# Lecture 9: Sheaves. February 11, 2018

Size: px
Start display at page:

Transcription

1 Lecture 9: Sheaves February 11, 2018 Recall that a category X is a topos if there exists an equivalence X Shv(C), where C is a small category (which can be assumed to admit finite limits) equipped with a Grothendieck topology. In this lecture, we will describe some of the important categorical properties enjoyed by topoi. Our main goal is to prove the following: Theorem 1. Every topos is a pretopos. The main ingredient we will need in the proof of Theorem 1 is the following: Theorem 2. Let C be a small category which admits finite limits and is equipped with a Grothendieck topology. The inclusion functor Shv(C) Fun(C op, S) admits a left adjoint L : Fun(C op, S) Shv(C). Moreover, the functor L preserves finite limits. For any presheaf F, we will refer to L F as the sheafification of F. Let us first show that Theorem 2 implies Theorem 1. Let X be a topos, and write X = Shv(C) where C is a small category (which admits finite limits). We proceed in several steps. Lemma 3. The category X admits arbitrary inverse limits. Proof. We first note that the category Set admits arbitrary inverse limits. It follows that the category Fun(C op, Set) of presheaves admits arbitrary inverse limits. These are just computed pointwise (by the formula (lim F α )(C) = lim(f α (C)) for C C). It follows from this description that if each F α is a sheaf, then so is the inverse limit F = lim F α ; in this case, F is also a limit of the diagram {F α } in the category Shv(C). Lemma 4. The category X admits arbitrary colimits (that is, direct limits). Proof. Since the category Set has all colimits, it follows that Fun(C op, Set) admits arbitrary colimits (which are again computed pointwise by the formula (lim F α )(C) = lim(f α (C)) for C C). This construction generally does not carry sheaves to sheaves. However, we can obtain a sheaf F by applying the sheafification functor L to lim F α. Note that, for any sheaf G, we have canonical bijections Hom Shv(C) (F, G ) = Hom Shv(C) (L lim F α, G ) Hom Fun(C op,set)(lim F α, G ) lim Hom Fun(C op,set)(f α, G ). It follows that if each F α is a sheaf, then L lim (F α ) is a colimit of the diagram {F α } in the category Shv(C). Lemma 5. Every equivalence relation in X is effective. 1

2 Proof. Let F be a sheaf and let R F F be an equivalence relation on F. Then, for every object C C, we can view R(C) as an equivalence relation on F (C). Set E (C) = F (C)/ R(C). The construction C E (C) determines a presheaf of sets on C, given by the coequalier of the two projection maps π, π : R F in the category Fun(C op, Set). It follows that the sheafification L E is a coequalizer of π and π in the category Shv(C). To show that R is effective, we must show that the canonical map δ : R F L E F is an isomorphism. Note that we can identify δ with the canonical map L(F E F ) L F L E L F, which is an isomorphism because the sheafification functor L preserves finite limits. Lemma 6. Coproducts in X are disjoint. Proof. Let F and G be sheaves, and let F G denote the coproduct of F and G in the category of presheaves (given by the formula (F G )(C) = F (C) G (C)). Then the sheafification L(F G ) is a coproduct of F and G in the category of sheaves. We wish to show that the fiber product F L(F G ) G is an initial object of Shv(C). Since the functor L preserves finite limits, we can identify this fiber product with L(F F G G ) = L( ), where denotes the initial object of Fun(C op, Set). We conclude by observing that L carries the initial presheaf to the initial sheaf. Lemma 7. Colimits in the category X are universal. That is, for every morphism f : F G in the category X and every diagram {G α } in X / G, the canonical map lim(f G G α ) F G (lim G α α ) is an isomorphism (where the colimits are taken in the category of sheaves). Exercise 8. Check that Lemma 7 holds when X = Set is the category of sets. Proof of Lemma 7. Let us break with the notation used in the statement of Lemma 7 and instead write (lim G α ) and lim (F G G α ) for the appropriate colimits formed in the category Fun(C op, Set) of presheaves. α In this case, everything is computed pointwise, so that Exercise 8 shows that the map lim(f G G α ) F G (lim G α α ) is an isomorphism of presheaves. Applying the sheafification functor L (and using that it commutes with finite limits), we deduce that the canonical map is an isomorphism, which is the content of Lemma 7. L lim α (F G G α ) L(F G (lim G α )) Lemma 9. Suppose we are given a pullback diagram L F L G L(lim G α ) F G L(lim G α ). F G f F G f in the category X. If f is an effective epimorphism, then so is f. 2

