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 20, 2005

CFT, Gerbes and K-Theory in Oberwolfach, VI

Posted by Urs Schreiber

With kind permission, here are more details on Brano Jurčo’s talk:


Branislav Jurčo
On the Classification of Nonabelian Bundle Gerbes with Connections
(in preparation)

Update 5th October 2005: The corresponding preprint has now appeared as math.DG/0510078.

Principal GG-bundles over XX are classified by homotopy equivalence classes

(1)[X,BG] [X,BG]

of maps from XX to a topological space called BGBG, the classifying space of BGBG-bundles. The claim is that this construction can be generalized to 1-nonabelian gerbes/2-bundles by replacing BGBG with the nerve of the structure 2-group (regarded as a 2-category with a single object).

In fact, the method would directly generalize to nn-gerbes/n+1n+1-bundles for arbitrary nn.

Using this result it should be possible to prove the conjecture from the end of math.QA/0504123, which says that String(n)\mathrm{String}(n)-bundles over MM are ‘the same’ as 1-gerbes/2-bundles with structure 2-group P 1Spin(n)P_1\mathrm{Spin}(n).

The construction is based on the fact (see for instance the first few pages of Duskin for a review) that categories can equivalently be regarded as simplicial sets with functors equivalently regarded as simplicial maps, and that in the presence of a topology these simplicial objects can be turned into topological spaces.

To see how the construction works, reconsider the familiar case of a principal GG-bundle. Regard the structure group GG as a category with a single object and one morphism for each group element. The nerve G G_\bullet of that category is obtained by including

- a single 0-simplex \bullet
- a 1-simplex g\bullet \overset{g}{\to} \bullet for each gGg \in G
-a 2-simplex

(2)g 1g 2g 1g 2 \bullet \overset{g_1}{\to} \bullet \overset{g_2}{\to} \bullet \Rightarrow \bullet \overset{g_1 g_2}{\to}

for all g 1,g 2Gg_1,g_2 \in G
- a 3-simplex for each four composable such 2-simplices
- and so on .

Next, consider some manifold MM with a good covering U={U i} iIU = \{U_i\}_{i \in I} by open, contractible subsets U iMU_i \subset M. The nerve U U_\bullet of this covering has

- a 0-simplex U iU_i for each iIi \in I
- a 1-simplex U iU jU_i \to U_j for every nonempty double intersection U iU jU_i \cap U_j
- a 2-simplex for every triple intersection
- and so on.

Assume the covering is very fine and consider a simplicial map from the nerve of the covering to the nerve of GG, as defined above. This evidently looks a lot like a (consistent!) assignment of transition functions of a GG-bundle to the covering UU. One can easily see that a gauge transformation of such transitions is nothing but a homotopy of the above simplicial maps. Hence homotopy equivalence classes [U ,G ][U_\bullet,G_\bullet] of such simplicial maps have to do with equivalence classes of GG-bundles over MM.

One can take the ‘geometric realization’ |||\cdot| of this simplicial construction. If everything works right one has

(3)[U ,G ][|U |,|G |]. [U_\bullet, G_\bullet] \simeq [|U_\bullet|, |G_\bullet|] \,.

Moreover, |U ||U_\bullet| is homopy equivalent to MM itself, so that finally one has that

(4)[M,|G |]:=[M,BG] [M, |G_\bullet|] := [M,BG]

is seen to classify GG-bundles on MM.

Now generalize this idea. It was noted in hep-th/0412325 (see here for a revised version) that the transition functions of a nonabelian gerbe/principal 2-bundle over MM with structure 2-group G2G2 similarly come from simplices in the 2-group G2G2, regarded as a 2-category with a single object.

By the same reasoning as above, it should follow that homotopy classes of simplicial maps

(5)[M,|G2 |] [M, |G2_\bullet|]

from MM to the geometric realization of the nerve of the 2-group G2G2 (in the 2-category-sense) classify nonabelian G2G2-gerbes/2-bundles over MM.

I cannot draw diagrams right now, but in order to visualize this have a look at the diagram which I reproduced in a previous entry and just replace all appearances of hol \mathrm{hol}_\cdot with \bullet.

Clearly, if this is true at the level of 2-bundles, it should go through for GnGn-bundles for all nn.


Next, Brano Jurčo notes a certain relation between the nerve G2 G2_\bullet of a 2-group G2G2 regarded as a 2-category with a single object, and the nerve N(G2)N(G2) of the same 2-group but regarded as a 1-category. There is a general notion of classifying space for simplicial groups QQ, which is a simplicial space called W¯Q\bar W Q. The claim is that

(6)G2 =W¯N(G2). G2_\bullet = \bar W N(G2) \,.

This again should mean that the classifying space for G2G2-2-bundles (the geometric realization of the left hand side) is the same as that for |N(G2)||N(G2)|-bundles.

Now, in math.QA/0504123 it was shown that there is a certain 2-group

(7)G2=P 1Spin(n) G2 = P_1\mathrm{Spin}(n)

such that

(8)|N(G2)|String(n) |N(G2)| \simeq \mathrm{String}(n)

is the String(n)\mathrm{String}(n)-group. So in this case the above would say that String(n)\mathrm{String}(n)-bundles over MM have the same classification as P 1Spin(n)P_1\mathrm{Spin}(n)-2-bundles over MM, as conjectured. (I have sketched another argument why this should be true in my thesis (see section 10.7.2 and 12.3.1).)

