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.

November 4, 2009

Notions of Space

Posted by Urs Schreiber

Today is my turn in our Seminar on A Survey of Elliptic Cohomology.

I attempted to write a survey of some central ideas in Jacob Lurie’s Structured Spaces.

You can find it here: Notions of Space.

You may think of this post also as a continuation of our discussion about Comparative Smootheology I II III.

Posted at November 4, 2009 2:43 PM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/2103

5 Comments & 0 Trackbacks

Re: Notions of Space

That’s very nice! I have two questions:

  1. Presumably the (,1)(\infty,1)-topos of (small) (,1)(\infty,1)-sheaves on 𝒢\mathcal{G} itself is the classifying (∞,1)-topos for 𝒢\mathcal{G}-structures?

  2. In the desired idea for a “concrete \infty-stack” X(U)Top(𝒢) op(Sh (U),𝒳)X(U) \subset \mathcal{L}Top(\mathcal{G})^{op}(Sh_{\infty}(U),\mathcal{X}) I am a little confused, because a priori X(U)X(U) is an \infty-groupoid (since XX is a presheaf on 𝒢\mathcal{G} with values in \infty-groupoids), while in general the morphisms between two (,1)(\infty,1)-toposes form an (,1)(\infty,1)-category, correct? Do we require that 𝒳\mathcal{X} is a “groupoidal” (,1)(\infty,1)-topos, or at least that XX lives in its “groupoidal” part?

Posted by: Mike Shulman on November 9, 2009 6:06 AM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: Notions of Space

Thanks, Mike. Here a quick reply:

Presumeably the (,1)(\infty,1)-topos of (small) (,1)(\infty,1)-sheaves on 𝒢\mathcal{G} itself is the classifying (,1)(\infty,1)-topos for 𝒢\mathcal{G}-structures?

Exactly. That’s StSp prop 1.4.2.

in general the morphisms between two (,1)(\infty,1)-toposes form an (,1)(\infty,1)-category, correct?

In principle, that’s of course correct. But here we stay entirely in the world of (,1)(\infty,1)-categories and consider Top(𝒢)\mathcal{L}Top(\mathcal{G}) as an (,1)(\infty,1)-category itself, discarding the non-invertible 2-morphisms.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on November 9, 2009 7:40 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Notions of Space

Thanks Urs.

But here we stay entirely in the world of (∞,1)-categories and consider Top(𝒢)\mathcal{L}Top(\mathcal{G}) as an (∞,1)-category itself, discarding the non-invertible 2-morphisms.

There’s something funny about that, to my mind. Makes me think that we really want to be talking about (,)(\infty,\infty)-topoi. (-:

Posted by: Mike Shulman on November 9, 2009 2:48 PM | Permalink | PGP Sig | Reply to this

Re: Notions of Space

There’s something funny about that, to my mind. Makes me think that we really want to be talking about (,)(\infty,\infty)-topoi. (-:

Sure. Eventually. I hope you are still working on that! :-)

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on November 9, 2009 2:54 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Toperads

Makes me think that we really want to be talking about (,)(\infty,\infty)-topoi.

By the way: do you (or anyone else reading this) know about any attempts to consider categories of operad-valued sheaves, dendroidal-set-valued sheaves and the like? “Toperads”?

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on November 9, 2009 3:02 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment