Γ-Ultrametric Spaces and Separated Presheaves. Nathanael Leedom Ackerman
|
|
- Homer Green
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1
2 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) = 0 x = y (Symmetry) ( x,y M)d M (x,y) = d M (y,x) (Strong Triangle Inequality) ( x,y,z M)d M (x,y) d M (y,z) d M (x,z)
3 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) = 0 x = y (Symmetry) ( x,y M)d M (x,y) = d M (y,x) (Strong Triangle Inequality) ( x,y,z M)d M (x,y) d M (y,z) d M (x,z) A non-expanding map between Γ-ultrametric spaces (M,d M ) and (N,d N ) is a function f : M N such that ( a,b M)d(f (a),f (b)) d(a,b) This gives us a category Γ-UltMet whose objects are Γ-ultrametric spaces and whose morphisms are the non-expanding maps.
4 Closed Balls Definition For each x M,γ Γ we define the (closed) ball of radius γ around x to be B M (x,γ) = {y : d M (x,y) γ}. We will omit mention of M when it is clear from context. Definition If A M the diameter of A is diam(a) = {d M (x,y) : x,y M}.
5 Closed Balls The following lemmas are immediate. Lemma ( γ Γ,x,y M)x B(y,γ) B(x,γ) = B(y,γ) Lemma ( γ x,γ y Γ)( x,y M)γ x γ y B(x,γ x ) B(y,γ y ) or B(x,γ x ) B(y,γ y ) =.
6 Intersection of Balls Theorem Suppose α = {γ i : i I } and {x i : i I } M B = i I B(x i,γ i ) Then ( x B)B = B(x,α). Suppose x B. Then ( i I)x B(x i,γ i ) and so B(x,γ i ) = B(x i,γ i ). Hence ( i I)B B(x,γ i ) and diam(b) γ i. Therefore diam(b) α and in particular B B(x,α). But we also have ( i I)B(x,α) B(x,γ i ) and so B(x,α) B.
7 Relative Distance Preserving Maps While much of our focus will be on Γ-ultrametric spaces for a specific Γ, it will at times be useful to be able to compare generalized ultrametric spaces with different sets of distances. Definition If (M,d M ) is a Γ-ultrametric space and (N,d n ) is an Λ-ultrametric space we say a map f : M N is relative distance preserving if ( a,b,c,d M)d M (a,b) d M (c,d) d N (f (a),f (b)) d N (f (c),f (d)) We let GenUltMet be the category whose objects are Γ-ultrametric spaces for some Γ and whose morphisms are the relative distance preserving maps.
8 Spherically Complete An important property that a Γ-ultrametric spaces may have is what is called spherical completeness. This is the Γ-ultrametric analog of completeness for metric spaces. Definition A Γ-ultrametric space (M,d M ) is spherically complete if whenever {γ i : i < κ} Γ and {x i : i < κ} M B(γ i,x i ) B(γ j,x j ) if i j. Then i<κ B(γ i,x i ). We define SComp(Γ) to be the full subcategory of Γ-UltMet whose objects are spherically complete.
9 Intersection in Spherically Complete Spaces Theorem Suppose (M,d M ) is a spherically complete Γ-ultrametric space and {γ i : i < κ} Γ and {x i : i < κ} M B(γ i,x i ) B(γ j,x j ) if i j. is a decreasing chain of closed balls. Then for all x i<κ B(γ i,x i )) B( γ i,x) = B(γ i,x i ) i<κ i<κ
10 Pruned Presheaves Definition We say a separated presheaf A on Ω is pruned if ( γ Ω op )( a A(γ))( a A(1))a γ = a. We define Pruned(Ω) to be the full subcategory of Sep(Ω) whose objects are the pruned presheaves. Likewise we define PrunedSheaf(Ω) to be the full subcategory of Sheaf(Ω) whose objects are pruned presheaves.
11 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves Theorem There is an equivalence of categories between Pruned(Ω) and Ω op -UltMet.
12 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves Theorem There is an equivalence of categories between Pruned(Ω) and Ω op -UltMet. In order to be consistent the names of all elements will be as in Ω. We will use a superscript op to signify the corresponding notion in Ω op. For example a b if and only if a op b and 1 = 0 op.
13 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves:Claim 1 Claim If (A,d A ) is an Ω op ultrametric space let A (γ) = {B(a,γ) : a A} where B(a,γ) γ = B(a,γ ) for all γ γ. Then A is a separated pruned presheaf on Ω First we need to confirm that restriction is well defined. Suppose B(a,γ) = B(b,γ) A (γ), γ γ and x B(a,γ ) (i.e. d A (x,a) op γ ). d A (a,b) op γ op γ, so d A (x,b) op γ and x B(b,γ ). Hence B(a,γ ) = B(b,γ ) and restriction is well defined.
14 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves:Claim 1 To see that A is pruned notice that if B(a,γ) A (γ) then B(a,0 op ) A (1) and B(a,0 op ) γ = B(a,γ). To see A is separated, suppose γ = i I λ i and B = {B(x i,λ i ) A (λ i ) : i I } is such that B(x i,λ i ) λi λ j = B(x i,λ i λ j ) = B(x j,λ i λ j ) = B(x j,λ j ) λi λ j.
15 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves:Claim 1 Now if i I B(x i,λ i ) = then there is no element in A (γ) compatible with B as such an element would have be of the form B(x,γ) with B(x i,λ i ) = B(x,λ i ) for all i I and hence x i I B(x i,λ i ) =. On the other hand, if there exists x i I B(x i,λ i ) then by we have B(x,γ) = i I B(x i,λ i ) and hence B(x,γ) is the unique element of A (γ) compatible with B.