3 Proof. Set R = F G F and set R = F G F. Our assumption that f is an effective epimorphism guarantees that we have a coequalizer diagram R F G Pulling back along the map G G and applying Lemma 7, we obtain a coequalizer diagram so that f is also an effective epimorphism. R F G Proof of Theorem 1. Let X Shv(C) be a topos. Then X admits finite limits (Lemma 3), equivalence relations in X are effective (Lemma 5), X admits disjoint coproducts (Lemmas 4 and 6), pullbacks of effective epimorphisms are effective effective epimorphisms (Lemma 9), and coproducts are preserved by pullback (Lemma 7). In particular, X is a pretopos. Exercise 10. Let C be a pretopos and let C 0 C be a full subcategory. Suppose that that inclusion functor C 0 C admits a left adjoint L : C C 0 which preserves finite limits. Show that C 0 is also a pretopos (when applied to the inclusion Shv(C) Fun(C op, Set), this shows that Theorem 2 implies Theorem 1). We now turn to the proof of Theorem 2. For the remainder of this lecture, we fix a small category C with finite limits, which admits a Grothendieck topology. Recall that a functor F : C op Set is a sheaf if, for every covering {U i X} in C, the diagram F (X) i I F (U i) i,j I F (U i X U j ) is an equalizer in the category of sets. In what follows, we will refer to an element s F (Y ) as a section of F over Y ; given a morphism Y Y in C, we denote the image of s in F (Y ) by s Y. By definition, the equalizer Eq( i I F (U i) i,j I F (U i X U j ) ) is the set of all tuples {s i F (U i )} i I satisfying s i Ui X U j = s j Ui X U j. Given any tuple of elements {s i F (U i )} i I and a map g : V X which factors as a composition V gi U i X, we can form the restriction s i V F (V ). In general, this will depend on the choice of i and of the map g i. However, the condition s i Ui X U j = s j Ui X U j is exactly what we need in order to guarantee that the restriction s i V is independent of i. Put another way, we have a canonical bijection Eq( i I F (U i) i,j I F (U i X U j ) ) lim F (V ), V where denotes the full subcategory of C spanned by those maps V X which factor through some U i (the factorization need not be specified). To exploit this, it will be convenient to introduce some terminology. Definition 11. Let X be an object of C. A sieve on X is a full subcategory C with the property that, for each morphism U V in C, if V belongs to then U also belongs to C. We will say that a sieve is covering if it contains a collection of maps {U i X} which form a covering of X (with respect to our chosen Grothendieck topology). Exercise 12. Let {f i : U i X} be a collection of morphisms in C having some common codomain X, and let C be the full subcategory spanned by those maps g : V X which factor through some f i. Show that is a sieve on X, which is covering sieve if and only if {f i : U i X} is a covering. 3

4 Applying the above discussion, we can reformulate the definition of sheaf as follows: Definition 13. Let F : C op Set be a presheaf. Then F is a sheaf if and only if, for every covering sieve C, the map F (X) lim F (U) is a bijection. U C We are now ready to describe the sheafification procedure explicitly. Construction 14. Let F : C op Set be a presheaf. We define a new presheaf F : C op Set by the formula F (X) = lim lim F (U). U Here the colimit is taken over all covering sieves on X (which we regard as a partially ordered set under reverse inclusion). Note that for any object X C, the sieve C is always a covering. We therefore have a canonical map α F : F (X) lim F (U) lim U C lim U F (U) F (X) (see the proof of Lemma 18 below for a more precise definition of the presheaf F and of this map). We will deduce Theorem 2 from the following more precise statements: Proposition 15. For every presheaf F : C op Set, the composite map F α F F α F F exhibits F as a sheafification of F. In other words, F is a sheaf and, for every sheaf G : C op Set, the induced map Hom Shv(C) (F, G ) Hom Fun(C op,set)(f, G ) is bijective. Proposition 16. The functor F F is left exact: that is, it preserves finite limits. Let us begin with the second statement. Lemma 17. Let X be an object of C. Then the collection of covering sieves C is closed under finite intersections. Proof. Let and C(1) be covering sieves on X. Then C contains a covering {U i X} i I and C (1) contains a covering {V j X} j J. Since coverings are closed under pullback, the collection of maps {U i X V j U i } j J is a covering for each i I. It follows that the collection of composite maps {U i X V j X} is a covering of X. We conclude by observing that each of these maps is contained in the sieve C(1). Proof of Proposition 16. Fix an object X C, and regard the construction F F (X) = lim lim U F (U) as a functor of the presheaf F. It follows from Lemma 17 that the colimit appearing in this expression is filtered (it is taken over a directed poset), and therefore commutes with finite limits. Since limits in Fun(C op, Set) are computed pointwise, it follows that the construction F F commutes with finite limits. 4

