DOCSLIB.ORG

Bundle Theory for Categories

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Bundle Theory for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite sets Bundles of Bundle Theory for Categories categories Bundles of monoidal categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of bicategories Institute of Geometry, Algebra and Topology Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne IV Seminar on Categories and Applications Bellaterra, 9 June 2007 Bundle Theory for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite sets Bundles of categories Bundles of monoidal categories Joint work with Steve Lack. Bundles of bicategories Bundle Theory Outline for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite sets Bundles of 1 Bundles of finite sets categories Bundles of monoidal categories 2 Bundles of Bundles of categories bicategories 3 Bundles of monoidal categories 4 Bundles of bicategories The bundle p : E → B gives rise to local data: −1 Φp : B → FinSet : b → p (b), where FinSet is the set of finite sets. Any set map Φ: B → FinSet can be globalized: let EΦ = {(b, x) | x ∈ Φ(b), b ∈ B} and pΦ : EΦ → B :(b, x) 7→ b. Bundle Theory Global and local descriptions for Categories A bundle of finite sets is a set map Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite p : E → B, sets Bundles of categories −1 such that p (b) is a finite set for all b ∈ B. Bundles of monoidal categories Bundles of bicategories Any set map Φ: B → FinSet can be globalized: let EΦ = {(b, x) | x ∈ Φ(b), b ∈ B} and pΦ : EΦ → B :(b, x) 7→ b. Bundle Theory Global and local descriptions for Categories A bundle of finite sets is a set map Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite p : E → B, sets Bundles of categories −1 such that p (b) is a finite set for all b ∈ B. Bundles of monoidal The bundle p : E → B gives rise to local data: categories Bundles of −1 bicategories Φp : B → FinSet : b → p (b), where FinSet is the set of finite sets. Bundle Theory Global and local descriptions for Categories A bundle of finite sets is a set map Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite p : E → B, sets Bundles of categories −1 such that p (b) is a finite set for all b ∈ B. Bundles of monoidal The bundle p : E → B gives rise to local data: categories Bundles of −1 bicategories Φp : B → FinSet : b → p (b), where FinSet is the set of finite sets. Any set map Φ: B → FinSet can be globalized: let EΦ = {(b, x) | x ∈ Φ(b), b ∈ B} and pΦ : EΦ → B :(b, x) 7→ b. −1 Observe that τset (X) = X for all X ∈ FinSet. Bundle Theory The tautological bundle for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite sets Bundles of categories Let Bundles of FinSet∗ = {(X, x) | X ∈ FinSet, x ∈ X}. monoidal categories The tautological bundle of finite sets is the map Bundles of bicategories τset : FinSet∗ → FinSet :(X, x) 7→ X. Bundle Theory The tautological bundle for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite sets Bundles of categories Let Bundles of FinSet∗ = {(X, x) | X ∈ FinSet, x ∈ X}. monoidal categories The tautological bundle of finite sets is the map Bundles of bicategories τset : FinSet∗ → FinSet :(X, x) 7→ X. −1 Observe that τset (X) = X for all X ∈ FinSet. Proof. The globalization pΦ : EΦ → B of Φ: B → FinSet fits into a pullback square EΦ / FinSet∗ . pΦ τset Φ B / FinSet Moreover, it is obvious that pΦp = p and ΦpΦ = Φ for all p : E → B and for all Φ: B → FinSet. Bundle Theory Classification for Categories Kathryn Hess Proposition Bundles of finite The bundle τset classifies bundles of finite sets. sets Bundles of categories Bundles of monoidal categories Bundles of bicategories Bundle Theory Classification for Categories Kathryn Hess Proposition Bundles of finite The bundle τset classifies bundles of finite sets. sets Bundles of categories Proof. Bundles of monoidal The globalization pΦ : EΦ → B of Φ: B → FinSet fits into categories a pullback square Bundles of bicategories EΦ / FinSet∗ . pΦ τset Φ B / FinSet Moreover, it is obvious that pΦp = p and ΦpΦ = Φ for all p : E → B and for all Φ: B → FinSet. Bundle Theory The local description for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite sets Bundles of categories Bundles of Let Cat denote the category of small categories monoidal categories Let B denote any category. Local category bundle data Bundles of bicategories over B is a functor Φ: B → Cat. , i.e.: (Existence of a lift) e / β∗e ∈ E ∃ βbe ↓ P P P(e) / ∈ B. ∀ β b Bundle Theory The global description for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite A functor P : E → B is a bundle of categories if it is a split sets Bundles of opfibration with small fibers categories Bundles of monoidal categories Bundles of bicategories Bundle Theory The global description for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite A functor P : E → B is a bundle of categories if it is a split sets Bundles of opfibration with small