16 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves:Claim 2 Claim If (A,d A ),(C,d C ) obj(ω op -UltMet) and f : (A,d A ) (C,d C ) is a non-expanding map, let f (B A (a,γ)) = B C (f (a),γ). Then f (Pruned(Ω))[A,C ] First we need to show that f (B(a,γ)) doesn t depend on our choice of a. Suppose B A (a,γ) = B A (b,γ) and x B C (f (a),γ). Then d C (f (a),f (b)) op d A (a,b) γ and d C (x,f (a)) op γ.
17 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves:Claim 2 So d C (x,f (b)) op γ and x B C (f (b),γ). Hence f (B A (a,γ)) = f (B A (b,γ)). Next we need to show f is a natural transformation, i.e. that if λ γ then f λ (BA (a,γ) λ ) = f γ (B A (a,γ)) λ. But f λ (BA (a,γ) λ ) = f λ (BA (a,λ)) = B C (f (a),λ) = B C (f (a),γ) λ = f γ (BA (a,γ)) λ. So f is a natural transformation from A to C.
18 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves: Claim 3 Let F be the functor where F(A,d A ) = A if (A,d A ) obj(ω op -UltMet) and F(f ) = f if f morph(ω op -UltMet). Claim If A is pruned separated presheaf on Ω let (A o,d A ) be such that A o = A(1) and d A (a,b) = {γ : a γ = b γ. Then (A o,d A ) is an Ω op -ultrametric space.
19 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves: Claim 3 First notice a da (a,b) = b da (a,b) because {a γ : γ d A (a,b)} is a compatible collection of elements covering both a da (a,b) and b da (a,b). In particular this means that if d A (a,b) = 0 op then a = a 0 = b 0 = b. So (A o,d A ) satisfies (reflexivity). (symmetry) is immediate from the definition. To see the (strong triangle inequality) holds let a,b,c A(1) with d A (a,b) op γ and d A (b,c) op γ. Then a γ = b γ = c γ and hence d A (a,c) op γ.
20 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves: Claim 4 Claim If A,C obj(pruned(ω)) and f Pruned(Ω))[A,C] then f 1 : A(1) C(1) is a non-expanding map f 1 : (A o,d A ) (C o,d C ). We know that for all a,b A(1), a da (a,b) = a da (a,b) and so f 1 (a) da (a,b) = f da (a,b)(a da (a,b)) = f da (a,b)(b da (a,b)) = f 1 (b) da (a,b) and hence d A (a,b) op d C (f 1 (a),f 1 (b)).
21 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves: Claim 5 Let E be the functor where E(A) = (A o,d A ) if A obj(pruned(ω)) and E(f ) = f 1 if f morph(pruned(ω)) Claim For all A obj(pruned(ω)) there is an isomorphism η A : A F(E(A)) which is the identity on A(1). First notice that for all a,b A(1), a γ = b γ if and only if d A (a,b) op γ if and only if B Ao (a,γ) = B Ao (b,γ). So the maps (η A ) γ (a γ ) = B Ao (a,γ) is well defined and an injective natural transformation. Further, because A is pruned, (η A ) γ is also surjective and hence an isomorphism for all γ. So η A is a natural isomorphism.
22 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves: Claim 6 Claim For any map f Pruned(Ω)[A,C] we have η C f = (f 1 ) η A. As all four maps are maps of pruned presheaves they are determined by their values on A(1). Hence η : 1 Pruned(Ω) F E is a natural isomorphism.
23 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves: Claim 7 Claim For all (A,d A ) obj(ω op -UltMet) there is a natural isomorphism ε A : (A,d A ) E(F(A,d A )). If (A,d A ) = E(F(A,d A )) then A = {{a} : a A} and for all a,b A, d A ({a}, {b}) = op {γ : B A (a,γ) = B A (b,γ)} = d A (a,b). Hence the map ε A (a) = {a} is an isomorphism of Ω op -ultrametric spaces.
24 Equivalence of Pruned Presheaves: Claim 8 Claim For any map f Ω op -UltMet[(A,d A ),(C,d C )] we have ε C f = (f ) 1 ε A. Immediate. Hence ε : 1 Ω op -UltMet F E is a natural isomorphism. And in particular E,F are equivalences of categories.
25 Spherically Completeness and Pruned Sheaves Theorem (*) The equivalence of the theorem above restricts to an equivalence of categories between PrunedSheaf(Ω) and SComp(Ω op ). Claim If (A,d A ) is a spherically complete Ω op ultrametric space then F(A) = A is a sheaf.
26 Spherically Completeness and Pruned Sheaves Let I = γ j : j < κ Ω op with (a i,i) : i I be a compatible collection of elements of A (with I a sieve). So there are x i such that a i = B(x i,γ i ). We define B i by induction. B 0 = B(x 0,γ 0 ). B α+1 = B(x γα+1,γ α+1 ) B α B ω β = j<ω β B j. We now want to show ( l < κ,λ κ)b(x γl,γ l ) B λ. To get a contradiction assume j is least such that B(x γl,γ l ) B j = for some l < κ. We break into three cases.
27 Spherically Completeness and Pruned Sheaves Case 1: j = 0 This case can t happen because (a i,i) : i I is a compatible collection of elemetns and hence the a i s are closed under intersection. Case 2: j = ω β. Notice that B r B s if s r < ω β. So B(x γl,γ l ) B ω β = B(x γl,γ l ) h<ω β B h = h<ω β (B(x γ l,γ l ) B h ).