5 Lemma 18. Let F : C op Set be a presheaf and let G : C op Set be a sheaf. Then composition with α F : F F induces a bijection Hom Fun(C op,set)(f, G ) Hom Fun(C op,set)(f, G ). Proof. We begin by giving a more precise definition of the functor F and of the natural map α : F F. For this, we need an auxiliary construction: Notation 19. We define a category Cov(C) as follows: The objects of Cov(C) are pairs (X, ), where X C is an object and C C is a covering sieve. Given a pair of objects (X, ), (Y, C /Y ) Cov(C), a morphism from (X, C ) to (Y, C /Y ) is a morphism u : X Y in the category C with property that, for every morphism U X belonging to the sieve, the composite map U X u Y belongs to the sieve /Y. We have evident functors i : C Cov(C) and ρ : Cov(C) C, given by the formulae i(x) = (X, C ) ρ(x, ) = X Composition with i and ρ determines pullback functors i : Fun(Cov(C) op, Set) Fun(C op, Set) ρ : Fun(C op, Set) Fun(Cov(C) op, Set). The functor i admits a right adjoint i : Fun(C op, Set) Fun(Cov(C) op, Set) (given by right Kan extension along i), and the functor ρ admits a left adjoint ρ! Fun(Cov(C) op, Set) Fun(C op, Set) (given by left Kan extension along ρ). Concretely, we have i (F )(X, ) lim F (U) U ρ! (H )(X) = lim H (X, ), where the colimit is taken over the collection of all covering sieves on X. The construction F F can now be described more precisely by the formula F = ρ! i F. Note that, since i is a full faithful embedding, the natural map i i F F is an equivalence for every presheaf F. Consequently, for any pair of presheaves F, G Fun(C op, Set), we have a natural map Hom Fun(C op,set)(f, G ) = Hom Fun(C op,set)(ρ! i F, G ) Hom Fun(Cov(C) op,set)(i F, ρ G ) u Hom Fun(C op,set)(i i F, i ρ G ) Hom Fun(C op,set)(f, G ). These maps depends functorially on G, and are therefore (by Yoneda s lemma) given by precomposition with some map of presheaves F F ; this gives a more precise definition of the map α F appearing in the statement of Lemma 18. To complete the proof of Lemma 18, we must show that u is a bijection when G is a sheaf. Note that u can be identified with the canonical map Hom Fun(Cov(C) op,set)(i F, ρ G ) Hom Fun(Cov(C) op,set)(i F, i i ρ G ). We are therefore reduced to showing that if G is a sheaf, then the unit map ρ G i i ρ G is an equivalence of presheaves on Cov(C). Unwinding the definitions, we must show that for each object (X, ), the canonical map G (X) lim U G (U) is a bijection, which is a translation of our hypothesis that G is a sheaf (Definition 13). 5

6 To complete the proof of Proposition 15, we must show that applying the functor F F twice converts any presheaf into a sheaf. This is a consequence of a more precise assertion. Definition 20. Let F : C op Set be a functor. We will say that F is a separated presheaf if, for every covering {U i X}, the natural map F (X) F (U i ) is injective. Equivalently, we say that F is a separated presheaf if the unit map ρ F i i ρ F is a monomorphism of presheaves on Cov(C). Notation 21. Given a presheaf F, an object X C, and a covering sieve C, we let F (X, ) denote the value of the functor (i F ) on the pair (X, F (U). lim U ), given by the direct limit F (X, C ) = Lemma 22. Let F : C op Set be a separated presheaf. Then, for every object X C and every inclusion of covering sieves C(1) C, the restriction map F (X, C (1) ) F (X, C ) is injective. Proof. For each object V C (1), let C /V denote the sieve on V given by those maps U V for which the composite map U V X belongs to /U. We then compute F (X, C (1) ) = lim F (V ) = lim lim F (U) U C /V lim lim F (U) U /V lim F (U). U Lemma 23. Let F : C op Set be a separated presheaf. Then, for every object X C and every covering sieve C, the canonical map F (X, ) F (X) is injective. Proof. Apply Lemma 22 (note that a filtered colimit of injections is still an injection). Lemma 24. Let F : C op Set be a separated presheaf. Then F is a sheaf. Proof. Let X be an object of C and let C (1) be a covering sieve on X; we wish to show that the canonical map θ : F (X) F (X, C (1) ) is bijective. Write F (X) as a filtered colimit lim C those covering sieves which are contained in C(1) We can therefore write θ as a filtered colimit of maps θ C F (X, ). Here it suffices to take the colimit over. Using the notation of Lemma 22, we compute F (X, ) = lim F (V, /V ). : lim F (V, /V ) lim F (V ), 6

7 where θ C / ranges over all covering sieves on X which are contained in C(1). Lemma 23 guarantees that each is a monomorphism, so that θ is a monomorphism. X To complete the proof, we show that for each element s lim (1) V C F (V ), we can choose some covering for which s belongs to the image of θ. For each object V C (1), let s V denote the image of s in F (V ). From the definition of F, we see that there exists a covering sieve C (2) /V C /V for which s V belongs to the image of the monomorphism F (V, C (2) /V ) F (V ). We now complete the proof by taking to be the smallest sieve on X which contains each of the composite maps U V X, where U V belongs to C (2) /V and V X belongs to C(1). Lemma 25. Let F : C op Set be any presheaf. Then F is a separated presheaf. Proof. We argue as in the proof of Lemma 24. Fix an object X C and let C (1) we wish to show that the canonical map is injective. Write θ as as a filtered colimit of maps where θ C θ : F (X) F (X, C (1) ) : lim F (V, /V ) lim F (V ), be a covering sieve on X; ranges over covering sieves on X that are contained in C(1). Suppose we are given a pair of F (V, elements s, t lim V C (1) /V ) which have the same image under θ. For each V C (1), let s V and t V denote the images of s and t in F (V, /V ). Then s V and t V have the same image in F (V ). It follows that we can choose some covering sieve C (2) /V C /V such that s V and t V have the same image in F (V, C (2) /V ). Let C denote the smallest sieve on X which contains all composite maps U V X, where U V belongs to C (2) /V and V X bellongs to C(1). Then C is a covering sieve, and s and t have the same image in F (X, C ), hence also in F (X). Proof of Proposition 15. Combine Lemmas 18, 24, and 25. 7

### Elementary (ha-ha) Aspects of Topos Theory

Elementary (ha-ha) Aspects of Topos Theory Matt Booth June 3, 2016 Contents 1 Sheaves on topological spaces 1 1.1 Presheaves on spaces......................... 1 1.2 Digression on pointless topology..................

