general, it can be carried out using the complete regularity of the ringed space (M, 62,) [18, 321. Although spaces satisfying these conditions appear naturally in analytical contexts, there emerges a fundamental connection with sectional representations of rings [19, 21, 231. In turn, this has provided a technique for using intuitionistic mathematics in applying these representations [22]. Extending these properties to ringed spaces, we prove a compactness theorem for completely regular ringed spaces generalizing the Gelfand-Kolmogoroff criterion concerning maximal ideals in the ring R(X) of continuous real functions on a completely regular space X.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Categorical Logic
    Notes on Categorical Logic Anand Pillay & Friends Spring 2017 These notes are based on a course given by Anand Pillay in the Spring of 2017 at the University of Notre Dame. The notes were transcribed by Greg Cousins, Tim Campion, L´eoJimenez, Jinhe Ye (Vincent), Kyle Gannon, Rachael Alvir, Rose Weisshaar, Paul McEldowney, Mike Haskel, ADD YOUR NAMES HERE. 1 Contents Introduction . .3 I A Brief Survey of Contemporary Model Theory 4 I.1 Some History . .4 I.2 Model Theory Basics . .4 I.3 Morleyization and the T eq Construction . .8 II Introduction to Category Theory and Toposes 9 II.1 Categories, functors, and natural transformations . .9 II.2 Yoneda's Lemma . 14 II.3 Equivalence of categories . 17 II.4 Product, Pullbacks, Equalizers . 20 IIIMore Advanced Category Theoy and Toposes 29 III.1 Subobject classifiers . 29 III.2 Elementary topos and Heyting algebra . 31 III.3 More on limits . 33 III.4 Elementary Topos . 36 III.5 Grothendieck Topologies and Sheaves . 40 IV Categorical Logic 46 IV.1 Categorical Semantics . 46 IV.2 Geometric Theories . 48 2 Introduction The purpose of this course was to explore connections between contemporary model theory and category theory. By model theory we will mostly mean first order, finitary model theory. Categorical model theory (or, more generally, categorical logic) is a general category-theoretic approach to logic that includes infinitary, intuitionistic, and even multi-valued logics. Say More Later. 3 Chapter I A Brief Survey of Contemporary Model Theory I.1 Some History Up until to the seventies and early eighties, model theory was a very broad subject, including topics such as infinitary logics, generalized quantifiers, and probability logics (which are actually back in fashion today in the form of con- tinuous model theory), and had a very set-theoretic flavour.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Algebraic Geometry
    Introduction to Algebraic Geometry Jilong Tong December 6, 2012 2 Contents 1 Algebraic sets and morphisms 11 1.1 Affine algebraic sets . 11 1.1.1 Some definitions . 11 1.1.2 Hilbert's Nullstellensatz . 12 1.1.3 Zariski topology on an affine algebraic set . 14 1.1.4 Coordinate ring of an affine algebraic set . 16 1.2 Projective algebraic sets . 19 1.2.1 Definitions . 19 1.2.2 Homogeneous Nullstellensatz . 21 1.2.3 Homogeneous coordinate ring . 22 1.2.4 Exercise: plane curves . 22 1.3 Morphisms of algebraic sets . 24 1.3.1 Affine case . 24 1.3.2 Quasi-projective case . 26 2 The Language of schemes 29 2.1 Sheaves and locally ringed spaces . 29 2.1.1 Sheaves on a topological spaces . 29 2.1.2 Ringed space . 34 2.2 Schemes . 36 2.2.1 Definition of schemes . 36 2.2.2 Morphisms of schemes . 40 2.2.3 Projective schemes . 43 2.3 First properties of schemes and morphisms of schemes . 49 2.3.1 Topological properties . 49 2.3.2 Noetherian schemes . 50 2.3.3 Reduced and integral schemes . 51 2.3.4 Finiteness conditions . 53 2.4 Dimension . 54 2.4.1 Dimension of a topological space . 54 2.4.2 Dimension of schemes and rings . 55 2.4.3 The noetherian case . 57 2.4.4 Dimension of schemes over a field . 61 2.5 Fiber products and base change . 62 2.5.1 Sum of schemes . 62 2.5.2 Fiber products of schemes .