fibers , i.e.: categories Bundles of (Existence of a lift) monoidal categories β Bundles of e / ∗e ∈ E bicategories ∃ βbe ↓ P P P(e) / ∈ B. ∀ β b Bundle Theory The global description for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite (Universal property of the lift) sets Bundles of δ categories Bundles of monoidal categories " 0 e / β∗e / e β ∃! γ Bundles of be b bicategories ↓ P β ∀ γ P(e) / b / P(e0) ; P(δ) Bundle Theory The global description for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite sets (γβ)∗(e) Bundles of γβ kk5 categories ce kkkk kkkk Bundles of kkkk monoidal kkk categories e k / β∗e / γ∗β∗e γ Bundles of βbe bβ∗e bicategories ↓ P ∀ β ∀ γ P(e) / b / c and Id\ = Id for all e. P(e)e e Each P−1(b) is a small category. The proof is highly analogous to the usual proof that any continuous map can be factored as a homotopy equivalence followed by a fibration. Bundle Theory Associated bundles for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite Proposition sets Bundles of For any F : A → B, there is a natural factorization categories Bundles of F monoidal A / B categories N ?? ? Bundles of % ?? bicategories S ?? P ? ? Q Y _ E such that P is bundle of categories, QS = IdA and there is a natural transformation SQ ⇒ IdE. Bundle Theory Associated bundles for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite Proposition sets Bundles of For any F : A → B, there is a natural factorization categories Bundles of F monoidal A / B categories N ?? ? Bundles of % ?? bicategories S ?? P ? ? Q Y _ E such that P is bundle of categories, QS = IdA and there is a natural transformation SQ ⇒ IdE. The proof is highly analogous to the usual proof that any continuous map can be factored as a homotopy equivalence followed by a fibration. Bundle Theory Invariance under pullback for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite sets Bundles of Proposition categories Bundles of monoidal If P : E → B is a bundle of categories and F : A → B is categories Bundles of any functor, then the pullback bicategories F ∗P : E × A → A B of P along F is also a bundle of categories. The proof is very straightforward. The tautological bundle of categories is the functor ( (A, a) 7→ A τcat : Cat∗ → Cat : (F, f ) 7→ F. −1 ∼ Observe that τcat (A) = A for all small categories A. Bundle Theory The tautological bundle for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite Let Cat∗ be the category of pointed, small categories: sets Bundles of categories Ob Cat∗ = {(A, a) | A ∈ Ob Cat, a ∈ Ob A}; Bundles of monoidal categories Cat∗ (A, a), (B, b) = {(F, f ) | F : A → B, f : F(a) → b}. Bundles of bicategories Bundle Theory The tautological bundle for Categories Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite Let Cat∗ be the category of pointed, small categories: sets Bundles of categories Ob Cat∗ = {(A, a) | A ∈ Ob Cat, a ∈ Ob A}; Bundles of monoidal categories Cat∗ (A, a), (B, b) = {(F, f ) | F : A → B, f : F(a) → b}. Bundles of bicategories The tautological bundle of categories is the functor ( (A, a) 7→ A τcat : Cat∗ → Cat : (F, f ) 7→ F. −1 ∼ Observe that τcat (A) = A for all small categories A. Proof. Local to global: Given local category bundle data Φ: B → Cat, consider the pullback EΦ / Cat∗ PΦ τcat Φ B / Cat. Since τcat is a bundle of categories, PΦ is also a bundle of categories. (PΦ is exactly the Grothendieck construction on Φ.) Bundle Theory Classification for Categories Kathryn Hess Theorem Bundles of finite The bundle τcat classifies bundles of categories. sets Bundles of categories Bundles of monoidal categories Bundles of bicategories (PΦ is exactly the Grothendieck construction on Φ.) Bundle Theory Classification for Categories Kathryn Hess Theorem Bundles of finite The bundle τcat classifies bundles of categories. sets Bundles of categories Proof. Bundles of monoidal Local to global: Given local category bundle data categories Φ: B → Cat, consider the pullback Bundles of bicategories EΦ / Cat∗ PΦ τcat Φ B / Cat. Since τcat is a bundle of categories, PΦ is also a bundle of categories. Bundle Theory Classification for Categories Kathryn Hess Theorem Bundles of finite The bundle τcat classifies bundles of categories. sets Bundles of categories Proof. Bundles of monoidal Local to global: Given local category bundle data categories Φ: B → Cat, consider the pullback Bundles of bicategories EΦ / Cat∗ PΦ τcat Φ B / Cat. Since τcat is a bundle of categories, PΦ is also a bundle of categories. (PΦ is exactly the Grothendieck construction on Φ.) Bundle Theory Classification for Categories Proof. Kathryn Hess Bundles of finite Global to local: Given a bundle of categories sets −1 P : E → B, define ΦP : B → Cat by ΦP (b) = P (b) Bundles of and categories Bundles of βbe1 monoidal e1 / β∗e1 categories O O Bundles of ξ Iddb0 =Φ(β)(ξ) bicategories βbe0 e0 / β∗e0 ↓ P P(βbe1 ◦ξ) ) 0 b 5 b .
Recommended publications
  • Vector Bundles on Projective Space