### Derived Algebraic Geometry IX: Closed Immersions

Derived Algebraic Geometry I: Closed Immersions November 5, 2011 Contents 1 Unramified Pregeometries and Closed Immersions 4 2 Resolutions of T-Structures 7 3 The Proof of Proposition 1.0.10 14 4 Closed

### A Grothendieck site is a small category C equipped with a Grothendieck topology T. A Grothendieck topology T consists of a collection of subfunctors

Contents 5 Grothendieck topologies 1 6 Exactness properties 10 7 Geometric morphisms 17 8 Points and Boolean localization 22 5 Grothendieck topologies A Grothendieck site is a small category C equipped

### LECTURE 1: SOME GENERALITIES; 1 DIMENSIONAL EXAMPLES

LECTURE 1: SOME GENERALITIES; 1 DIMENSIONAL EAMPLES VIVEK SHENDE Historically, sheaves come from topology and analysis; subsequently they have played a fundamental role in algebraic geometry and certain

### Sheaves. S. Encinas. January 22, 2005 U V. F(U) F(V ) s s V. = s j Ui Uj there exists a unique section s F(U) such that s Ui = s i.

Sheaves. S. Encinas January 22, 2005 Definition 1. Let X be a topological space. A presheaf over X is a functor F : Op(X) op Sets, such that F( ) = { }. Where Sets is the category of sets, { } denotes

### LECTURE 6: THE BOUSFIELD-KUHN FUNCTOR

LECTURE 6: THE BOUSFIELD-KUHN FUNCTOR Let V be a finite space of type n, equipped with a v n -self map v Σ t V V. In the previous lecture, we defined the spectrum Φ v (X), where X is a pointed space. By

### Derived Algebraic Geometry VII: Spectral Schemes

Derived Algebraic Geometry VII: Spectral Schemes November 5, 2011 Contents 1 Sheaves of Spectra 4 2 Spectral Schemes 11 3 Coherent -Topoi 26 4 Deligne s Completeness Theorem 33 5 Flat Descent 42 6 Flat

### 1 Replete topoi. X = Shv proét (X) X is locally weakly contractible (next lecture) X is replete. D(X ) is left complete. K D(X ) we have R lim

Reference: [BS] Bhatt, Scholze, The pro-étale topology for schemes In this lecture we consider replete topoi This is a nice class of topoi that include the pro-étale topos, and whose derived categories

### PART I. Abstract algebraic categories

PART I Abstract algebraic categories It should be observed first that the whole concept of category is essentially an auxiliary one; our basic concepts are those of a functor and a natural transformation.

### Category Theory. Travis Dirle. December 12, 2017

Category Theory 2 Category Theory Travis Dirle December 12, 2017 2 Contents 1 Categories 1 2 Construction on Categories 7 3 Universals and Limits 11 4 Adjoints 23 5 Limits 31 6 Generators and Projectives

### in path component sheaves, and the diagrams

Cocycle categories Cocycles J.F. Jardine I will be using the injective model structure on the category s Pre(C) of simplicial presheaves on a small Grothendieck site C. You can think in terms of simplicial

### Some glances at topos theory. Francis Borceux

Some glances at topos theory Francis Borceux Como, 2018 2 Francis Borceux francis.borceux@uclouvain.be Contents 1 Localic toposes 7 1.1 Sheaves on a topological space.................... 7 1.2 Sheaves

### IndCoh Seminar: Ind-coherent sheaves I

IndCoh Seminar: Ind-coherent sheaves I Justin Campbell March 11, 2016 1 Finiteness conditions 1.1 Fix a cocomplete category C (as usual category means -category ). This section contains a discussion of

### Representable presheaves

Representable presheaves March 15, 2017 A presheaf on a category C is a contravariant functor F on C. In particular, for any object X Ob(C) we have the presheaf (of sets) represented by X, that is Hom

### LECTURE 5: v n -PERIODIC HOMOTOPY GROUPS

LECTURE 5: v n -PERIODIC HOMOTOPY GROUPS Throughout this lecture, we fix a prime number p, an integer n 0, and a finite space A of type (n + 1) which can be written as ΣB, for some other space B. We let

### Modules over a Ringed Space

Modules over a Ringed Space Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 In these notes we collect some useful facts about sheaves of modules on a ringed space that are either left as exercises in [Har77] or omitted

### Direct Limits. Mathematics 683, Fall 2013

Direct Limits Mathematics 683, Fall 2013 In this note we define direct limits and prove their basic properties. This notion is important in various places in algebra. In particular, in algebraic geometry

### Combinatorial Models for M (Lecture 10)

Combinatorial Models for M (Lecture 10) September 24, 2014 Let f : X Y be a map of finite nonsingular simplicial sets. In the previous lecture, we showed that the induced map f : X Y is a fibration if

### Section Higher Direct Images of Sheaves

Section 3.8 - Higher Direct Images of Sheaves Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 In this note we study the higher direct image functors R i f ( ) and the higher coinverse image functors R i f! ( ) which will

### CONTINUOUS COHESION OVER SETS

Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 29, No. 20, 204, pp. 542 568. CONTINUOUS COHESION OVER SETS M. MENNI Abstract. A pre-cohesive geometric morphism p : E S satisfies Continuity if the canonical