Brano also does something for the classification of gerbes with 1-connection, but has not yet included the curving 2-form. From the argument mentioned in the previous entry it seems that the same line of reasoning should apply for pp-bundles with pp-connection and pp-holonomy, too.

Posted at August 20, 2005 1:43 PM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/633

4 Comments & 5 Trackbacks

Re: CFT, Gerbes and K-Theory in Oberwolfach, VI

Hi Urs

It’s wonderful to see such excellent reporting. Have you heard any more about that 2-topology thesis?

Posted by: Kea on August 23, 2005 1:49 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: CFT, Gerbes and K-Theory in Oberwolfach, VI

You mean Igor Bacović’s work on bisites, which I had mentioned recently? No, no more details yet. It’s supposed to appear by the end of this year, sometime, as far as I understand.

Posted by: Urs on August 23, 2005 9:41 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: CFT, Gerbes and K-Theory in Oberwolfach, VI

An aside here on BGBG for GG nonabelian (a conjecture really):

It is well known that for an abelian group AA, BABA is again an abelian group, and hence B nAB^{n}A is well defined. But for nonabelian groups, things get tricky fast.

Taking the analogy with abelian gerbes, where BBABBA is the classifying space for AA-gerbes, we would like to have BBGBBG the classifying space for GG-gerbes. But what is BBGBBG? If we think of the 2-bundle interpretation of things, GG-gerbes are equivalent to AUT(G)=(GAut(G))AUT(G) = (G \to Aut(G))-2-bundles (yet to be proved, I suppose, but no reason to doubt). Thus we could possibly interpret BBGBBG as a sort of classifying space BAUT(G)B AUT(G). Now AUT(G)AUT(G) is really a gr-stack (thinking here a bit more general than 2-bundles, we can replace the group GG by a sheaf of groups).

Is there some equivalence here between BGBG and AUT(G)AUT(G)? Can we think of B nGB^{n}G as a (possibly degenerate at some stage) gr-n-stack (or an n-group, if GG is just a group)?

As a disclaimer, I had a thought that some of this might be in Breen’s book on classifying 2-gerbes, but I wanted to get it down before having a look. People with more experience than I can perhaps do something with the above naive approach.

(break)

I’ve just had a peek at “On the classification of 2-gerbes…” and just rediscovered the interesting fact that Tors(G)Tors(G) (or GBund\mathbf{GBund}, if you like - I don’t use Baez’s definition of torsor) is the associated stack to BGBG, where BG=NGBG=NG, thinking of GG as a groupoid.

Of course, Tors(G)Tors(G) is a torsor (again, not Baez’s defn) under the gr-stack/2-group Bitors(G)AUT(G)Bitors(G) \sim AUT(G). Hmmm

(possibly with foot in mouth), D

Posted by: David Roberts on August 24, 2005 3:20 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: CFT, Gerbes and K-Theory in Oberwolfach, VI

I’d agree that this looks like the right inuition. While ‘BBGBBG’ does not literally make sense for nonabelian GG, we expect ‘BB nGB B^n G’ to be the nerve (in Duskin’s nn-categorical sense) of an (n+1)(n+1)-group which has GG as its space of n+1n+1-morphisms.

- This is strictly true for n=0n=0: Here BGBG is the nerve of the 1-group which has GG as its space of 1-morphisms (on a single object).

- It is also strictly true for n=1n=1 and GG abelian: Here BBGBBG is the same as the realization of the 2-category nerve of the 2-group which has GG as its space of 2-morphisms (on a single 1-morphism on a single object), namely the 2-group coming from the crossed module G1G \to 1.

- It is morally true for n=1n=1 with nonabelian GG and the heuristic relation ‘BBGAut(G)BBG \leftrightarrow \mathrm{Aut}(G)’, because Aut(G)\mathrm{Aut}(G) is a 2-group with GG as its space of 2-morphisms (on a given source 1-morphism).

So every application of BB sort of lifts GG from nn-morphisms to n+1n+1-morphisms, in a sense. For GG abelian we can assume all (m<n+1)(m \lt n+1)-morphisms to be trivial and are done. But for GG nonabelian there is more information in these lower-mm-morphisms, which is why the naïve relation breaks down.

I am sure the true cognoscenti could say this in a much better and deeper way.

Posted by: Urs Schreiber on August 24, 2005 9:37 AM | Permalink | Reply to this
Read the post Equivariant Structures on Gerbes
Weblog: The String Coffee Table
Excerpt: Some literature on gerbes on orbifolds.
Tracked: December 23, 2005 12:08 PM
Read the post Remarks on String(n)-Connections
Weblog: The String Coffee Table
Excerpt: Is Stolz/Teichner's String-connection a 2-connection in an associated 2-bundle?
Tracked: March 11, 2006 3:13 PM
Read the post Jurco on Gerbes and Stringy Applications
Weblog: The String Coffee Table
Excerpt: Jurco reviews some facts concerning nonabelian gerbes in string theory.
Tracked: April 19, 2006 11:36 AM
Read the post Talk in Bonn on the String 2-Group
Weblog: The String Coffee Table
Excerpt: Talk on the String 2-Group in Bonn.
Tracked: April 26, 2006 8:22 PM
Read the post CFT, Gerbes and K-Theory in Oberwolfach, VII
Weblog: The String Coffee Table
Excerpt: You'll have noticed that I failed to report on the talks of the last two days in Oberwolfach, either...
Tracked: January 17, 2007 7:52 PM