    Vector Bundles on Projective Space

    Vector Bundles on Projective Space Takumi Murayama December 1, 2013 1 Preliminaries on vector bundles Let X be a (quasi-projective) variety over k. We follow [Sha13, Chap. 6, x1.2]. Definition. A family of vector spaces over X is a morphism of varieties π : E ! X −1 such that for each x 2 X, the fiber Ex := π (x) is isomorphic to a vector space r 0 0 Ak(x).A morphism of a family of vector spaces π : E ! X and π : E ! X is a morphism f : E ! E0 such that the following diagram commutes: f E E0 π π0 X 0 and the map fx : Ex ! Ex is linear over k(x). f is an isomorphism if fx is an isomorphism for all x. A vector bundle is a family of vector spaces that is locally trivial, i.e., for each x 2 X, there exists a neighborhood U 3 x such that there is an isomorphism ': π−1(U) !∼ U × Ar that is an isomorphism of families of vector spaces by the following diagram: −1 ∼ r π (U) ' U × A (1.1) π pr1 U −1 where pr1 denotes the first projection. We call π (U) ! U the restriction of the vector bundle π : E ! X onto U, denoted by EjU . r is locally constant, hence is constant on every irreducible component of X. If it is constant everywhere on X, we call r the rank of the vector bundle. 1 The following lemma tells us how local trivializations of a vector bundle glue together on the entire space X.
  • Stable Isomorphism Vs Isomorphism of Vector Bundles: an Application to Quantum Systems

    Stable Isomorphism Vs Isomorphism of Vector Bundles: an Application to Quantum Systems

    Alma Mater Studiorum · Universita` di Bologna Scuola di Scienze Corso di Laurea in Matematica STABLE ISOMORPHISM VS ISOMORPHISM OF VECTOR BUNDLES: AN APPLICATION TO QUANTUM SYSTEMS Tesi di Laurea in Geometria Differenziale Relatrice: Presentata da: Prof.ssa CLARA PUNZI ALESSIA CATTABRIGA Correlatore: Chiar.mo Prof. RALF MEYER VI Sessione Anno Accademico 2017/2018 Abstract La classificazione dei materiali sulla base delle fasi topologiche della materia porta allo studio di particolari fibrati vettoriali sul d-toro con alcune strut- ture aggiuntive. Solitamente, tale classificazione si fonda sulla nozione di isomorfismo tra fibrati vettoriali; tuttavia, quando il sistema soddisfa alcune assunzioni e ha dimensione abbastanza elevata, alcuni autori ritengono in- vece sufficiente utilizzare come relazione d0equivalenza quella meno fine di isomorfismo stabile. Scopo di questa tesi `efissare le condizioni per le quali la relazione di isomorfismo stabile pu`osostituire quella di isomorfismo senza generare inesattezze. Ci`onei particolari casi in cui il sistema fisico quantis- tico studiato non ha simmetrie oppure `edotato della simmetria discreta di inversione temporale. Contents Introduction 3 1 The background of the non-equivariant problem 5 1.1 CW-complexes . .5 1.2 Bundles . 11 1.3 Vector bundles . 15 2 Stability properties of vector bundles 21 2.1 Homotopy properties of vector bundles . 21 2.2 Stability . 23 3 Quantum mechanical systems 28 3.1 The single-particle model . 28 3.2 Topological phases and Bloch bundles . 32 4 The equivariant problem 36 4.1 Involution spaces and general G-spaces . 36 4.2 G-CW-complexes . 39 4.3 \Real" vector bundles . 41 4.4 \Quaternionic" vector bundles .
  • LECTURE 6: FIBER BUNDLES in This Section We Will Introduce The

