2-Equivariance and “Weak Pullback”
Posted by Urs Schreiber
Here is math question related to strings on orbifolds which I have just submitted to sci.math.research. Replies of all kinds are very welcome.
Consider equivariant principal bundles with connection in functorial language as follows.
Let
be a principal -bundle over a base manifold .
Let there be a finite group acting freely (for simplicity) on by diffeomorphisms.
Let be the groupoid of thin-homotopy classes of paths in .
Let be the transport groupoid of with objects the fibers of (which are -torsors) and morphisms the torsor morphisms between them.
A connection on is a smooth functor
The action of a group element on gives rise to an obvious functor
The pullback under of the bundle with connection has the transport functor
given simply by composing with .
Next consider the quotient and the projection .
Let there be a bundle with connection on . We can pull it back to by
The bundle with connection is invariant under . What would we have to do to get something equivariant under instead?
The answer is the following: instead of pulling back globally, we only assume that is locally naturally isomorphic to .
My question is (at last): what is the general abstract nonsense notion for this idea of “weak pullback of transport functors”?
I’ll make this more precise. The construction I have in mind is the following.
Given on , choose a good covering of by open sets together with sections such that
Choose on each a transport functor
such that it is naturally isomorphic to restricted to , with the natural isomorphism called (“L”ift):
By composing the inverse of with over we get a natural isomorphism upstairs
By construction, is associated to an element .
Suppose it is possible to glue all the such that there is a single trans which restricts to them strictly:
If this exists, it will automatically be -equivariant in the following sense:
a) For each there is a natural isomorphism
b) Moreover, these natural isomorphisms automatically satisfy a triangle ‘coherence law’
saying that the group product is respected.
I am doing the analogous construction for equivariant 2-bundles with 2-transport in order to describe strings on orbifolds and on orientifolds. It turns out to indeed reproduce known constructions when specialized appropriately. Hence it looks like the ‘right’ thing to do.
But I have the feeling that the concept of ‘weak pullback’ of -fucntors, or whatever it should be called, which is used here, is much more general than the application to equivariant -bundles might suggest. Does it have an established name? Can anyone point me to references where this is discussed more generally?
P.S. In case anyone is wondering: I am aware that in applications one is interested in the case where does not act freely. The point of the above is to derive the right notion of (2-)equivariance from the case where it does act freely and then impose that notion on the non-freely acting setup.
Re: 2-Equivariance and “Weak Pullback”
Urs
There is a vast literature on weak limits (which is what a pullback is, remember) but the best I can do, I think, is refer you to the original master work
“Formal Category Theory: Adjointness for 2-categories” LNM 391
by John W. Gray. On page 217 he defines Cartesian quasi-limits as follows: Let be a 2-functor and let (where the bracket thing means comma category) be the canonical projection. The so-called ‘category of sections’ of is the pullback in of and . This defines an object , which is the said quasi-limit.
Of course one needs to sort out the structure of 2cats and comma cats for this to make sense, which Gray does, so its not a ‘trivial’ categorification.