Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

August 30, 2007

On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

Posted by Urs Schreiber

Kathryn Hess and Steve Lack are working on a Bundle Theory for Categories, various aspects of which are very close to the things we like to talk about here at the nn-Café.

John Baez kindly pointed out to me the very nice set of slides

Kathryn Hess
Bundle Theory for Categories
(slides) .

These slides discuss definitions and examples of this framework from 0-categories over 1-categories to 2-categories.

Here I shall walk through the material of that talk concerning 1-categories by exemplifying every step in terms of the example where the bundle of categories in question is the Atiyah groupoid of an (ordinary!) principal GG-bundle.

I believe this is helpful for putting these constructions in perspective.

I shall make use of the discussion of the Atiyah groupoid as given in

nn-Transport and Higher Schreier Theory

and

Curvature, the Atiyah Sequence and Inner Automorphisms,

but I try to make the discussion self-contained and elementary.

First: a fancy way to think of preimages

The entire construction which we shall be concerned with is maybe best understood as a categorification of the notion of preimages.

From Kindergarten we know that for EE and BB any two sets (let’s, following Hess and Lack, always make the least troublesome of all technical assumptions, which here means: assume these sets are finite) and for f:EB f : E \to B a surjective map from one to the other, the preimage operation f 1:BFinSet f^{-1} : B \to \mathrm{FinSet} is a map from the set BB to the set of all finite sets, which sends each element of bb to the set f 1(b)f^{-1}(b) of all elements of EE which ff maps to bb.

Okay, you knew that before. So let’s be a little more fancy and put it this way:

Fact. There is a canonical bijection between surjective maps of sets f:EB f : E \to B and maps f 1:B0Cat. f^{-1} : B \to 0\mathrm{Cat} \,.

Notice that this involves a funny shift in dimension: Above we regard 0Cat0\mathrm{Cat} as a mere 0-category (a set) itself. But of course 0Cat0\mathrm{Cat} is itself really a 1-category.

We can make that more explicit by refining the above statement slightly:

Let 0CatB 0\mathrm{Cat}\downarrow B be the category of sets over BB. Objects are surjective maps f:EBf : E \to B as above, and morphisms are commuting triangles E 1 E 2 B. \array{ E_1 &&\to&& E_2 \\ & \searrow && \swarrow \\ && B } \,.

Moreover, let Hom Cat(B,0Cat) \mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{Cat}}(B, 0\mathrm{Cat}) be the standard category of functors, whose objects are functors from BB, regarded as a category with only identity morphisms, to the category of finite sets, which here I am calling 0Cat0\mathrm{Cat} just for fun. A functor from such a discrete category to an honest category is what deserves to be called a pseudo 0-functor.

Then, clearly, we have the

Fact. The category of 0-categories fibered over BB is canonically equivalent to that of pseudo 0-functors from BB to 0Cat0\mathrm{Cat}: 0CatBHom(B,0Cat). 0\mathrm{Cat}\downarrow B \;\;\simeq \;\; \mathrm{Hom}(B,0\mathrm{Cat}) \,.

Of course I am stating this simple fact in such fancy language just in order to make it look more suggestive of what comes next.


Fibered Categories or 2-Preimages

The way we have stated our Kindergarten fact about pre-images above immediately makes us want to categorify it (that’s how it works: you know you understand something really when it categorifies seamlessly).

So we’d hope that the following is true, for BB any (1-)category:

Fact. The category of 1-categories fibered over BB is canonically equivalent to that of pseudo (1-)functors from BB to 1Cat1\mathrm{Cat}: 1CatBHom(B,1Cat). 1\mathrm{Cat}\downarrow B \;\;\simeq \;\; \mathrm{Hom}(B,1\mathrm{Cat}) \,.

This is indeed true, when we impose the right condition for what it means for a category EE to be “fibered” over another. It turns out that the right condition is that the projection functor p:EBp : E \to B admits what are called cartesian lifts of morphisms in BB to morphisms in EE.