    LECTURE 6: FIBER BUNDLES in This Section We Will Introduce The

    LECTURE 6: FIBER BUNDLES In this section we will introduce the interesting class of fibrations given by fiber bundles. Fiber bundles play an important role in many geometric contexts. For example, the Grassmaniann varieties and certain fiber bundles associated to Stiefel varieties are central in the classification of vector bundles over (nice) spaces. The fact that fiber bundles are examples of Serre fibrations follows from Theorem ?? which states that being a Serre fibration is a local property. 1. Fiber bundles and principal bundles Definition 6.1. A fiber bundle with fiber F is a map p: E ! X with the following property: every ∼ −1 point x 2 X has a neighborhood U ⊆ X for which there is a homeomorphism φU : U × F = p (U) such that the following diagram commutes in which π1 : U × F ! U is the projection on the first factor: φ U × F U / p−1(U) ∼= π1 p * U t Remark 6.2. The projection X × F ! X is an example of a fiber bundle: it is called the trivial bundle over X with fiber F . By definition, a fiber bundle is a map which is `locally' homeomorphic to a trivial bundle. The homeomorphism φU in the definition is a local trivialization of the bundle, or a trivialization over U. Let us begin with an interesting subclass. A fiber bundle whose fiber F is a discrete space is (by definition) a covering projection (with fiber F ). For example, the exponential map R ! S1 is a covering projection with fiber Z. Suppose X is a space which is path-connected and locally simply connected (in fact, the weaker condition of being semi-locally simply connected would be enough for the following construction).
  • Notes on Principal Bundles and Classifying Spaces

    Notes on Principal Bundles and Classifying Spaces

    Notes on principal bundles and classifying spaces Stephen A. Mitchell August 2001 1 Introduction Consider a real n-plane bundle ξ with Euclidean metric. Associated to ξ are a number of auxiliary bundles: disc bundle, sphere bundle, projective bundle, k-frame bundle, etc. Here “bundle” simply means a local product with the indicated fibre. In each case one can show, by easy but repetitive arguments, that the projection map in question is indeed a local product; furthermore, the transition functions are always linear in the sense that they are induced in an obvious way from the linear transition functions of ξ. It turns out that all of this data can be subsumed in a single object: the “principal O(n)-bundle” Pξ, which is just the bundle of orthonormal n-frames. The fact that the transition functions of the various associated bundles are linear can then be formalized in the notion “fibre bundle with structure group O(n)”. If we do not want to consider a Euclidean metric, there is an analogous notion of principal GLnR-bundle; this is the bundle of linearly independent n-frames. More generally, if G is any topological group, a principal G-bundle is a locally trivial free G-space with orbit space B (see below for the precise definition). For example, if G is discrete then a principal G-bundle with connected total space is the same thing as a regular covering map with G as group of deck transformations. Under mild hypotheses there exists a classifying space BG, such that isomorphism classes of principal G-bundles over X are in natural bijective correspondence with [X, BG].
  • Categorification and (Virtual) Knots