28 Spherically Completeness and Pruned Sheaves But B(x γl,γ l ) B h by the inductive hypothesis and B(x γl,γ l ) B h : h < ω β is a decreasing sequence of balls. Hence h<ω β B(x γ l,γ l ) B h because (A,d A ) is spherically complete. So this case can t happen.
29 Spherically Completeness and Pruned Sheaves Case 3: j = α + 1. B(x γl,γ l ) B α+1 = B(x γl,γ l ) (B(x γα,γ α ) B α+1 ) = B(x γl γ α,γ l γ α ) B α. So this case can t happen and we have our contradiction. We therefore have B κ = i<κ B i and so B κ = B(x, I) for any x B κ. Hence B κ is the unique element of A ( I) which is covered by (a i,i) : i I. So, because (a i,i) : i I was arbitrary, A is a sheaf.
30 Spherically Completeness and Pruned Sheaves Claim If A is a pruned sheaf on Ω then (A o,d A ) is a spherically complete Ω op -ultrametric space. Suppose {γ i : i < κ} Ω op and {x i : i < κ} A B Ao (γ i,x i ) B Ao (γ j,x j ) if i j.
31 Spherically Completeness and Pruned Sheaves Whenever j i we then have x i B Ao (γ j,x j ) and γ i γ j and so x j γi = x i γi. Hence ( i,j < κ)x j γi γ j = x i γi γ j and (x i ζ : i < κ,ζ γ i is a compatible collection of elements. But because A is a sheaf there is an y A( i<κ γ i) covered by (x i ζ : i < κ,ζ γ i.
32 Spherically Completeness and Pruned Sheaves Further, because A is a pruned sheaf we know there is an x A(1) = A o such that x i<κ γ i = y. So for all i,j < κ, x γi = x i γi hence x B Ao (γ i,x i ) and x i<κ BAo (γ i,x i ). So (A o,d A ) is spherically complete (as our sequence of balls was arbitrary).
33 Pruned Presheaves has a Right Adjoint Now that we have a way to describe the category of Γ-ultrametric spaces it is natural to ask what properties this category has.
34 Pruned Presheaves has a Right Adjoint Now that we have a way to describe the category of Γ-ultrametric spaces it is natural to ask what properties this category has. Theorem The inclusion map i : Pruned(Γ) Sep(Γ) has a right adjoint r. If A obj(sep(γ)), let r(a)(γ) = {x A : ( y A(1))y γ = x}. If f Sep(Γ)[A,B] then we know that the image of f restricted to r(a) is determined by f 1. As such if we let r(f ) X (x) = f X (x) for all x r(a)(x) then r(f ) X (x) r(b) X for all x r(a)(x). Hence we have r is a functor.
35 Let η X = id X : X r i(x) and let ε X : i r(x) X be the inclusion map. Then it is clear that η : 1 Sep(Γ) r i and ε : i r 1 Sep(Γ) are the unit and counit (respectively) of an adjunction.
36 Pruned Presheaves is Complete Corollary Pruned(Γ) is complete. Because r i = 1 Pruned(Γ), i r and Sep(Γ) is complete.
37 Pruned Presheaves is Complete Corollary Pruned(Γ) is complete. Because r i = 1 Pruned(Γ), i r and Sep(Γ) is complete. Notice though that r does not restrict to an adjunction for the inclusion map i : PrunedSheaf(Γ) Sheaf(Γ) because even if A is a sheaf, there is no guarantee that r(a) will be as well. In general, PrunedSheaf(Γ) is not a complete category because it does not necessarily have all equalizers.
38 Pruned Exponentials Theorem (*) If A is a pruned separated presheaf on Ω and B is any separated presheaf then A B is a pruned separated presheaf. We have for each γ, A B (γ) = A(γ) B(γ) (because we are only dealing with localic topoi up to this point). Suppose f A B (γ) and for each x A(γ), g(x) A(1) and g(x) γ = x (we know such a g exists as A is pruned and we can choose once because we have assumed the Axiom of Choice).
39 Pruned Exponentials Let x i : i < κ = A(γ). Define A i as follows. A 0 = {x 0 γ : γ γ}, A α = {x α γ : γ γ} i<α A i. If y A i let g(y) = g(x i ). So g takes an element of a A(η) (η γ) and returns a g(a) A(1) such that g(a) η = a. So in particular g(a ζ ) = g(a) ζ.
40 Pruned Exponentials Next let f A B (1) be define so that if b B(λ) then [f λ ](b) = g([f λ γ ](b λ γ )) λ. We then have that [f λ ](b) η = g([f λ γ ](b λ γ )) η = g([f η γ ](b η γ )) η = [f η ](b η ). Hence f yields a map of presheaves. So [f ] A B (1) and f γ = f and hence A B is pruned.
41 Pruned Presheaves is Cocomplete Theorem Pruned(Γ) is cocomplete. It suffices to show that the colimit of pruned presheaves (in the category of presheaves) is a pruned presheaf. But this follows immediately from the fact that in the category of presheaves colimits are taken pointwise.
42 Generating Set and Hom Sets We will now show that in many categories the Hom sets (i.e. sets of the form C[A,B] where A,B obj(c)) can be viewed as generalized ultrametric spaces. Definition Let C be a category with G obj(c) and let P(G,A) = Powerset( X G C[X,A]). For every A,B obj(c) define d G : C[A,B] C[A,B] P(G,A) as follows: d G (f,g) = {h : X A such that f h = g h}. For every k : B D we define a map k! : (C[A,B],d G ) (C[A,D],d G ) by k! (g) = k g
43 Maps, Generating Sets and Hom Sets Theorem If G is a generating set of objects for C then (C[A,B],d G ) is a P(G,A)-ultrametric space (where α β if and only if β α and 0 = X G C[X,A]). Further if f : B D then each map f! is non-expanding. First lets show that (C[A,B],d G ) is a P(G,A)-ultrametric space. (Symmetry) is immediate. For (Reflexivity) notice that because G is a generating set of objects if f,g C[A,B] and f g then there is some a : X A with X G such that f a g a. In particular if f g then d G (f,g) 0.