### Fuzzy sets and presheaves

Fuzzy sets and presheaves J.F. Jardine Department of Mathematics University of Western Ontario London, Ontario, Canada jardine@uwo.ca November 27, 2018 Abstract This note presents a presheaf theoretic

### Derived Algebraic Geometry I: Stable -Categories

Derived Algebraic Geometry I: Stable -Categories October 8, 2009 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Stable -Categories 3 3 The Homotopy Category of a Stable -Category 6 4 Properties of Stable -Categories 12 5

### Derived Algebraic Geometry XIV: Representability Theorems

Derived Algebraic Geometry XIV: Representability Theorems March 14, 2012 Contents 1 The Cotangent Complex 6 1.1 The Cotangent Complex of a Spectrally Ringed -Topos.................... 7 1.2 The Cotangent

### Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra

Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 214 (2010) 1384 1398 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpaa Homotopy theory of

### Categories and Modules

Categories and odules Takahiro Kato arch 2, 205 BSTRCT odules (also known as profunctors or distributors) and morphisms among them subsume categories and functors and provide more general and abstract

### Compactness in Toposes

Algant Master Thesis Compactness in Toposes Candidate: Mauro Mantegazza Advisor: Dr. Jaap van Oosten Coadvisors: Prof. Sandra Mantovani Prof. Ronald van Luijk Università degli Studi di Milano Universiteit

### Equivalence of the Combinatorial Definition (Lecture 11)

Equivalence of the Combinatorial Definition (Lecture 11) September 26, 2014 Our goal in this lecture is to complete the proof of our first main theorem by proving the following: Theorem 1. The map of simplicial

### TOPICS IN ALGEBRA COURSE NOTES AUTUMN Contents. Preface Notations and Conventions

TOPICS IN ALGEBRA COURSE NOTES AUTUMN 2003 ROBERT E. KOTTWITZ WRITTEN UP BY BRIAN D. SMITHLING Preface Notations and Conventions Contents ii ii 1. Grothendieck Topologies and Sheaves 1 1.1. A Motivating

### FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 2

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 2 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. Where we were 1 2. Yoneda s lemma 2 3. Limits and colimits 6 4. Adjoints 8 First, some bureaucratic details. We will move to 380-F for Monday

### SJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK

SJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK MATEMATISKA INSTITUTIONEN, STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET Equivariant Sheaves on Topological Categories av Johan Lindberg 2015 - No 7 MATEMATISKA INSTITUTIONEN, STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET,

### Modules over a Scheme

Modules over a Scheme Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 In these notes we collect various facts about quasi-coherent sheaves on a scheme. Nearly all of the material is trivial or can be found in [Gro60]. These

### Generalized Topological Covering Systems on. Quantum Events Structures

Generalized Topological Covering Systems on Quantum Events Structures ELIAS ZAFIRIS University of Athens Department of Mathematics Panepistimiopolis, 15784 Athens Greece Abstract Homologous operational

### Derived Algebraic Geometry III: Commutative Algebra

Derived Algebraic Geometry III: Commutative Algebra May 1, 2009 Contents 1 -Operads 4 1.1 Basic Definitions........................................... 5 1.2 Fibrations of -Operads.......................................

### ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY COURSE NOTES, LECTURE 9: SCHEMES AND THEIR MODULES.

ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY COURSE NOTES, LECTURE 9: SCHEMES AND THEIR MODULES. ANDREW SALCH 1. Affine schemes. About notation: I am in the habit of writing f (U) instead of f 1 (U) for the preimage of a subset

### arxiv: v1 [math.ct] 28 Oct 2017

BARELY LOCALLY PRESENTABLE CATEGORIES arxiv:1710.10476v1 [math.ct] 28 Oct 2017 L. POSITSELSKI AND J. ROSICKÝ Abstract. We introduce a new class of categories generalizing locally presentable ones. The

### which is a group homomorphism, such that if W V U, then

4. Sheaves Definition 4.1. Let X be a topological space. A presheaf of groups F on X is a a function which assigns to every open set U X a group F(U) and to every inclusion V U a restriction map, ρ UV

### Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 18.726 Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. 18.726: Algebraic Geometry

### Review of category theory

Review of category theory Proseminar on stable homotopy theory, University of Pittsburgh Friday 17 th January 2014 Friday 24 th January 2014 Clive Newstead Abstract This talk will be a review of the fundamentals

### An introduction to locally finitely presentable categories

An introduction to locally finitely presentable categories MARU SARAZOLA A document born out of my attempt to understand the notion of locally finitely presentable category, and my annoyance at constantly

### University of Oxford, Michaelis November 16, Categorical Semantics and Topos Theory Homotopy type theor

Categorical Semantics and Topos Theory Homotopy type theory Seminar University of Oxford, Michaelis 2011 November 16, 2011 References Johnstone, P.T.: Sketches of an Elephant. A Topos-Theory Compendium.