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2012.08669V1 [Math.CT] 15 Dec 2020 2 Preface
    Sheaf Theory Through Examples (Abridged Version) Daniel Rosiak December 12, 2020 arXiv:2012.08669v1 [math.CT] 15 Dec 2020 2 Preface After circulating an earlier version of this work among colleagues back in 2018, with the initial aim of providing a gentle and example-heavy introduction to sheaves aimed at a less specialized audience than is typical, I was encouraged by the feedback of readers, many of whom found the manuscript (or portions thereof) helpful; this encouragement led me to continue to make various additions and modifications over the years. The project is now under contract with the MIT Press, which would publish it as an open access book in 2021 or early 2022. In the meantime, a number of readers have encouraged me to make available at least a portion of the book through arXiv. The present version represents a little more than two-thirds of what the professionally edited and published book would contain: the fifth chapter and a concluding chapter are missing from this version. The fifth chapter is dedicated to toposes, a number of more involved applications of sheaves (including to the \n- queens problem" in chess, Schreier graphs for self-similar groups, cellular automata, and more), and discussion of constructions and examples from cohesive toposes. Feedback or comments on the present work can be directed to the author's personal email, and would of course be appreciated. 3 4 Contents Introduction 7 0.1 An Invitation . .7 0.2 A First Pass at the Idea of a Sheaf . 11 0.3 Outline of Contents . 20 1 Categorical Fundamentals for Sheaves 23 1.1 Categorical Preliminaries .
    [Show full text]
  • A Grothendieck Site Is a Small Category C Equipped with a Grothendieck Topology T
    Contents 5 Grothendieck topologies 1 6 Exactness properties 10 7 Geometric morphisms 17 8 Points and Boolean localization 22 5 Grothendieck topologies A Grothendieck site is a small category C equipped with a Grothendieck topology T . A Grothendieck topology T consists of a collec- tion of subfunctors R ⊂ hom( ;U); U 2 C ; called covering sieves, such that the following hold: 1) (base change) If R ⊂ hom( ;U) is covering and f : V ! U is a morphism of C , then f −1(R) = fg : W ! V j f · g 2 Rg is covering for V. 2) (local character) Suppose R;R0 ⊂ hom( ;U) and R is covering. If f −1(R0) is covering for all f : V ! U in R, then R0 is covering. 3) hom( ;U) is covering for all U 2 C . 1 Typically, Grothendieck topologies arise from cov- ering families in sites C having pullbacks. Cover- ing families are sets of maps which generate cov- ering sieves. Suppose that C has pullbacks. A topology T on C consists of families of sets of morphisms ffa : Ua ! Ug; U 2 C ; called covering families, such that 1) Suppose fa : Ua ! U is a covering family and y : V ! U is a morphism of C . Then the set of all V ×U Ua ! V is a covering family for V. 2) Suppose ffa : Ua ! Vg is covering, and fga;b : Wa;b ! Uag is covering for all a. Then the set of composites ga;b fa Wa;b −−! Ua −! U is covering. 3) The singleton set f1 : U ! Ug is covering for each U 2 C .