44 Maps, Generating Sets and Hom Sets To show the strong triangle inequality suppose f, g, h C[A, B]. Whenever a : D A where a d G (f,g) d G (g,h) we have f a = g a = h a and hence a d G (f,h). Therefore d G (f,g) d G (g,h) d G (f,h) or equivalently d G (f,g) d G (g,h) d G (f,h). To see that any k! is a non-expanding map notice that if a d G (f,g) then f a = g a and hence k f a = k g a and a d(k f,k g) = d(k! (f ),k! (g)). So d(k! (f ),k! (g)) d(f,g) or equivalently d(k! (f ),k! (g)) d(f,g).
45 Maps, Generating Sets and Hom Sets Corollary If C is a category and G is a generating set then for each A obj(c) there are functor F G,A : C P(G,A)-UltMet given by ( B obj(c))f G,A (B) = (C[A,B],d G ) ( k C[B,D])F G,A (k) = k! This follows from the fact that k! j! = (k j)!.
46 Maps, Generating Sets and Hom Sets Lemma F G,A preserves products that exist in C. Notice that the product Π i I (C[A,B i ],d Gi ) = (Π i I C[A,B] C[A,D],d G ) where d G ((a i : i I),(b i : i I)) = i I d G i (a i,b i ). The result then follows from the fact that C[A,Π i I B i ] = Π i I C[A,B i ] and for any two maps f,g : A Π i I B i and any map x : X A, x f = x g if and only if ( i I)π i x f = π i x g (where π i is the projection onto B i ).
47 Subobjects and Γ-Ultrametric Spaces If our categories have epi-mono factorizations then, up to isomorphism in GenUltMet, our choice of generating set doesn t matter in determining the generalized ultrametric space structure put on Hom sets of the category. Definition Suppose C is a category with epi-mono factorizations. Let P(Sub C ) = Powerset(Sub C (A)). For every A,B obj(c) define d S : C[A,B] C[A,B] P(S) as d S (f,g) = {[h] : f h = g h}. For every k : B D we define a map k! : (C[A,B],d S ) (C[A,D],d S ) by k! (g) = k g
48 Equivalence of Structure on Hom Sets Theorem If G obj(c) then for each A,B obj(c), and f,g,x,y C[A,B] we have (a) d S (x,y) d S (f,g) d G (x,y) d G (f,g). (b) If G is a generating set for C then d G (x,y) d G (f,g) d S (x,y) d S (f,g).
49 Equivalence of Structure on Hom Sets Part (a): Suppose a : D A with D G. a then has an epi-mono factorization a = a m a e. Now a d G (x,y) if and only if x (a m a e ) = y (a m a e ) if and only if x a m = y a m if and only if [a m ] d S (x,y) (the second to last equivalence follows because a e is an epimorphism). So if [a m ] d S (x,y) [a m ] d S (f,g) then a d G (x,y) a d G (f,g). Hence d S (x,y) d S (f,g) implies d G (x,y) d G (f,g).
50 Equivalence of Structure on Hom Sets Part (b): To get a contradiction suppose G is a generating set for C d G (x,y) d G (f,g) a : D A with [a] d S (f,g) [a] d S (x,y) Then x a y a and hence there must be a map c : C B such that x a c y a c and c G. So a c d G (x,y) and hence by assumption a c d G (f,g) and f a c g a c. But f a = g a (by definition of [a] d S (f,g)) and so f a c = g a c.
51 Equivalence of Structure on Hom Sets Corollary If G is a generating set for C and A,B obj(c) then (C[A,B],d S ) is isomorphic to (C[A,B],d G ) in GenUltMet. Corollary If C is a category then for each A obj(c) there is a functor F Sub,A : C P(Sub,A)-UltMet given by ( B obj(c))f Sub,A (B) = (C[A,B],d S ) ( k C[B,D])F Sub,A (k) = k! Further F Sub,A preserves all products which exist in C. This follows from the fact that k! j! = (k j)!.
52 Equivalence of Structure on Hom Sets Theorem If F Sub,1, E and r are as above then there exists η : E r F Sub,1 a natural isomorphism. This follows immediately from the definition of E r and F along with the fact that P(1) = Ω as a lattice.
53 Translation of Results Now that we have characterized the category of Γ-ultrametric spaces in terms of presheaves on Γ op and shown how the Hom sets of Sep(Γ op ) can be viewed as Γ-ultrametric spaces, we want to use these facts to translate results about Γ-ultrametric spaces into results about pruned presheaves.
54 Translation of Results Definition We say that an object A is D-pruned if ( e : E D)( f : E A)( h : D A) such that h e = f (where e is a monic). This is a generalization of the notion of a pruned presheaf. Specifically a presheaf is pruned if and only if it is 1-pruned.
55 Translation of Results Definition Suppose C has all colimits and A,B obj(c). We say B is A-complete if For all complete lattices (Γ, ) and all sequences e i : E i A : i Γ with e i,j : E i E j such that e j e i,j = e i whenever i j For all sequences functions f i C[A,B] : i Γ with f i e j = f j e j whenever j i. There is a map f : A B with f e i = f i e i for all i Γ.