### Category theory and set theory: algebraic set theory as an example of their interaction

Category theory and set theory: algebraic set theory as an example of their interaction Brice Halimi May 30, 2014 My talk will be devoted to an example of positive interaction between (ZFC-style) set theory

### SOME OPERATIONS ON SHEAVES

SOME OPERATIONS ON SHEAVES R. VIRK Contents 1. Pushforward 1 2. Pullback 3 3. The adjunction (f 1, f ) 4 4. Support of a sheaf 5 5. Extension by zero 5 6. The adjunction (j!, j ) 6 7. Sections with support

### FORMAL GLUEING OF MODULE CATEGORIES

FORMAL GLUEING OF MODULE CATEGORIES BHARGAV BHATT Fix a noetherian scheme X, and a closed subscheme Z with complement U. Our goal is to explain a result of Artin that describes how coherent sheaves on

### MONADS WITH ARITIES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED THEORIES

MONADS WITH ARITIES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED THEORIES CLEMENS BERGER, PAUL-ANDRÉ MELLIÈS AND MARK WEBER Abstract. After a review of the concept of monad with arities we show that the category of algebras for

### Assume the left square is a pushout. Then the right square is a pushout if and only if the big rectangle is.

COMMUTATIVE ALGERA LECTURE 2: MORE CATEGORY THEORY VIVEK SHENDE Last time we learned about Yoneda s lemma, and various universal constructions initial and final objects, products and coproducts (which

### arxiv: v2 [math.ag] 28 Jul 2016

HIGHER ANALYTIC STACKS AND GAGA THEOREMS MAURO PORTA AND TONY YUE YU arxiv:1412.5166v2 [math.ag] 28 Jul 2016 Abstract. We develop the foundations of higher geometric stacks in complex analytic geometry

### f(s)dµ of X. This integration procedure is determined by the topology on X: note that it is characterized by the normalization condition

ULTRACATEGORIES Contents Introduction 2 Acknowledgements 7 Conventions 7 1. Ultracategories 8 1.1. Ultrafilters 10 1.2. The Ultraproduct Construction 12 1.3. Ultracategories 14 1.4. Ultrafunctors 18 2.

### C2.7: CATEGORY THEORY

C2.7: CATEGORY THEORY PAVEL SAFRONOV WITH MINOR UPDATES 2019 BY FRANCES KIRWAN Contents Introduction 2 Literature 3 1. Basic definitions 3 1.1. Categories 3 1.2. Set-theoretic issues 4 1.3. Functors 5

### h M (T ). The natural isomorphism η : M h M determines an element U = η 1

MODULI PROBLEMS AND GEOMETRIC INVARIANT THEORY 7 2.3. Fine moduli spaces. The ideal situation is when there is a scheme that represents our given moduli functor. Definition 2.15. Let M : Sch Set be a moduli

### The Morita-equivalence between MV-algebras and abelian l-groups with strong unit

The Morita-equivalence between MV-algebras and abelian l-groups with strong unit Olivia Caramello and Anna Carla Russo December 4, 2013 Abstract We show that the theory of MV-algebras is Morita-equivalent

### Basic Modern Algebraic Geometry

Version of December 13, 1999. Final version for M 321. Audun Holme Basic Modern Algebraic Geometry Introduction to Grothendieck s Theory of Schemes Basic Modern Algebraic Geometry Introduction to Grothendieck

### Postulated colimits and left exactness of Kan-extensions

Postulated colimits and left exactness of Kan-extensions Anders Kock If A is a small category and E a Grothendieck topos, the Kan extension LanF of a flat functor F : A E along any functor A D preserves

### PART II.2. THE!-PULLBACK AND BASE CHANGE

PART II.2. THE!-PULLBACK AND BASE CHANGE Contents Introduction 1 1. Factorizations of morphisms of DG schemes 2 1.1. Colimits of closed embeddings 2 1.2. The closure 4 1.3. Transitivity of closure 5 2.

### Solutions to some of the exercises from Tennison s Sheaf Theory

Solutions to some of the exercises from Tennison s Sheaf Theory Pieter Belmans June 19, 2011 Contents 1 Exercises at the end of Chapter 1 1 2 Exercises in Chapter 2 6 3 Exercises at the end of Chapter

### CHAPTER 1. Étale cohomology

CHAPTER 1 Étale cohomology This chapter summarizes the theory of the étale topology on schemes, culminating in the results on l-adic cohomology that are needed in the construction of Galois representations

### Lectures on Homological Algebra. Weizhe Zheng

Lectures on Homological Algebra Weizhe Zheng Morningside Center of Mathematics Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100190, China University of the Chinese Academy

### PART II.1. IND-COHERENT SHEAVES ON SCHEMES

PART II.1. IND-COHERENT SHEAVES ON SCHEMES Contents Introduction 1 1. Ind-coherent sheaves on a scheme 2 1.1. Definition of the category 2 1.2. t-structure 3 2. The direct image functor 4 2.1. Direct image

### Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 18.726 Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. 18.726: Algebraic Geometry

### Topos-theoretic background

opos-theoretic background Olivia Caramello IHÉS September 22, 2014 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 erminology and notation 3 3 Grothendieck toposes 3 3.1 he notion of site............................ 3 3.2

### ESSENTIALLY ALGEBRAIC THEORIES AND LOCALIZATIONS IN TOPOSES AND ABELIAN CATEGORIES

ESSENTIALLY ALGEBRAIC THEORIES AND LOCALIZATIONS IN TOPOSES AND ABELIAN CATEGORIES A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Engineering

### NOTES ON GEOMETRIC LANGLANDS: STACKS

NOTES ON GEOMETRIC LANGLANDS: STACKS DENNIS GAITSGORY This paper isn t even a paper. I will try to collect some basic definitions and facts about stacks in the DG setting that will be used in other installments