    Categorification and (Virtual) Knots

    Categorification and (virtual) knots Daniel Tubbenhauer If you really want to understand something - (try to) categorify it! 13.02.2013 = = Daniel Tubbenhauer Categorification and (virtual) knots 13.02.2013 1 / 38 1 Categorification What is categorification? Two examples The ladder of categories 2 What we want to categorify Virtual knots and links The virtual Jones polynomial The virtual sln polynomial 3 The categorification The algebraic perspective The categorical perspective More to do! Daniel Tubbenhauer Categorification and (virtual) knots 13.02.2013 2 / 38 What is categorification? Categorification is a scary word, but it refers to a very simple idea and is a huge business nowadays. If I had to explain the idea in one sentence, then I would choose Some facts can be best explained using a categorical language. Do you need more details? Categorification can be easily explained by two basic examples - the categorification of the natural numbers through the category of finite sets FinSet and the categorification of the Betti numbers through homology groups. Let us take a look on these two examples in more detail. Daniel Tubbenhauer Categorification and (virtual) knots 13.02.2013 3 / 38 Finite Combinatorics and counting Let us consider the category FinSet - objects are finite sets and morphisms are maps between these sets. The set of isomorphism classes of its objects are the natural numbers N with 0. This process is the inverse of categorification, called decategorification- the spirit should always be that decategorification should be simple while categorification could be hard. We note the following observations. Daniel Tubbenhauer Categorification and (virtual) knots 13.02.2013 4 / 38 Finite Combinatorics and counting Much information is lost, i.e.
  • Arxiv:1505.02430V1 [Math.CT] 10 May 2015 Bundle Functors and Fibrations

    Arxiv:1505.02430V1 [Math.CT] 10 May 2015 Bundle Functors and Fibrations

    Bundle functors and fibrations Anders Kock Introduction The notions of bundle, and bundle functor, are useful and well exploited notions in topology and differential geometry, cf. e.g. [12], as well as in other branches of mathematics. The category theoretic set up relevant for these notions is that of fibred category, likewise a well exploited notion, but for certain considerations in the context of bundle functors, it can be carried further. In particular, we formalize and develop, in terms of fibred categories, some of the differential geometric con- structions: tangent- and cotangent bundles, (being examples of bundle functors, respectively star-bundle functors, as in [12]), as well as jet bundles (where the for- mulation of the functorality properties, in terms of fibered categories, is probably new). Part of the development in the present note was expounded in [11], and is repeated almost verbatim in the Sections 2 and 4 below. These sections may have interest as a piece of pure category theory, not referring to differential geometry. 1 Basics on Cartesian arrows We recall here some classical notions. arXiv:1505.02430v1 [math.CT] 10 May 2015 Let π : X → B be any functor. For α : A → B in B, and for objects X,Y ∈ X with π(X) = A and π(Y ) = B, let homα (X,Y) be the set of arrows h : X → Y in X with π(h) = α. The fibre over A ∈ B is the category, denoted XA, whose objects are the X ∈ X with π(X) = A, and whose arrows are arrows in X which by π map to 1A; such arrows are called vertical (over A).
  • Lecture 3: Field Theories Over a Manifold, and Smooth Field Theories

    Lecture 3: Field Theories Over a Manifold, and Smooth Field Theories

    Notre Dame Graduate Student Topology Seminar, Spring 2018 Lecture 3: Field theories over a manifold, and smooth field theories As mentioned last time, the goal is to show that n ∼ n 0j1-TFT (X) = Ωcl(X); n ∼ n 0j1-TFT [X] = HdR(X) Last time, we showed that: Ω∗(X) =∼ C1(ΠTX) ∼ 1 0j1 = C (SMan(R ;X) Today I want to introduce two other ingredients we'll need: • field theories over a manifold • smoothness of field theories via fibered categories 3.1 Field theories over a manifold Field theories over a manifold X were introduced by Segal. The idea is to give a family of field theories parametrized by X. Note that this is a general mathematical move that is familiar; for example, instead of just considering vector spaces, we consider families of vector spaces, i.e. vector bundles, which are families of vector spaces parametrized by a space, satisfying certain additional conditions. In the vector bundle example, we can recover a vector space from a vector bundle E over a space X by taking the fiber Ex over a point x 2 X. The first thing we will discuss is how to extract a field theory as the “fiber over a x 2 X" from a family of field theories parametrized by some manifold X. Recall that in Lecture 1, we discussed the non-linear sigma-model as giving a path integral motivation for the axioms of functorial field theories. The 1-dimensional non-linear sigma model with target M n did the following: σM : 1 − RBord −! V ect pt 7−! C1(M) [0; t] 7−! e−t∆M : C1(M) ! C1(M) The Feynman-Kan formula gave us a path integral description of this operator: for x 2 M, we had Z eS(φ)Dφ (e−t∆f)(x) = f(φ(0)) Z fφ:[0;t]!Xjφ(t)=xg If instead of having just one target manifold M, how does this change when one has a whole family of manifolds fMxg? 1 A first naive approach might be to simply take this X-family of Riemannian manifolds, fMxg.
  • Surface Bundles in Topology, Algebraic Geometry, and Group Theory