56 Spherically Complete and A-Complete Theorem (*) Suppose C has all colimits and A,B obj(c). Then (C[A,B],d S ) is spherically complete if and only if B is A-complete. : Let Γ, e i : E i A : i Γ, f i C[A,B] : i Γ be as in the definition. Further let α s : s < κ Γ be an increasing sequence of elements of Γ such that α s : s < κ = Γ. Let B s = {g C[A,B] : g e αs = f αs }. Then B s is a closed ball and B s B t if s t. So, by spherical completeness, there exists f s<κ B s
57 Spherically Complete and A-Complete : For each i < κ let B i = B(f i,e i ) where E i Sub C (A) and if B(f i,e i ) = B(f i,e ) then E E i. Further suppose B i B j if i j and so E j E i if j i. Now B i = B(f i,colimit(e i )) and if e i Colimit(E i ) then f i : i < κ and e i : i < κ satisfy the conditions of the theorem. Hence there must be a f κ such that B(f κ,colimit(e i )) = B i and so f κ i<κ B i. Therefore C[A,B] is spherically complete.
58 Contracting Maps Theorem Suppose F,F,G,G : B D are maps in C and suppose x,y C[A,B]. Then the statement d S (F(x),G(y)) d S (F (x ),G (y )) holds if and only if ( z : X A)G y z = F x z G y z = F x z This follows immediately from the definitions.
59 Contracting Maps Theorem Suppose F,F,G,G : B D are maps in C and suppose x,y C[A,B]. Then the statement d S (F(x),G(y)) d S (F (x ),G (y )) holds if and only if ( z : X A)G y z = F x z G y z = F x z This follows immediately from the definitions. Definition We say a map a : A B in C is contracting for D if ( f,g C[D,A])d S (a(f ),a(g)) < d S (f,g)
60 Contracting Maps Theorem A map a : A B is contracting for D if and only if ( f,g : D A)( h : E D) such that f h g h but a f h = a f h. We call h a witness that a is contracting for f and g. This follows immediately from the fact that d S (a(f ),a(g)) < d S (f,g) if and only if d G (a(f ),a(g)) < d G (f,g)
61 Contracting Maps Theorem If a : A B is contracting for D then ( f,g : D A)( h : E D) such that f h g h but a f h = a f h with E G. Suppose f,g : D A and h : E D are such that f h g h but a f h = a g h. Then there is a map i : E E such that E X and f h i g h i. Hence h i : E D is the desired witness.
62 Contracting Maps Theorem If a : A B is contracting for all D G then a is contracting for all E obj(c). Suppose f,g : E A are such that f g. Then there is a Y X and h : Y E such that f h g h. But by assumption a is contracting for Y and so there is a k : Z Y such that f h k g h k but a f h k = a f h k. Hence h k witnesses that a is contracting for E (with respect to f,g).
63 Contracting Maps Theorem If a : A B is a contracting map for D and b : B C is any map, then b a : A C is a contracting map for D. Suppose f,g : D A are such that f g. Then there is a k : Z D such that f k g k but a f k = a g k. But then we also have b a f k = b a g k. Hence b a is contracting for D.
64 Contracting Maps Theorem If a : A B is a contracting map for D and c : C A is any map, then a c is a contracting map for D. Suppose f,g : D C. We then have two cases. In the first case c f = c g and hence a c f = a c g. But then id D witnesses a c is contracting for f,g.
65 Contracting Maps In the second case we have c f c g. However both of these are maps from D to A and so there must be a k : E D such that (c f ) k (c g) k and a (c f ) k = a (c g) k. Hence k witnesses that c a contracts f,g.
66 Contracting Maps In the second case we have c f c g. However both of these are maps from D to A and so there must be a k : E D such that (c f ) k (c g) k and a (c f ) k = a (c g) k. Hence k witnesses that c a contracts f,g. Notice though that if f : A B is a contracting map of pruned presheaves in Sep(Ω) that doesn t mean that f is a contracting map in the category Pruned(Ω). In general in Pruned(Ω) there are no contracting maps (other than those from the 1).
67 Fixed Point Theorem For this section fix a Grothendieck Topos G. Given any map a : A A define Fix(a) to be subobject of A corresponding to the equalizer of a and 1 A. Theorem (*) Suppose a : A A is a contracting map for D and A is D-pruned. Then there is a unique map f : D A such that a f = a. We call f the D-fixed of a. First notice that because 0 : 0 A and [0] Sub G (D) we know there is a map h : D A. We will prove the existence of such a map f by repeated applying the contracting map a. Define f α : D A as follows
68 Fixed Point Theorem f 0 = h, and Fix 0 = f 1 0 [im(f 0 ) Fix(a)] (which is a subobject of D) f α+1 = a f α and Fix α+1 = f 1 [im(f α+1 ) Fix(a)] (which is a subobject of D) Let Fix ω γ = i<ω γ Fix i and let fω γ : i<ω γ f 1 i [im(f i ) Fix(a)] A be a map agreeing with f i on Fix i (for all i < ω γ). Then define f ω γ to be any map from D into A which factors through fω γ (which we know exists as A is D-pruned).
69 Fixed Point Theorem Notice that Fix α Fix α+1 by construction and if Fix α id D then by the fact that a is contracting for D, we have Fix α Fix α+1. So for some α, f α : D A is a fixed point. Now suppose there are two f,g : D A such that a f = f and a g = g. Then d S (a(f ),a(g)) = d S (a f,a g) = d S (f,g). Hence, because a is contracting for D, we must have f = g. So there is a unique fixed point of a.
70
Lecture 9: Sheaves. February 11, 2018
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
More informationCategory 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
More informationA 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
More information1 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
More informationPART 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.
More informationElementary (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..................