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Sheaves of Modules, Vector Bundles, and (Quasi-)Coherent Sheaves
    4 Sheaves of modules, vector bundles, and (quasi-)coherent sheaves “If you believe a ring can be understood geometrically as functions its spec- trum, then modules help you by providing more functions with which to measure and characterize its spectrum.” – Andrew Critch, from MathOver- flow.net So far we discussed general properties of sheaves, in particular, of rings. Similar as in the module theory in abstract algebra, the notion of sheaves of modules allows us to increase our understanding of a given ringed space (or a scheme), and to provide further techniques to play with functions, or function-like objects. There are particularly important notions, namely, quasi-coherent and coherent sheaves. They are analogous notions of the usual modules (respectively, finitely generated modules) over a given ring. They also generalize the notion of vector bundles. Definition 38. Let (X, ) be a ringed space. A sheaf of -modules, or simply an OX OX -module, is a sheaf on X such that OX F (i) the group (U) is an (U)-module for each open set U X; F OX ✓ (ii) the restriction map (U) (V ) is compatible with the module structure via the F !F ring homomorphism (U) (V ). OX !OX A morphism of -modules is a morphism of sheaves such that the map (U) F!G OX F ! (U) is an (U)-module homomorphism for every open U X. G OX ✓ Example 39. Let (X, ) be a ringed space, , be -modules, and let ' : OX F G OX F!G be a morphism. Then ker ', im ', coker ' are again -modules. If is an - OX F 0 ✓F OX submodule, then the quotient sheaf / is an -module.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Topos Theory
    Notes on topos theory Jon Sterling Carnegie Mellon University In the subjectivization of mathematical objects, the activity of a scientist centers on the articial delineation of their characteristics into denitions and theorems. De- pending on the ends, dierent delineations will be preferred; in these notes, we prefer to work with concise and memorable denitions constituted from a common body of semantically rich building blocks, and treat alternative characterizations as theorems. Other texts To learn toposes and sheaves thoroughly, the reader is directed to study Mac Lane and Moerdijk’s excellent and readable Sheaves in Geometry and Logic [8]; also recommended as a reference is the Stacks Project [13]. ese notes serve only as a supplement to the existing material. Acknowledgments I am grateful to Jonas Frey, Pieter Hofstra, Ulrik Buchholtz, Bas Spiers and many others for explaining aspects of category theory and topos theory to me, and for puing up with my ignorance. All the errors in these notes are mine alone. 1 Toposes for concepts in motion Do mathematical concepts vary over time and space? is question is the fulcrum on which the contradictions between the competing ideologies of mathematics rest. Let us review their answers: Platonism No. Constructivism Maybe. Intuitionism Necessarily, but space is just an abstraction of time. Vulgar constructivism No.1 Brouwer’s radical intuitionism was the rst conceptualization of mathematical activity which took a positive position on this question; the incompatibility of intuition- ism with classical mathematics amounts essentially to the fact that they take opposite positions as to the existence of mathematical objects varying over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes/Exercises on the Functor of Points. Due Monday, Febrary 8 in Class. for a More Careful Treatment of This Material, Consult
    Notes/exercises on the functor of points. Due Monday, Febrary 8 in class. For a more careful treatment of this material, consult the last chapter of Eisenbud and Harris' book, The Geometry of Schemes, or Section 9.1.6 in Vakil's notes, although I would encourage you to try to work all this out for yourself. Let C be a category. For each object X 2 Ob(C), define a contravariant functor FX : C!Sets by setting FX (S) = Hom(S; X) and for each morphism in C, f : S ! T define FX (f) : Hom(S; X) ! Hom(T;X) by composition with f. Given a morphism g : X ! Y , we get a natural transformation of functors, FX ! FY defined by mapping Hom(S; X) ! Hom(S; Y ) using composition with g. Lemma 1 (Yoneda's Lemma). Every natural transformation φ : FX ! FY is induced by a unique morphism f : X ! Y . Proof: Given a natural transformation φ, set fφ = φX (id). Exercise 1. Check that φ is the natural transformation induced by fφ. This implies that the functor F that takes an object X of C to the functor FX and takes a morphism in C to the corresponding natural transformation of functors defines a fully faithful functor from C to the category whose objects are functors from C to Sets and whose morphisms are natural transformations of functors. In particular, X is uniquely determined by FX . However, not all functors are of the form FX . Definition 1. A contravariant functor F : C!Sets is set to be representable if ∼ there exists an object X in C such that F = FX .
    [Show full text]