    Surface Bundles in Topology, Algebraic Geometry, and Group Theory

    Surface Bundles in Topology, Algebraic Geometry, and Group Theory Nick Salter and Bena Tshishiku Surface Bundles 푆 and whose structure group is the group Diff(푆) of dif- A surface is one of the most basic objects in topology, but feomorphisms of 푆. In particular, 퐵 is covered by open −1 the mathematics of surfaces spills out far beyond its source, sets {푈훼} on which the bundle is trivial 휋 (푈훼) ≅ 푈훼 × 푆, penetrating deeply into fields as diverse as algebraic ge- and local trivializations are glued by transition functions ometry, complex analysis, dynamics, hyperbolic geometry, 푈훼 ∩ 푈훽 → Diff(푆). geometric group theory, etc. In this article we focus on the Although the bundle is locally trivial, any nontrivial mathematics of families of surfaces: surface bundles. While bundle is globally twisted, similar in spirit to the Möbius the basics belong to the study of fiber bundles, we hope strip (Figure 1). This twisting is recorded in an invariant to illustrate how the theory of surface bundles comes into called the monodromy representation to be discussed in the close contact with a broad range of mathematical ideas. section “Monodromy.” We focus here on connections with three areas—algebraic topology, algebraic geometry, and geometric group theory—and see how the notion of a surface bundle pro- vides a meeting ground for these fields to interact in beau- tiful and unexpected ways. What is a surface bundle? A surface bundle is a fiber bun- dle 휋 ∶ 퐸 → 퐵 whose fiber is a 2-dimensional manifold Nick Salter is a Ritt Assistant Professor at Columbia University.
  • 4 Fiber Bundles

    4 Fiber Bundles

    4 Fiber Bundles In the discussion of topological manifolds, one often comes across the useful concept of starting with two manifolds M₁ and M₂, and building from them a new manifold, using the product topology: M₁ × M₂. A fiber bundle is a natural and useful generalization of this concept. 4.1 Product Manifolds: A Visual Picture One way to interpret a product manifold is to place a copy of M₁ at each point of M₂. Alternatively, we could be placing a copy of M₂ at each point of M₁. Looking at the specific example of R² = R × R, we take a line R as our base, and place another line at each point of the base, forming a plane. For another example, take M₁ = S¹, and M₂ = the line segment (0,1). The product topology here just gives us a piece of a cylinder, as we find when we place a circle at each point of a line segment, or place a line segment at each point of a circle. Figure 4.1 The cylinder can be built from a line segment and a circle. A More General Concept A fiber bundle is an object closely related to this idea. In any local neighborhood, a fiber bundle looks like M₁ × M₂. Globally, however, a fiber bundle is generally not a product manifold. The prototype example for our discussion will be the möbius band, as it is the simplest example of a nontrivial fiber bundle. We can create the möbius band by starting with the circle S¹ and (similarly to the case with the cylinder) at each point on the circle attaching a copy of the open interval (0,1), but in a nontrivial manner.
  • Category Theory Course