More informationCompactness 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
More informationModules 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
More informationModules 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
More informationLimit 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,
More information1. Introduction and preliminaries
Quasigroups and Related Systems 23 (2015), 283 295 The categories of actions of a dcpo-monoid on directed complete posets Mojgan Mahmoudi and Halimeh Moghbeli-Damaneh Abstract. In this paper, some categorical
More informationUniversity 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.
More informationin 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
More informationSchemes 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
More information1 Categorical Background
1 Categorical Background 1.1 Categories and Functors Definition 1.1.1 A category C is given by a class of objects, often denoted by ob C, and for any two objects A, B of C a proper set of morphisms C(A,
More informationA brief Introduction to Category Theory
A brief Introduction to Category Theory Dirk Hofmann CIDMA, Department of Mathematics, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal Office: 11.3.10, dirk@ua.pt, http://sweet.ua.pt/dirk/ October 9, 2017
More information1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations. Discrete categories. A category is discrete when every arrow is an identity.
MacLane: Categories or Working Mathematician 1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transormations 1.1 Axioms or Categories 1.2 Categories Discrete categories. A category is discrete when every arrow is an
More informationCALYXES AND COROLLAS. Contents 2. Intrinsic Definitions 3
CALYXS AND COROLLAS. DAN YOUNG, H. DRKSN Abstract. A calyx (multiplicative lattice) is a complete lattice endowed with the structure of a monoid such that multiplication by an element is a left adjoint
More informationwhich 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
More informationMetric Space Topology (Spring 2016) Selected Homework Solutions. HW1 Q1.2. Suppose that d is a metric on a set X. Prove that the inequality d(x, y)
Metric Space Topology (Spring 2016) Selected Homework Solutions HW1 Q1.2. Suppose that d is a metric on a set X. Prove that the inequality d(x, y) d(z, w) d(x, z) + d(y, w) holds for all w, x, y, z X.
More information3. Categories and Functors We recall the definition of a category: Definition 3.1. A category C is the data of two collections. The first collection
3. Categories and Functors We recall the definition of a category: Definition 3.1. A category C is the data of two collections. The first collection is called the objects of C and is denoted Obj(C). Given
More informationSome 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
More informationAdjunctions, the Stone-Čech compactification, the compact-open topology, the theorems of Ascoli and Arzela
Adjunctions, the Stone-Čech compactification, the compact-open topology, the theorems of Ascoli and Arzela John Terilla Fall 2014 Contents 1 Adjoint functors 2 2 Example: Product-Hom adjunction in Set
More informationTopological aspects of restriction categories
Calgary 2006, Topological aspects of restriction categories, June 1, 2006 p. 1/22 Topological aspects of restriction categories Robin Cockett robin@cpsc.ucalgary.ca University of Calgary Calgary 2006,
More informationA Note on Extensional PERs
A Note on Extensional PERs W. P. Stekelenburg March 2, 2010 Abstract In the paper Extensional PERs by P. Freyd, P. Mulry, G. Rosolini and D. Scott, a category C of pointed complete extensional PERs and
More informationSection 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
More informationAlgebraic Geometry: Limits and Colimits
Algebraic Geometry: Limits and Coits Limits Definition.. Let I be a small category, C be any category, and F : I C be a functor. If for each object i I and morphism m ij Mor I (i, j) there is an associated
More informationLocally cartesian closed categories
Locally cartesian closed categories Clive Newstead 80-814 Categorical Logic, Carnegie Mellon University Wednesday 1st March 2017 Abstract Cartesian closed categories provide a natural setting for the interpretation
More informationElements of Category Theory
Elements of Category Theory Robin Cockett Department of Computer Science University of Calgary Alberta, Canada robin@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Estonia, Feb. 2010 Functors and natural transformations Adjoints and
More informationIndCoh 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
More informationCategories, Functors, Natural Transformations
Some Definitions Everyone Should Know John C. Baez, July 6, 2004 A topological quantum field theory is a symmetric monoidal functor Z: ncob Vect. To know what this means, we need some definitions from
More informationLECTURE 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
More informationCategory Theory 1 Categories and functors
Category Theory 1 Categories and functors This is to accompany the reading of 1 7 October and the lecture of 8 October. mistakes and obscurities to T.Leinster@maths.gla.ac.uk. Please report Some questions
More informationCATEGORY THEORY. Cats have been around for 70 years. Eilenberg + Mac Lane =. Cats are about building bridges between different parts of maths.
