Here is what I am imagining to say:
Quickly recall the basic setup and notation I am using:
: the full subcategory of on vector spaces.
: sheaves on with respect to the standard notion of covers.
: -categories internal to .
: a weak equivalence of -categories, i.e. an -functor essentially -surjective for all .
: -categories with specified strict inverses for all -morphisms for all with inverse-assigning maps being morphisms in .
: -groupoids of the form for and .
: the unique -groupoid with a single object and .
Then:
Definition [-covers]
For ,
a cover of is an epimorphic weak equivalence
A refinement of covers is an epimorphism of covers
Denote the category formed by covers of by .
Definition [-cohomology]
For ,
the cohomology of with coefficients in
is
cocycles - objects of
coboundaries - 1-morphisms in ; if then these have the familiar form .
cohomology classes - equivalence classes in
Definition [various kinds of cohomologoes]
Nonabelian cohomology: an -group and .
Equivariant cohomology: not a discrete -category
group cohomology: equivariant cohomology of a point, for instance for a group and an abelian group
.
differential cohomology : (flat) or (fake-flat) – see next definition [there is also the non-fake flat case, but that requires more discussion]
Definition [fundamental -groupoids]
For , let be the -groupoid whose -morphisms are maps of the standard -disk in , constant in a neighbourhood of the boundary of the disk and modulo thin-homotopy.
Denote the truncation of at -morphisms by and the result of identifying in -morphisms equivalence in by .
In particular is the discrete -category over and the fundamental 1-groupoid of .
(I had the notation for consistently wrong in the above comments. Sorry.)
Definition [geometric realization]
Let
be defined such that for the realization is the sheaf
[“smooth homotopy hypothesis”]
The fundamental -groupoid construction and realization fit together nicely (ahem)
Definition [differential forms on ]
Write for the deRham sheaf
For write
for the space of differential forms on . This naturally carries the structure of a differential non-negatively graded-commutative algebra (“DGCA”) and yields a contravariant functor
Definition [classifying space for algebra-valued differential forms]
For any DGCA, denote by the space given by the sheaf
This yields a contravariant functor
[“differential homotopy hypothesis”] The contravariant functors
form a contravariant adjunction with unit
given by the inclusion
that acts as
Definition [-algebroid]
A (finite rank) -algebroid is a manifold and a cochain complex concentrated in non-positive degree of finite rank -modules together with a linear (over the ground field )degree +1 algebra derivation
(where is the dual complex (over ), hence non-negatively graded)
such that
The DGCA thus defined
is the Chevalley-Eilenberg DGCAof . We identify the category of -algebroids with the image
If is concentrated in the first degrees this is a Lie -algebroid.
If this is a (finite dimensional) -algebra or a Lie -algebra if is concentrated in the first -degrees. If and
this is a dg-Lie algebra.
Definition [-Lie integration and differentiation]
Combining the smooth and the differential “homotopy hypotheses” with this definition we obtain the situation
We say that going from right to left through this is -Lie integration. Going from left to right is -Lie differentiation.
Definition [-algebraic cocycle]
For a Lie -algebra, a space and a regular epimorphism, a -cocycle on is a DGCA morphism
Let be the simply connected -group integrating , i.e.
Notice that the integration of is
the sub -groupoid of of all those -paths that project down to a point in .
Definition [Lie integration of -algebraic cocycles]
Let be a quotient of which is weakly equivalent to . Let be a quotient of such that there is a commuting diagram
The existence of at least one such diagram is the integrability condition on .
Then this nonabelian cocycle
is a nonabelian cocycle integrating .
Proposition.
This integration of -algebraic cocylces to nonabelian cocycles yields in particular a refinement (of the method and of the result) in nonabelian cohomology of the Chern-Simons cocycles constructed by Brylinski&MacLaughlin:
where B&M obtain Chern-Simons -cocycles obstructing lifts of -cocycles through shifted central extensions
this procedure constructs the corresponding twisted -cocycles which generalize the twisted bundles that appear in twisted K-theory.
Definition [shifted central extension of -groups]
The -functors
are a shifted central extension is the first one is monic, the second epic and if there is a weak equivalence from the weak quotient to :
Given a -cocycle
we ask for the obstruction to lifting this through
With chosen fine enough we can always lift to a twisted -cocycle, namely a -cocycle as in figure 4.
In [SSS] this is described for -algebraic cocycles. Hit everything in there with to get the corresponding statements in nonabelian cohomology.
Re: Some ω-Questions
Question 6) homotopy hypothesis for generalized spaces
Forgot this one: this concerns figure 5.
In the context of the homotopy hypothesis we pick a notion of and pick a notion of such that each space has an fundamental -groupoid and each -groupoid has a geometric realization as a space – and ask if these two operations yield some kind of equivalence .
Consider this for the choice where is the full subcategory of on vector spaces and the choice (-groupoids internal to ).
Let be the functor which sends each space to its fundamental -groupoid whose -morphisms are thin homotopy classes of smooth images of the standard -disk in , (constant in a neighbourhood of the boundary of the disk).
Let be the functor which sends each -groupoid to the sheaf
First sub-question: this is defined without mentioning the -nerve of . It should nevertheless yield the right notion of geometric realization in . Is that right?
Second subquestion: we have Quillen model category structures on both sides. Do and induce a Quillen model equivalence? If not, what else do we get? At least an adjunction one way or the other?