“Cartesian lift” is a bad (but standard) name for the following good idea:

Given any morphism (xγb) (x \stackrel{\gamma}{\to} b) down in BB, suppose we find some object e xEe_x \in E sitting above aa e x E p x=p(e x) B. \array{ e_x &&&& \in E \\ &&&& \downarrow^p \\ x = p(e_x) &&&& B } \,. That makes us want to find a lift of the entire morphism γ:xy\gamma : x \to y to EE. Even with its source fixed to be e xe_x there may still be many choices. A cartesian lift is one which is universal among these choices:

suppose e x γ^ e x γ *e x E p x=p(e x) γ=p(γ^ e x) y=p(γ *e x) B \array{ e_x &\stackrel{\hat \gamma_{e_x}}{\to}& \gamma_* e_x && \in E \\ &&&& \downarrow^p \\ x = p(e_x) &\stackrel{\gamma = p(\hat \gamma_{e_x})}{\to}& y = p(\gamma_* e_x ) &&B } is a lift of the entire morphism γ\gamma. Clearly it deserves to be called universal among all such lifts with source given by e xe_x, if any other one, say δ\delta e δ e x γ^ e x γ *e x E p x=p(e x) γ=p(γ^ e x) y=p(γ *e x) B \array{ && e' \\ & {}^\delta \nearrow & \\ e_x &\stackrel{\hat \gamma_{e_x}}{\to}& \gamma_* e_x && \in E \\ &&&& \downarrow^p \\ x = p(e_x) &\stackrel{\gamma = p(\hat \gamma_{e_x})}{\to}& y = p(\gamma_* e_x ) &&B } uniquely factors through it, e δ ! e x γ^ e x γ *e x E p x=p(e x) γ=p(γ^ e x) y=p(γ *e x) B \array{ && e' \\ & {}^\delta \nearrow & \downarrow^{\exists !} \\ e_x &\stackrel{\hat \gamma_{e_x}}{\to}& \gamma_* e_x && \in E \\ &&&& \downarrow^p \\ x = p(e_x) &\stackrel{\gamma = p(\hat \gamma_{e_x})}{\to}& y = p(\gamma_* e_x ) &&B }

Warning: I am being sloppy, on purpose: this is the op-version of the usual definition. So I am not describing fibrations here, but op-fibrations, following Hess and Lack.

In any case, Hess and Lack use a slightly stronger version of this condition, where the above unique morphisms exist not just for lifts of morphisms with the same endpoint, but also for morphisms with different endpoints. Compare their slide 14.

As far as I understand, this extra condition is what makes the opfibration split and this is what makes them equivalent not just to pseudofunctors, but to strict (ordinary) functors BCatB \to \mathrm{Cat}. But experts should please correct me here.

Okay, before going on, I’ll look at a (simple) example for such a split opfibration of categories.


The example which I will apply all this to

We all know that a principal GG-bundle is a “bundle of sets” p:PXp : P \to X. In order to understand how passing to “bundles of categories” brings a connection on bundles into the game, it is helpful – I think – to consider the Atiyah groupoid of of PP. Here is how that is defined.

Let GG be some Lie group, and let PXP \to X be some smooth principal GG-bundle over a smooth space XX. From this data, we canonically get the following groupoids P 1(X) Π 1(X) AdP AtP X×X. \array{ &&&& P_1(X) \\ &&&& \downarrow \\ &&&& \Pi_1(X) \\ &&&& \downarrow \\ \mathrm{Ad} P &\to & \mathrm{At} P &\to& X \times X } \,.

Here

- X×XX \times X is the pair groupoid of (the codiscrete groupoid over) XX: objects are points in XX, morphisms are pairs of points in XX.

- Π 1(X)\Pi_1(X) is the fundamental groupoid of XX: objects are points in XX, morphisms are pairs of points in XX, moprhisms are homotopy classes of paths between these points.

- P 1(X)P_1(X) is the smooth path groupoid of XX: objects are points of XX, morphisms are thin-homotopy classes of paths in XX

- At(P)=P× GP\mathrm{At}(P) = P \times_G P is the Atiyah groupoid of PP: objects are the fibers of PP, morphisms are all maps between fibers which respect the GG-action on PP.