    Category Theory Course

    Category Theory Course John Baez September 3, 2019 1 Contents 1 Category Theory: 4 1.1 Definition of a Category....................... 5 1.1.1 Categories of mathematical objects............. 5 1.1.2 Categories as mathematical objects............ 6 1.2 Doing Mathematics inside a Category............... 10 1.3 Limits and Colimits.......................... 11 1.3.1 Products............................ 11 1.3.2 Coproducts.......................... 14 1.4 General Limits and Colimits..................... 15 2 Equalizers, Coequalizers, Pullbacks, and Pushouts (Week 3) 16 2.1 Equalizers............................... 16 2.2 Coequalizers.............................. 18 2.3 Pullbacks................................ 19 2.4 Pullbacks and Pushouts....................... 20 2.5 Limits for all finite diagrams.................... 21 3 Week 4 22 3.1 Mathematics Between Categories.................. 22 3.2 Natural Transformations....................... 25 4 Maps Between Categories 28 4.1 Natural Transformations....................... 28 4.1.1 Examples of natural transformations........... 28 4.2 Equivalence of Categories...................... 28 4.3 Adjunctions.............................. 29 4.3.1 What are adjunctions?.................... 29 4.3.2 Examples of Adjunctions.................. 30 4.3.3 Diagonal Functor....................... 31 5 Diagrams in a Category as Functors 33 5.1 Units and Counits of Adjunctions................. 39 6 Cartesian Closed Categories 40 6.1 Evaluation and Coevaluation in Cartesian Closed Categories. 41 6.1.1 Internalizing Composition................. 42 6.2 Elements................................ 43 7 Week 9 43 7.1 Subobjects............................... 46 8 Symmetric Monoidal Categories 50 8.1 Guest lecture by Christina Osborne................ 50 8.1.1 What is a Monoidal Category?............... 50 8.1.2 Going back to the definition of a symmetric monoidal category.............................. 53 2 9 Week 10 54 9.1 The subobject classifier in Graph.................
  • A Concrete Introduction to Category Theory

    A Concrete Introduction to Category Theory

    A CONCRETE INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORIES WILLIAM R. SCHMITT DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20052 Contents 1. Categories 2 1.1. First Definition and Examples 2 1.2. An Alternative Definition: The Arrows-Only Perspective 7 1.3. Some Constructions 8 1.4. The Category of Relations 9 1.5. Special Objects and Arrows 10 1.6. Exercises 14 2. Functors and Natural Transformations 16 2.1. Functors 16 2.2. Full and Faithful Functors 20 2.3. Contravariant Functors 21 2.4. Products of Categories 23 3. Natural Transformations 26 3.1. Definition and Some Examples 26 3.2. Some Natural Transformations Involving the Cartesian Product Functor 31 3.3. Equivalence of Categories 32 3.4. Categories of Functors 32 3.5. The 2-Category of all Categories 33 3.6. The Yoneda Embeddings 37 3.7. Representable Functors 41 3.8. Exercises 44 4. Adjoint Functors and Limits 45 4.1. Adjoint Functors 45 4.2. The Unit and Counit of an Adjunction 50 4.3. Examples of adjunctions 57 1 1. Categories 1.1. First Definition and Examples. Definition 1.1. A category C consists of the following data: (i) A set Ob(C) of objects. (ii) For every pair of objects a, b ∈ Ob(C), a set C(a, b) of arrows, or mor- phisms, from a to b. (iii) For all triples a, b, c ∈ Ob(C), a composition map C(a, b) ×C(b, c) → C(a, c) (f, g) 7→ gf = g · f. (iv) For each object a ∈ Ob(C), an arrow 1a ∈ C(a, a), called the identity of a.
  • 2 Vector Bundles

    2 Vector Bundles

    Part III: Differential geometry (Michaelmas 2004) Alexei Kovalev ([email protected]) 2 Vector bundles. Definition. Let B be a smooth manifold. A manifold E together with a smooth submer- sion1 π : E ! B, onto B, is called a vector bundle of rank k over B if the following holds: (i) there is a k-dimensional vector space V , called typical fibre of E, such that for any −1 point p 2 B the fibre Ep = π (p) of π over p is a vector space isomorphic to V ; (ii) any point p 2 B has a neighbourhood U, such that there is a diffeomorphism π−1(U) −−−!ΦU U × V ? ? π? ?pr y y 1 U U and the diagram commutes, which means that every fibre Ep is mapped to fpg × V . ΦU is called a local trivialization of E over U and U is a trivializing neighbour- hood for E. (iii) ΦU jEp : Ep ! V is an isomorphism of vector spaces. Some more terminology: B is called the base and E the total space of this vector bundle. π : E ! B is said to be a real or complex vector bundle corresponding to the typical fibre being a real or complex vector space. Of course, the linear isomorphisms etc. are understood to be over the respective field R or C. In what follows vector bundles are taken to be real vector bundles unless stated otherwise. Definition. Any smooth map s : B ! E such that π ◦ s = idB is called a section of E. If s is only defined over a neighbourhood in B it is called a local section.