Discreteness, Concreteness, Fibrations, and Scones
Posted by Mike Shulman
Today I realized that two old friends of mine are closely related: categories of spaces with discrete and codiscrete objects, and the monadicity of fibrations and opfibrations. The glue between them is called the scone.
Let’s start in a setting that’s hopefully comfortable: a forgetful functor . We want to think of as a category of “unstructured” set-like objects (or perhaps algebraic objects), and as a category of “spaces” over it. That is, an object of should be thought of as an object of equipped with some sort of “space-structure”, “topology”, or “cohesion”.
For instance, if is sets, then could be topological spaces, convergence spaces, subsequential spaces, locales, the category of sheaves on a site like CartSp or Diff or Top, or Johnstone’s topological topos. We don’t assume that is faithful in general, but we may as well assume that it is an isofibration.
We say that has discrete objects if has a fully faithful left adjoint, and codiscrete objects if has a fully faithful right adjoint. By abstract nonsense, if has both adjoints, then one is fully faithful if and only if the other is so. On the other hand, we might also wonder whether is a Grothendieck fibration or opfibration. In fact, these are closely related.
Theorem 1: Suppose has a terminal object preserved by . If is a fibration, then has codiscrete objects.
Proof: Define by the result of pulling back the terminal object along the unique map in . It is easy to verify that and that is fully faithful.
Theorem 2: Suppose has pullbacks preserved by . If has codiscrete objects, then is a fibration.
Proof: Assuming with fully faithful, and given with and a morphism in , consider the pullback Since this pullback is preserved by , we have . (Or at least , and since is an isofibration we can choose to make this an equality.) The universal property of a cartesian arrow is again easy to verify.
Thus, if has finite limits preserved by , then it has codiscrete objects if and only if it is a fibration. Dually, of course, if has finite colimits preserved by , then it has discrete objects if and only if it is an opfibration. (More generally, if is complete or cocomplete and is continuous or cocontinuous, then we can construct “final lifts of small -structured sinks”.)
Now suppose that lacks one or both of discrete and codiscrete objects; how can we modify it so that it will have them? One idea is to construct a new category whose objects are explicitly “objects of equipped with -structure”. Specifically, we consider the category of triples (that is, the comma category of over ).
In this context, we call this category the scone (short for Sierpinski cone) of over , or . It comes equipped with obvious functors and . We also have a functor defined by , which is right adjoint to .
Intuitively, is a set, is a space, and says that each element of corresponds to a point of . If this morphism is not injective, then our new object has “multiple points that can’t be told apart by the topology”, while if it is not surjective, then our new object “has room for more points in the topology than are actually present”. This suggests the following.
Theorem 3: If has a terminal object preserved by , then has a fully faithful right adjoint, which takes to . Thus has codiscrete objects.
Proof: Easy.
Moreover, Theorem 3 is a corollary of Theorem 1, because is always a fibration: for we have . In fact, is the free fibration generated by : the category of fibrations over is 2-monadic over , and is the 2-monad with unit .
This 2-monad is colax-idempotent, so that is itself a fibration if and only if has a right adjoint that commutes with and . Therefore, from theorems 1 and 2, we conclude:
If has a terminal object preserved by and has a right adjoint over , then has codiscrete objects. This is easy to see directly by composition of adjoints, since and always has a right adjoint.
If has pullbacks preserved by and codiscrete objects, then has a right adjoint over . The adjoint is defined by the pullback
Thus, if we restrict to the category of lex categories and lex functors over , then we can also regard as the free category-with-codiscrete-objects generated by .
Dually, of course, we can consider the “co-scone” which is the free opfibration and the free category-with-discrete-objects. However, we also have the following nice fact.
Theorem 4: If has a left adjoint, then so does , which is fully faithful if the left adjoint of is so. Thus if has discrete objects, so does .
Proof: Let ; we define by . The universal property is easy to verify.
This means that there must be a distributive law relating the scone and the co-scone, enabling us to talk about joint algebras for the two monads. These joint algebras are, of course, functors into which are both fibrations and opfibrations, or equivalently (in the lex and colex case) those having both discrete and codiscrete objects.
Let’s bring it all together by recalling two important examples. Firstly, suppose that and are toposes and is the direct image part of a geometric morphism (thus it has a left-exact left adjoint). Then by Theorem 4, also has a left adjoint, which inherits left-exactness; thus is also the direct image part of a geometric morphism. Finally, always has a left-exact left adjoint , so the morphism lives in .
In this case, having codiscrete objects (which then implies also having discrete ones) is called being a local -topos. The fact that is the free local -topos on appears in C3.6.5 of Sketches of an Elephant. Theorem 2 implies that for any local -topos, the “global sections” morphism is a fibration and opfibration, a useful thing to know. Note that in this case is not generally faithful.
Secondly, let and be the category of locales, with the “set of points” functor (also not faithful). Then is the category of topological systems defined in Steve Vickers’ book Topology via Logic. These are “midway” between topological spaces and locales, having both a frame of opens and a set of points, neither of which is necessarily determined by the other.
There is also a way to recover the usual category of topological spaces. If has codiscrete objects, we say that is concrete if is a monomorphism. This is equivalent to saying that is faithful on morphisms with codomain . Dually, if has discrete objects, we say is co-concrete (“ncrete”?) if is an epimorphism. This is equivalent to saying that is faithful on morphisms with domain . Restricting to the concrete or co-concrete objects are two dual ways to force to become faithful.
In the case of local toposes, it is often the concrete objects which we are interested in. When is the category of sheaves on a concrete site, then the concrete objects are precisely the concrete sheaves, which form a quasitopos.
On the other hand, in a category of the form , an object is concrete just when is subterminal. Thus, in this case (such as the category of topological systems), there are very few concrete objects. However, if has discrete objects, then is co-concrete just when the adjunct map is an epimorphism. Hence the co-concrete topological systems are precisely the topological spaces.
Finally, we can categorify this picture: the notions of discrete and codiscrete objects, fibration, and scone all make sense for higher categories. When we come to concreteness, we have to choose notions with which to categorify “monic” and “epic”. There is probably a reasonable notion of concrete (∞,1)-sheaf in a local -topos, though it’s perhaps not immediately obvious what notion of “monic” should be used. And Richard Garner’s ionads are (roughly) the co-concrete objects of the scone of the 2-category , where “epic” is replaced by geometric surjection.
Re: Discreteness, Concreteness, Fibrations, and Scones
I had forgotten to update that entry and only updated cohesive oo-topos - concrete objects. Now I have copied over some more paragraphs. But there is more to be said…
Right, so the updated material speaks about “-concrete” objects if is (n-1)-truncated.
Of interest are -concrete -truncated objects. For instance for a concrete sheaf (0-concrete and 0-truncated) the moduli -stack is -concrete and -truncated. More interesting is that also its differential refinement is -truncated and -concrete, but all its -truncations are non-concrete (for any level of concreteness).
More explicitly, in a typical model we have that is presented by a Deligne complex, which is a complex of sheaves that in degree is a concrete sheaf and in all lower degrees is a non-concrete sheaf.
Now for a -dimensional manifold, one is interested not quite in the internal hom , but in the -concretefication of its -truncation.
I am supposed to be writing up the story indicated here with Dave Carchedi, but both of us have to find more time….