- Ad(P)=P× GG\mathrm{Ad}(P) = P \times_G G is the groupoid corresponding to the adjoint bundle of groups of PP: objects are the fibers of PP, morphisms are all GG-equivariant fiber automorphisms.


The Atiyah groupoid as a split opfibrations

The Atiyah groupoid At(P)\mathrm{At}(P) canonically comes with a projection p:At(P)X×X p : \mathrm{At}(P) \to X \times X down to the pair groupoid: this simply forgets the details of the morphism between two fibers of PP and simply remembers the points over wich the source and target fibers live.

This is a (simple) example for a split opfibration:

i) it is clear that for each morphism in X×XX \times X at least one lift does exist: choose any morphism you like between the fibers of GG over the given endpoints (for instance simply by choosing one point in each fiber, that already fixes a GG-equivarint morphism between them!)

ii) since At(P)\mathrm{At}(P) is a groupoid, where every morphism is invertible, every lift is already universal.

Notice that in this example each object has a unique lift: the point xx needs to be lifted to the fiber over it, which is one object (not a collection of objects as one might maybe trick oneself into thinking) of At(P)\mathrm{At}(P). So it’s really a very simple example only. But supposedly illustrative.

As John Baez teaches in his lectures (last time in Quantization and Cohomology (Week 23)) a functor tra:BAt(P) \mathrm{tra} : B \to \mathrm{At}(P) which lifts each “path” (morphism) in BB to a morphism of the fibers over the endpoints is nothing but a choice of connection on PP. What kind of connection it is is determined by the nature of BB!

If B=X×XB = X\times X is the pair groupoid of XX, then functoriality of tra\mathrm{tra} implies that no matter which intermediate steps one makes to get from xx to yy, the composite of the corresponding fiber morphisms has to depend just on the endpoints xx and yy.

This means that we have a flat connection. And in fact, since X×XX \times X is so puny, it really means that we have a flat connection on a trivial(izable) bundle PP.

We can allow slightly more freedom by using not just the pair groupoid, but the fundamental groupoid Π 1(X) \Pi_1(X) of XX. We may simply pull back the Atiyah groupoid along the canonical projection Π(X)X×X. \Pi(X) \to X \times X \,. The resulting, slightly refined Atiyah groupoid, now has morphism which are pairs consisting of a choice of homotopy class of path between two points of XX, and a morphism between the fibers over these endpoints.

Now, a functor tra:BAt(B) \mathrm{tra} : B \to \mathrm{At}(B) is still a flat connection, but possibly on a nontrivial bundle PP. (There may be nontrivial monodromies around non-contractible loops.)

You might still find this disappointing. No problem. Just keep pulling back the Atiyah groupoid along the chain of projections P 1(X)Π 1(X)X×X. P_1(X) \to \Pi_1(X) \to X \times X \,. As we pull back the Atiyah groupoid to the full path groupoid we find its version where each morphism is a (thin-homotopy) class of a path between any two points, and a fiber morphism between the endpoints. Now functors P 1(X)At(P) P_1(X) \to \mathrm{At}(P) are arbitrary connection on PP. You may require everything in sight to be smooth and indeed obtain a general theory of smooth bundles with smooth connection this way, all using functors: that’s described in full detail in Parallel Transport and Functor (and constitutes the first edge of The Cube).

Shifting everything in dimension

The above description of connections follows this slogan:

A connection is something which sends each path to an isomorphism of the fibers above its endpoints. Hence it transports the elements of the fibers along the path.

But this actually means that other things get transported along the paths as well. Most importantly, it is not just the fibers itself which thus get transported – we may also think of the automorphism groups of the fibers being transported.

For if here is a fiber P x P_x and here an automorphism of it P xαP x P_x \stackrel{\alpha}{\to} P_x and if here is the parallel transport along a path P xtra(γ)P y P_x \stackrel{\mathrm{tra}(\gamma)}{\to} P_y to some other fiber yy, then here is an automorphism of the fiber P yP_y: P x tra(γ) 1 P y α P x tra(γ) P y. \array{ P_x &\stackrel{\mathrm{tra}(\gamma)^{-1}}{\leftarrow}& P_y \\ \downarrow^{\alpha} \\ P_x &\stackrel{\mathrm{tra}(\gamma)}{\rightarrow}& P_y } \,. This automorphism of P yP_y deserves to be called Ad tra(γ)(α). \mathrm{Ad}_{\mathrm{tra}(\gamma)} (\alpha) \,. It arises from α\alpha by conjugating with the parallel transport. You see, it is an inner morphism of the automorphism group of the fiber.