### Etale cohomology of fields by Johan M. Commelin, December 5, 2013

Etale cohomology of fields by Johan M. Commelin, December 5, 2013 Etale cohomology The canonical topology on a Grothendieck topos Let E be a Grothendieck topos. The canonical topology T on E is given in

### Homology and Cohomology of Stacks (Lecture 7)

Homology and Cohomology of Stacks (Lecture 7) February 19, 2014 In this course, we will need to discuss the l-adic homology and cohomology of algebro-geometric objects of a more general nature than algebraic

### Exercises from Vakil

Exercises from Vakil Ian Coley February 6, 2015 2 Sheaves 2.1 Motivating example: The sheaf of differentiable functions Exercise 2.1.A. Show that the only maximal ideal of the germ of differentiable functions

### Categorical models of homotopy type theory

Categorical models of homotopy type theory Michael Shulman 12 April 2012 Outline 1 Homotopy type theory in model categories 2 The universal Kan fibration 3 Models in (, 1)-toposes Homotopy type theory

### Lecture 2 Sheaves and Functors

Lecture 2 Sheaves and Functors In this lecture we will introduce the basic concept of sheaf and we also will recall some of category theory. 1 Sheaves and locally ringed spaces The definition of sheaf

### Sheaf-Theoretic Representation of Quantum Measure Algebras

Sheaf-Theoretic Representation of Quantum Measure Algebras ELIAS ZAFIRIS University of Athens Institute of Mathematics Panepistimiopolis, 15784 Athens Greece Abstract We construct a sheaf-theoretic representation

### LOCALIZATIONS, COLOCALIZATIONS AND NON ADDITIVE -OBJECTS

LOCALIZATIONS, COLOCALIZATIONS AND NON ADDITIVE -OBJECTS GEORGE CIPRIAN MODOI Abstract. Given two arbitrary categories, a pair of adjoint functors between them induces three pairs of full subcategories,

### IND-COHERENT SHEAVES AND SERRE DUALITY II. 1. Introduction

IND-COHERENT SHEAVES AND SERRE DUALITY II 1. Introduction Let X be a smooth projective variety over a field k of dimension n. Let V be a vector bundle on X. In this case, we have an isomorphism H i (X,

### Topos Theory. Lectures 21 and 22: Classifying toposes. Olivia Caramello. Topos Theory. Olivia Caramello. The notion of classifying topos

Lectures 21 and 22: toposes of 2 / 30 Toposes as mathematical universes of Recall that every Grothendieck topos E is an elementary topos. Thus, given the fact that arbitrary colimits exist in E, we can

### CHAPTER I.2. BASICS OF DERIVED ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY

CHAPTER I.2. BASICS OF DERIVED ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY Contents Introduction 2 0.1. Why prestacks? 2 0.2. What do we say about prestacks? 3 0.3. What else is done in this Chapter? 5 1. Prestacks 6 1.1. The

### ALGEBRAIC K-THEORY HANDOUT 5: K 0 OF SCHEMES, THE LOCALIZATION SEQUENCE FOR G 0.

ALGEBRAIC K-THEORY HANDOUT 5: K 0 OF SCHEMES, THE LOCALIZATION SEQUENCE FOR G 0. ANDREW SALCH During the last lecture, we found that it is natural (even just for doing undergraduatelevel complex analysis!)

### Γ-Ultrametric Spaces and Separated Presheaves. Nathanael Leedom Ackerman

Γ-Ultrametric spaces Definition Let (Γ,,0) be a complete lattice with minimal element 0 A Γ-ultrametric space is a pair (M,d M ) such that M is a set and d M : M M Γ. (Reflexivity) ( x,y M)d M (x,y) =

### Derived Categories Of Sheaves

Derived Categories Of Sheaves Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 We give a standard exposition of the elementary properties of derived categories of sheaves on a ringed space. This includes the derived direct

### Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 18.726 Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. 18.726: Algebraic Geometry

### Motivic integration on Artin n-stacks

Motivic integration on Artin n-stacks Chetan Balwe Nov 13,2009 1 / 48 Prestacks (This treatment of stacks is due to B. Toën and G. Vezzosi.) Let S be a fixed base scheme. Let (Aff /S) be the category of

### The interplay between Grothendieck topoi and logic

The interplay between Grothendieck topoi and logic MSc. Thesis, Master Mathematical Sciences, Universiteit Utrecht Jasper Mulder, 3363120 August 26, 2013 Supervisor/First assessor: Dr. J. van Oosten Second

### Nonabelian Poincare Duality (Lecture 8)

Nonabelian Poincare Duality (Lecture 8) February 19, 2014 Let M be a compact oriented manifold of dimension n. Then Poincare duality asserts the existence of an isomorphism H (M; A) H n (M; A) for any

### On the characterization of geometric logic

Utrecht University Faculty of Beta Sciences Mathematical institute Master of Science Thesis On the characterization of geometric logic by Ralph Langendam (3117618) Supervisor: dr. J. van Oosten Utrecht,

### ON THE COFIBRANT GENERATION OF MODEL CATEGORIES arxiv: v1 [math.at] 16 Jul 2009

ON THE COFIBRANT GENERATION OF MODEL CATEGORIES arxiv:0907.2726v1 [math.at] 16 Jul 2009 GEORGE RAPTIS Abstract. The paper studies the problem of the cofibrant generation of a model category. We prove that,

### Schemes via Noncommutative Localisation

Schemes via Noncommutative Localisation Daniel Murfet September 18, 2005 In this note we give an exposition of the well-known results of Gabriel, which show how to define affine schemes in terms of the

### ASSOCIATIVE ALGEBRAS AND BROKEN LINES

ASSOCIATIVE ALGEBRAS AND BROKEN LINES JACOB LURIE AND HIRO LEE TANAKA Abstract. Inspired by Morse theory, we introduce a topological stack Broken, which we refer to as the moduli stack of broken lines.