CATEGORY THEORY PROFESSOR PETER JOHNSTONE Cats have been around for 70 years. Eilenberg + Mac Lane =. Cats are about building bridges between different parts of maths. Definition 1.1. A category C consists
More informationUNIVERSAL DERIVED EQUIVALENCES OF POSETS
UNIVERSAL DERIVED EQUIVALENCES OF POSETS SEFI LADKANI Abstract. By using only combinatorial data on two posets X and Y, we construct a set of so-called formulas. A formula produces simultaneously, for
More informationESSENTIALLY 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
More informationCoreflections in Algebraic Quantum Logic
Coreflections in Algebraic Quantum Logic Bart Jacobs Jorik Mandemaker Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Abstract Various generalizations of Boolean algebras are being studied in algebraic quantum
More informationDerived 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
More informationReview 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
More informationThe synthetic theory of -categories vs the synthetic theory of -categories
Emily Riehl Johns Hopkins University The synthetic theory of -categories vs the synthetic theory of -categories joint with Dominic Verity and Michael Shulman Vladimir Voevodsky Memorial Conference The
More informationSOME 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
More informationIntroduction to Restriction Categories
Introduction to Restriction Categories Robin Cockett Department of Computer Science University of Calgary Alberta, Canada robin@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Estonia, March 2010 Defining restriction categories Examples
More informationCategory theory for computer science. Overall idea
Category theory for computer science generality abstraction convenience constructiveness Overall idea look at all objects exclusively through relationships between them capture relationships between objects
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.ra] 3 Oct 2009
ACTOR OF AN ALTERNATIVE ALGEBRA J.M. CASAS, T. DATUASHVILI, AND M. LADRA arxiv:0910.0550v1 [math.ra] 3 Oct 2009 Abstract. We define a category galt of g-alternative algebras over a field F and present
More informationFormal power series rings, inverse limits, and I-adic completions of rings
Formal power series rings, inverse limits, and I-adic completions of rings Formal semigroup rings and formal power series rings We next want to explore the notion of a (formal) power series ring in finitely
More informationThus, X is connected by Problem 4. Case 3: X = (a, b]. This case is analogous to Case 2. Case 4: X = (a, b). Choose ε < b a
Solutions to Homework #6 1. Complete the proof of the backwards direction of Theorem 12.2 from class (which asserts the any interval in R is connected). Solution: Let X R be a closed interval. Case 1:
More informationWaldhausen Additivity and Approximation in Quasicategorical K-Theory
Waldhausen Additivity and Approximation in Quasicategorical K-Theory Thomas M. Fiore partly joint with Wolfgang Lück, http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~tmfiore/ http://www.him.uni-bonn.de/lueck/ Motivation
More informationThe 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
More informationCOHOMOLOGY AND DIFFERENTIAL SCHEMES. 1. Schemes
COHOMOLOG AND DIFFERENTIAL SCHEMES RAMOND HOOBLER Dedicated to the memory of Jerrold Kovacic Abstract. Replace this text with your own abstract. 1. Schemes This section assembles basic results on schemes
More informationCONTINUOUS 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
More informationFORMAL 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
More informationFuzzy 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
More information8 Perverse Sheaves. 8.1 Theory of perverse sheaves
8 Perverse Sheaves In this chapter we will give a self-contained account of the theory of perverse sheaves and intersection cohomology groups assuming the basic notions concerning constructible sheaves
More informationSolutions 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
More informationTopos Theory. Jaap van Oosten Department of Mathematics Utrecht University
Topos Theory Jaap van Oosten Department of Mathematics Utrecht University December 25, 2018 Preface These lecture notes were written during a Mastermath (Dutch national programme for master-level courses
More informationAlgebraic Geometry
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
More informationMath 440 Problem Set 2
Math 440 Problem Set 2 Problem 4, p. 52. Let X R 3 be the union of n lines through the origin. Compute π 1 (R 3 X). Solution: R 3 X deformation retracts to S 2 with 2n points removed. Choose one of them.
More informationAlgebra Qualifying Exam Solutions January 18, 2008 Nick Gurski 0 A B C 0
1. Show that if B, C are flat and Algebra Qualifying Exam Solutions January 18, 2008 Nick Gurski 0 A B C 0 is exact, then A is flat as well. Show that the same holds for projectivity, but not for injectivity.
More informationEtale 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
More informationSheaves. 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
More informationDirect 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
More informationReal Analysis. Joe Patten August 12, 2018
Real Analysis Joe Patten August 12, 2018 1 Relations and Functions 1.1 Relations A (binary) relation, R, from set A to set B is a subset of A B. Since R is a subset of A B, it is a set of ordered pairs.
More informationChapter 8. P-adic numbers. 8.1 Absolute values
Chapter 8 P-adic numbers Literature: N. Koblitz, p-adic Numbers, p-adic Analysis, and Zeta-Functions, 2nd edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 58, Springer Verlag 1984, corrected 2nd printing 1996, Chap.
More informationELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCES AND ACCESSIBLE FUNCTORS INTRODUCTION
ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCES AND ACCESSIBLE FUNCTORS T. BEKE AND J. ROSICKÝ ABSTRACT. We introduce the notion of λ-equivalence and λ-embeddings of objects in suitable categories. This notion specializes to
More informationPart 1. For any A-module, let M[x] denote the set of all polynomials in x with coefficients in M, that is to say expressions of the form
Commutative Algebra Homework 3 David Nichols Part 1 Exercise 2.6 For any A-module, let M[x] denote the set of all polynomials in x with coefficients in M, that is to say expressions of the form m 0 + m
More informationMATH 101B: ALGEBRA II PART A: HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA
MATH 101B: ALGEBRA II PART A: HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA These are notes for our first unit on the algebraic side of homological algebra. While this is the last topic (Chap XX) in the book, it makes sense to
More informationSTABLE MODULE THEORY WITH KERNELS
Math. J. Okayama Univ. 43(21), 31 41 STABLE MODULE THEORY WITH KERNELS Kiriko KATO 1. Introduction Auslander and Bridger introduced the notion of projective stabilization mod R of a category of finite
More informationReal Analysis Math 131AH Rudin, Chapter #1. Dominique Abdi
Real Analysis Math 3AH Rudin, Chapter # Dominique Abdi.. If r is rational (r 0) and x is irrational, prove that r + x and rx are irrational. Solution. Assume the contrary, that r+x and rx are rational.