But recall that we are just looking at a very simple example here. In general there could be more than one object in EE sitting over any object down in BB. In that case we’d have not just an automorphism group of each fiber of an object downstairs, but an entire groupoid. Or even just any arbitrary (small, maybe) category.

So this means we ought be be looking at this adjoint action as actually being a functor which acts on fibers that we regard as categories. It is here that that curious shift in dimension appears in one of its many guises.

As a result, we get for every choice of “cartesian lift” of our (split op)fibered category p:EB p : E \to B which in my example was p:At(P)P 1(X) p : \mathrm{At}(P) \to P_1(X) a functor with values not just in a 1-category, but in the 2-category of categories Φ:BCat. \Phi : B \to \mathrm{Cat} \,. In my example this guy sends

– points in xx to the automorphism group of the fiber over xx, regarded as a one-object groupoid Φ:xΣAut(P x) \Phi : x \mapsto \Sigma \mathrm{Aut}(P_x)

– morphism, namely paths xγyx \stackrel{\gamma}{\to} y in XX to the functor which acts on these one-object groupoids by conjugating with the corresponding fiber isomorphism obtained from that connection Φ:(xγy)Ad tra(γ). \Phi : (x \stackrel{\gamma}{\to} y) \mapsto \mathrm{Ad}_{\mathrm{tra}(\gamma)} \,.

(If you think about it, this is, while different in detail, very closely related to the construction of the “differential” δtra\delta \mathrm{tra} of the functor tra\mathrm{tra} which I describe in section 3.2 of what I ideosyncratically call Arrow-Theoretic Differential Theory (I, II, III, IV). And of course that’s why John Baez emphasized Hess and Lack’s work.)

In more general situations, where things are not quite as well-behaved as in my little example, when the categories in question are not groupoids, for instance, and when they have more than one object over each object of the base, one needs to formulate the above slightly differently, though it essentially comes down to the same idea.

Hess and Lack give the general description of the functor Φ\Phi corresponding to

- a (split opfibered) category EBE \to B

- and a choice of lifts

on their slide 24. If you think of everything there being invertible, you immediately see the Ad-action which I mentioned above.


There would be more to say. But since this has already become a rather lenghty entry, maybe I should stop here for the moment.

Posted at August 30, 2007 9:18 PM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/1412

11 Comments & 1 Trackback

Read the post Arrow-Theoretic Differential Theory IV: Cotangents
Weblog: The n-Category Café
Excerpt: Cotangents and morphisms of Lie n-algebroids from arrow-theoretic differential theory.
Tracked: September 3, 2007 4:36 PM

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

It was David Roberts who apparently first explicitly noticed the obvious: that the tautological or universal category bundle PointedCatCat PointedCat \to Cat considered on slide 19 in Kathryn Hess’s talk is the tangent category bundle T ptCatCat. T_pt Cat \to Cat \,.

Recall that for any nn-category CC the nn-category T ptCT_pt C over the object ptpt of CC is defined to be the (strict) pullback T ptC C I dom pt C \array{ T_{pt} C &\to& C^I \\ \downarrow && \downarrow^{dom} \\ pt &\to& C } and that it is known (section 7 here) at least up to n=2n=2 that for every nn-group GG with corresponding one-object nn-groupoid BG\mathbf{B}G the map T ptBGBG T_{pt} \mathbf{B}G \to \mathbf{B}G is in fact the universal principal GG-bundle in that every principal GG-bundle PXP \to X over a space XX arises from this as the pullback along an nn-anafunctor g:XBGg : X \to \mathbf{B}G P T ptBG X g BG. \array{ P &\to& T_{pt} \mathbf{B}G \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ X &\to^g& \mathbf{B}G } \,.