### Limit Preservation from Naturality

CTCS 2004 Preliminary Version Limit Preservation from Naturality Mario Caccamo 1 The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute Cambridge, UK Glynn Winskel 2 University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory Cambridge,

### Convenient Categories of Smooth Spaces

Convenient Categories of Smooth Spaces John C. Baez and Alexander E. Hoffnung Department of Mathematics, University of California Riverside, California 92521 USA email: baez@math.ucr.edu, alex@math.ucr.edu

### PART III.3. IND-COHERENT SHEAVES ON IND-INF-SCHEMES

PART III.3. IND-COHERENT SHEAVES ON IND-INF-SCHEMES Contents Introduction 1 1. Ind-coherent sheaves on ind-schemes 2 1.1. Basic properties 2 1.2. t-structure 3 1.3. Recovering IndCoh from ind-proper maps

### Amalgamable diagram shapes

Amalgamable diagram shapes Ruiyuan hen Abstract A category has the amalgamation property (AP) if every pushout diagram has a cocone, and the joint embedding property (JEP) if every finite coproduct diagram

### Topos Theory. Lectures 17-20: The interpretation of logic in categories. Olivia Caramello. Topos Theory. Olivia Caramello.

logic s Lectures 17-20: logic in 2 / 40 logic s Interpreting first-order logic in In Logic, first-order s are a wide class of formal s used for talking about structures of any kind (where the restriction

### arxiv: v1 [math.ag] 24 Sep 2018

PURITY IN CATEGORIES OF SHEAVES MIKE PREST AND ALEXANDER SLÁVIK arxiv:1809.08981v1 [math.ag] 24 Sep 2018 Abstract. We consider categorical and geometric purity for sheaves of modules over a scheme satisfying

### LOOP SPACES IN MOTIVIC HOMOTOPY THEORY. A Dissertation MARVIN GLEN DECKER

LOOP SPACES IN MOTIVIC HOMOTOPY THEORY A Dissertation by MARVIN GLEN DECKER Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

### EMBEDDING OF CATEGORIES

PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 37, Number 1, January 1973 EMBEDDING OF CATEGORIES MICHAEL BARR Dedicated to the memory of George S. Rinehart Abstract. In this paper we generalize

### CATEGORICAL GROTHENDIECK RINGS AND PICARD GROUPS. Contents. 1. The ring K(R) and the group Pic(R)

CATEGORICAL GROTHENDIECK RINGS AND PICARD GROUPS J. P. MAY Contents 1. The ring K(R) and the group Pic(R) 1 2. Symmetric monoidal categories, K(C), and Pic(C) 2 3. The unit endomorphism ring R(C ) 5 4.

### Algebra and Topology

Algebra and Topology Course at Paris VI University, 2007/2008 1 Pierre Schapira http://www.math.jussieu.fr/ schapira/lectnotes schapira@math.jussieu.fr 1/9/2011, v2 1 To the students: the material covered

### ABSTRACT DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY VIA SHEAF THEORY

ABSTRACT DIFFERENTIAL GEOMETRY VIA SHEAF THEORY ARDA H. DEMIRHAN Abstract. We examine the conditions for uniqueness of differentials in the abstract setting of differential geometry. Then we ll come up

### LIST OF CORRECTIONS LOCALLY PRESENTABLE AND ACCESSIBLE CATEGORIES

LIST OF CORRECTIONS LOCALLY PRESENTABLE AND ACCESSIBLE CATEGORIES J.Adámek J.Rosický Cambridge University Press 1994 Version: June 2013 The following is a list of corrections of all mistakes that have

### Olivia Caramello. University of Insubria - Como. Deductive systems and. Grothendieck topologies. Olivia Caramello. Introduction.

duality University of Insubria - Como 2 / 27 duality Aim of the talk purpose of this talk is to illustrate the relevance of the notion of topology. I will show that the classical proof system of geometric

### GENERALIZED COVERING SPACES AND THE GALOIS FUNDAMENTAL GROUP

GENERALIZED COVERING SPACES AND THE GALOIS FUNDAMENTAL GROUP CHRISTIAN KLEVDAL Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. A Category of Covers 2 3. Uniform Spaces and Topological Groups 6 4. Galois Theory of Semicovers

### LOCAL VS GLOBAL DEFINITION OF THE FUSION TENSOR PRODUCT

LOCAL VS GLOBAL DEFINITION OF THE FUSION TENSOR PRODUCT DENNIS GAITSGORY 1. Statement of the problem Throughout the talk, by a chiral module we shall understand a chiral D-module, unless explicitly stated

### The Relative Proj Construction

The Relative Proj Construction Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 Earlier we defined the Proj of a graded ring. In these notes we introduce a relative version of this construction, which is the Proj of a sheaf