More informationDerived 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
More informationSOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES FOR. MATHEMATICS 205A Part 1. I. Foundational material
SOLUTIONS TO EXERCISES FOR MATHEMATICS 205A Part 1 Fall 2014 I. Foundational material I.1 : Basic set theory Problems from Munkres, 9, p. 64 2. (a (c For each of the first three parts, choose a 1 1 correspondence
More informationJournal 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
More informationChapter 0. Introduction: Prerequisites and Preliminaries
Chapter 0. Sections 0.1 to 0.5 1 Chapter 0. Introduction: Prerequisites and Preliminaries Note. The content of Sections 0.1 through 0.6 should be very familiar to you. However, in order to keep these notes
More informationTOPICS 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
More informationPostulated 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
More information3. The Sheaf of Regular Functions
24 Andreas Gathmann 3. The Sheaf of Regular Functions After having defined affine varieties, our next goal must be to say what kind of maps between them we want to consider as morphisms, i. e. as nice
More informationIntegral Extensions. Chapter Integral Elements Definitions and Comments Lemma
Chapter 2 Integral Extensions 2.1 Integral Elements 2.1.1 Definitions and Comments Let R be a subring of the ring S, and let α S. We say that α is integral over R if α isarootofamonic polynomial with coefficients
More informationC2.7: 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
More informationBasic 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
More informationABSTRACT 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
More information9 Direct products, direct sums, and free abelian groups
9 Direct products, direct sums, and free abelian groups 9.1 Definition. A direct product of a family of groups {G i } i I is a group i I G i defined as follows. As a set i I G i is the cartesian product
More informationMatsumura: Commutative Algebra Part 2
Matsumura: Commutative Algebra Part 2 Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 This note closely follows Matsumura s book [Mat80] on commutative algebra. Proofs are the ones given there, sometimes with slightly more
More informationThe 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
More informationWhat are stacks and why should you care?
What are stacks and why should you care? Milan Lopuhaä October 12, 2017 Todays goal is twofold: I want to tell you why you would want to study stacks in the first place, and I want to define what a stack
More informationPart II: Recollement, or gluing
The Topological Setting The setting: closed in X, := X. i X j D i DX j D A t-structure on D X determines ones on D and D : D 0 = j (D 0 X ) D 0 = (i ) 1 (D 0 X ) Theorem Conversely, any t-structures on
More informationCategories and functors
Lecture 1 Categories and functors Definition 1.1 A category A consists of a collection ob(a) (whose elements are called the objects of A) for each A, B ob(a), a collection A(A, B) (whose elements are called
More informationA Categorial Semantic Representation of Quantum Event Structures
DOI 10.1007/s10701-013-9733-5 A Categorial Semantic Representation of Quantum Event Structures Elias Zafiris Vassilios Karakostas Received: 23 May 2012 / Accepted: 16 July 2013 Springer Science+Business
More informationCategorical 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
More informationMAS331: Metric Spaces Problems on Chapter 1
MAS331: Metric Spaces Problems on Chapter 1 1. In R 3, find d 1 ((3, 1, 4), (2, 7, 1)), d 2 ((3, 1, 4), (2, 7, 1)) and d ((3, 1, 4), (2, 7, 1)). 2. In R 4, show that d 1 ((4, 4, 4, 6), (0, 0, 0, 0)) =
More informationh 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
More informationALGEBRAIC TOPOLOGY N. P. STRICKLAND
ALGEBRAIC TOPOLOGY N. P. STRICKLAND 1. Introduction In this course, we will study metric spaces (which will often be subspaces of R n for some n) with interesting topological structure. Here are some examples
More informationSheaf models of type theory
Thierry Coquand Oxford, 8 September 2017 Goal of the talk Sheaf models of higher order logic have been fundamental for establishing consistency of logical principles E.g. consistency of Brouwer s fan theorem
More informationMAT 570 REAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES. Contents. 1. Sets Functions Countability Axiom of choice Equivalence relations 9
MAT 570 REAL ANALYSIS LECTURE NOTES PROFESSOR: JOHN QUIGG SEMESTER: FALL 204 Contents. Sets 2 2. Functions 5 3. Countability 7 4. Axiom of choice 8 5. Equivalence relations 9 6. Real numbers 9 7. Extended
More informationTHE HEART OF A COMBINATORIAL MODEL CATEGORY
Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2016, pp. 31 62. THE HEART OF A COMBINATORIAL MODEL CATEGORY ZHEN LIN LOW Abstract. We show that every small model category that satisfies certain
More informationHSP SUBCATEGORIES OF EILENBERG-MOORE ALGEBRAS
HSP SUBCATEGORIES OF EILENBERG-MOORE ALGEBRAS MICHAEL BARR Abstract. Given a triple T on a complete category C and a actorization system E /M on the category o algebras, we show there is a 1-1 correspondence
More informationAn introduction to Yoneda structures
An introduction to Yoneda structures Paul-André Melliès CNRS, Université Paris Denis Diderot Groupe de travail Catégories supérieures, polygraphes et homotopie Paris 21 May 2010 1 Bibliography Ross Street
More informationRUDIMENTARY CATEGORY THEORY NOTES
RUDIMENTARY CATEGORY THEORY NOTES GREG STEVENSON Contents 1. Categories 1 2. First examples 3 3. Properties of morphisms 5 4. Functors 6 5. Natural transformations 9 6. Equivalences 12 7. Adjunctions 14
More informationAppendix: Sites for Topoi
Appendix: Sites for Topoi A Grothendieck topos was defined in Chapter III to be a category of sheaves on a small site---or a category equivalent to such a sheaf category. For a given Grothendieck topos
More informationMTH 428/528. Introduction to Topology II. Elements of Algebraic Topology. Bernard Badzioch
MTH 428/528 Introduction to Topology II Elements of Algebraic Topology Bernard Badzioch 2016.12.12 Contents 1. Some Motivation.......................................................... 3 2. Categories
More informationAn 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
More informationMaps and Monads for Modal Frames
Robert Goldblatt Maps and Monads for Modal Frames Dedicated to the memory of Willem Johannes Blok. Abstract. The category-theoretic nature of general frames for modal logic is explored. A new notion of
More information