(In that section 7 this is just stated without detailed proof, but that can be seen here)

The theorem on Hess’s slide 21 says that the universal CatCat-bundle T ptCatCatT_{pt}Cat \to Cat classifies (split op)-fibred categories:

Every (split op-)fibred category arises as a pullback of the universal Cat-bunde.

(As Richard Lewis pointed out this statement connects to the more familiar formulation in terms of the Grothendieck construction in that T ptCatCatT_{pt}Cat \to Cat is the result of applying the Grothendieck construction to Id:CatCatId : Cat \to Cat).

I would like to better understand the relation

fibered nn-categories \leftrightarrow fibrations with respect to the model structure on nnCat

Since the tangent category construction is obvious and natural for all nn, I am wondering if the following might be true in ωCat\omega Cat with respect to its standard model structure # (generalizing Lack’s model structure on 2Cat):

a) For every CC, TCCT C \to C is a fibration. For every object cC 0c \in C_0 T cCCT_c C \to C is a fibration. (?)

b) All fibrations in ωCat\omega Cat arise from pullbacks of fibrations of the form TCCT C \to C. (?)

I have some ideas about a), but not complete yet. About b) I am a bit clueless currently how to go about approaching the question.

One subtlety to expect for b) is that the pattern suggests that instead the correct statement rather wants to be something like that every fibration arises as a pullback of T ptωCatωCatT_{pt} \omega Cat \to \omega Cat. Which would need further qualification as T ptωCatT_{pt} \omega Cat exists not in ωCat\omega Cat but in ωCatCat\omega Cat-Cat, I suppose.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on September 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

I too am catching up so bear with me. If TC is the analog of the usual tangent bundle to a space, why would you expect it to be universal (cf. b))?

Posted by: jim stasheff on September 28, 2008 1:51 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

It’s not exactly the analogue of the tangent bundle, the terminology arose because the tangent bundle is an example of this construction for a particular Lie groupoid (Urs worked this out, and I just went along with it). It is better thought of as a higher categorical version of the groupoid with objects G (a group) and morphisms gg 1hh g \stackrel{g^{-1}h}{\longrightarrow} h that is, something like the groupoid Segal constructed his EGEG from.

The ‘universal thing’ is really defined on pointed (n-)categories, as it is more like the analogue of the path fibration. For nCat we take this to be the trivial n-category. For a (2-)group taken as a one-object 2-(3-)category, we take the only object as the basepoint.

To pre-empt a comment by one of the Bangor school :) one can form a basepoint independent version which the union over all basepoints of the above construction. But we mostly deal with monoidal things (the Cartesian monoidal structure on nCat, say) at present.

Posted by: David Roberts on September 28, 2008 2:56 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

It’s not exactly the analogue of the tangent bundle, the terminology arose because the tangent bundle is an example of this construction for a particular Lie groupoid

I am not dogmatic about calling pullbacks of the kind

T xC C I dom pt x C \array{ T_x C &\to& C^I \\ \downarrow && \downarrow^{dom} \\ pt &\stackrel{x}{\to}& C } for C IC^I the path object of CC and ptpt the terminal object a tangent object, which is just terminology that may or may not be helpful, but I do want to point out that the relation to true tangents of Lie groupoids in the form of Lie algebroids is by no means restricted to a particular one.

Instead: for CC any Lie groupoid we have a natural Lie group structure on Γ(TC)\Gamma(T C). The Lie algebra of that together with the algebra of functions on C 0C_0 is the Lie-Rinehart pair corresponding to the Lie-algebroid Lie(G)Lie(G) of CC.

So Γ(TC)\Gamma(T C) is indeed the “finite” version of the tangent structure Lie(G)Lie(G). And similar statements hold for higher Lie groupoids.

A detailed description of this is around page 5 here and page 9 here.

Of course if you argue that this still doesn’t justify the terminology “tangent” and that “based path” would be the better imagery, I won’t fight about it.

After all, we know that the “tangent nn-groupoid” of a one-object nn-groupoid BC\mathbf{B}C is the universal GG-nn-bundle EG\mathbf{E}G, which is a situation where the tangent imagery clearly is the less suggestive one.

