Question on Geometric Function Theory
Posted by Urs Schreiber
I am further thinking about some issues which we discussed at the recent entry Ben-Zvi on geometric function theory (see Lab: geometric function theory for some context).
From where I am coming the site over which we are looking at our generalized spaces in form of -stacks is not an algebraic site and the -stack QC of quasicoherent sheaves which Ben-Zvi-Francis-Nadler use so fruitfully as a model for nice geometric functions on generalized spaces is not manifestly available.
There is another construction naturally desiring to take its place, though, and I am wondering how the two perspectives would connect.
Suppose we have fixed some -category whose objects we regard as generalized spaces (-stacks), whose morphisms we regard as cocycles and whose 2-morphisms as coboundaries, etc, so that for , in we express the cohomology on with coefficients in as .
A cocycle is interpreted as classifying an -principal bundle on , whose total “space” is the homotopy pullback of along .
Suppose that sits inside an -category which hosts also the corresponding associated bundles (higher vector bundles) which may have non-invertible morphisms between them (which are 2-morphisms between cocycles=1-morphisms in ). A representation of is supposed to be some 1-morphism in with not in and the pullback along the composition of that with the cocycle gives the total space of the associated bundle.
Ordinary sections of are in and one can see that under homotopy pullback of the point every such section canonically gives rise to a span of total spaces of the form
where on the left we have the based loop object of at the point at which we work.
Not all spans of this form arise from ordinary sections of this way: if we allow here to be arbitrary such a span encodes general spaces over equipped with an -valued cocycle on them.
To better see where we are, suppose we look at where has as fibers 2-vector spaces and set in the above, equipped with the canonical point. Then and an -cocycle is a complex of vector bundles.
So in this case generalized section spans as above arrange themselves naturally into a structure whose
- objects are pairs consisting of a space and a complex of vector bundles on ;
- morphisms are pairs consisting of a commuting triangle
together with a morphism of the corresponding complexes of vector bundles. For other choices of we get accordingly other structure than complexes of vector bundles on the spaces , .
We may also forget for the time being the way we obtained the space here as the total space of some associated bundle and consider this construction for all objects (spaces) in .
Now I am coming to my question: it seems that this gadget wants to play the role of of the right notion of nice geometric functions on :
- whatever it is (-category or the like), it is monoidal, thanks to the fact that it consists of maps to the (in general directed) loop space object .
- it is naturally the thing acted on via pull(-tensor-)push by bi-branes, i.e. by those spans in
which in the pull-push realization of QFT are supposed to act on them.
In fact, since should really be just the thing of span-morphism from into , the action of further spans on this is much like the action of the category of spans on its under-category under , if you see what I mean.
In any case, be that as it may: I am wondering how the “functions” for the special case spelled out above, i.e. for would relate to the concept of “function” given by complexes of coherent sheaves.
From one point of view, is really the fibred category associated with the stack of complexes of vector bundles on the over-category . There is a canonical morphism from that to sheaves on . What is the image of that map when we are working over the algebraic site?
Homotopy Limits in SSet Cat and QuasiCat
Here is another question, a straightforward one. The answer is certainly in one of the books on my desk, but maybe you can give me the answer before I find it myself:
Suppose is a category enriched in Kan complexes, is a small category regarded as a category enriched in discrete Kan complexes and is a -diagram in .
Then there is the homotopy limit over in its incarnation as a weighted -limit with weight , (as described here).
On the other hand, we can regard as a quasi-category after passing to its simplicial nerve. Then there is Joyal’s definition of limit over as the terminal object of the over-quasi-category .
I’d expect that these two notions of (homotopy) limit of coincide generally (if either exists). Is that right?