But still: even in that case (and this was really the way I arrived at all this) the tangent way of looking at EG\mathbf{E}G is quite helpful, as indicated in table 3 here:

it is one way of understanding in full \infty-Lie theory the fundamental fact that the differential forms on the universal GG-bundle are modeled by the Weil algebra W(g)W(g) (gg the L L_\infty-algebra of the \infty-group GG), which is, regarded as functions on a supermanifold, nothing but the (shifted) tangent bundle of whatever the Chevalley-Eilenberg algebra CE(g)CE(g) is functions on, W(g)=C (T[1]g). W(g) = C^\infty(T[1] g) \,. And EG\mathbf{E}G is the Lie-integration of W(g)W(g).

So there is an important tangent story to be told here. It took me quite a bit of effort to unravel this to my satisfaction. I needed this to come to grips with the meaning of the fake-flatness constraint in nonabelian differential cohomology. For me all this very much justifies the “tangent category”-terminology. But I won’t insist on it in contexts where it seems less natural.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on September 28, 2008 2:52 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

I wrote:

Since the tangent category construction is obvious and natural for all nn, I am wondering if the following might be true in ωCat\omega Cat with respect to its standard model structure

a) For every CC, TCCT C \to C is a fibration. For every object cObj(C),T cCCc \in Obj(C), T_c C \to C is a fibration

I now noticed that this follows from standard reasoning:

Here the references are the following:

[BrownGolasinski]

[BrownHom]

[RS]

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on October 10, 2008 12:42 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

In between bundles of sets (the finiteness condition only serves to handle size issues) and bundles of categories, they should include bundles of monoids, just as they include bundles of monoidal categories before bundles of bicategories.

Posted by: Toby Bartels on September 28, 2008 12:51 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

Just to reaffirm `what everyone knows’, the usual classification of principal fiber bundles wrt a group G works equally well for connected monoids M instead of G.

Posted by: jim stasheff on September 28, 2008 1:42 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

Toby wrote:

In between bundles of sets […] and bundles of categories, they should include bundles of monoids, just as they include bundles of monoidal categories before bundles of bicategories.

Jim commented:

Just to reaffirm ‘what everyone knows’, the usual classification of principal fiber bundles wrt a group GG works equally well for connected monoids MM instead of GG.

Yes. I think Toby was referring to a subtle subtlety in this business:

a monoid is the same as a category with a single object. So the example you (Jim) refer to is actually subsumed in the notion of “bundles of categories” in the Hess-Lack sense

(caveat: their terminology is slightly misleading, I think: what they call a bundle of categories is really the result of pulling back the universal bundle along the second leg of the anafunctor representing the cocycle of the “real” category bundle. So it becomes the “real” bundle only after postcomposing with the map from their base category to whatever space/category it serves as a (hyper)cover of.)

In any case, while monoids are the same as one-object categories, there is a subtlety here when it comes to the morphisms between them. Same for higher monoids. For that reason sometimes people like to carefully distinguish between monoids and one-object categories.

More details are in Cheng, Gurski: The periodic table of n-categories for low dimensions I: degenerate categories and degenerate bicategories.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on September 28, 2008 3:04 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

Fact. There is a canonical bijection between surjective maps of sets

f:EB f:E \to B

and maps

f 1:B0Cat. f^{−1}:B \to 0Cat.

You haven’t specified that f 1f^{-1} cannot map an element of BB to the empty set, so I’m not sure why you restrict to surjective maps.

Posted by: David Corfield on September 29, 2008 9:50 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

You haven’t specified that f 1f^{-1} cannot map an element of B to the empty set, so I’’m not sure why you restrict to surjective maps.

True. Thanks for catching that. I should correct the entry.

In fact, given my better understanding of the entire situation now, I should rewrite the entry entirely.

But I guess I am too lazy to do that. Instead maybe I’ll post a new version some day.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on September 29, 2008 11:56 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: On Hess and Lack on Bundles of Categories

You could replace ‘surjective maps of sets’ with ‘any map of sets’, much as people have reconstructed general functors by a Grothendieck construction, not just (op)fibrations.

Posted by: David Roberts on September 30, 2008 2:12 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment