Return to Question

For quite a while, I have been wondering if there is a general principle/theory that has both Tannaka fundamental groups and étale fundamental groups as a special case.

To elaborate: The theory of the étale fundamental group (more generally of Grothendieck's Galois categories from SGA1, or similarly of the fundamental group of a topos) works like this: Take a set valued functor from the category of finite étale coverings of a scheme satisfying certain axioms, let $\pi_1$ be its automorphism group and you will get an equivalence of categories ( (pro-)finite étale coverings) <-> ( (pro-)finite cont. $\pi_1$-sets).

The Tannaka formalism goes like this: Take a $k$-linear abelian tensor category $\mathbb{T}$ satisfying certain axioms (e.g. the category of finite dim. $k$-representations of an abstract group), and a $k$-Vector space valued tensor functor $F$ (the category with this functor is then called neutral Tannakian), and let $Aut$ be its tensor-automorphism functor, that is the functor that assigns to a $k$-algebra $R$ the set of $R$-linear tensor-automorphisms $F(-)\otimes R$. This will of course be a group-valued functor, and the theory says it's representable by a group scheme $\Pi_1$, such that there is a tensor equivalence of categories $Rep_k(\Pi_1)\cong \mathbb{T}$.

Both theories "describe" under which conditions a given category is the (tensor) category of representations of a group scheme (considering $\pi_1$-sets as "representations on sets" and $\pi_1$ as constant group scheme). Hence the question:

Are both theories special cases of some general concept? (Maybe, inspired by recent questions, the first theory can be thought of as "Tannaka formalism for $k=\mathbb{F}_1$"? :-))

For quite a while, I have been wondering if there is a general principle/theory that has both Tannaka fundamental groups and étale fundamental groups as a special case.

To elaborate: The theory of the étale fundamental group (more generally of Grothendieck's Galois categories from SGA1, or similarly of the fundamental group of a topos) works like this: Take a set valued functor from the category of finite étale coverings of a scheme satisfying certain axioms, let $\pi_1$ be its automorphism group and you will get an equivalence of categories ( (pro-)finite étale coverings) <-> ( (pro-)finite cont. $\pi_1$-sets).

The Tannaka formalism goes like this: Take a $k$-linear abelian tensor category $\mathbb{T}$ satisfying certain axioms (e.g. the category of finite dim. $k$-representations of an abstract group), and a $k$-Vector space valued tensor functor $F$ (the category with this functor is then called neutral Tannakian), and let $Aut$ be its tensor-automorphism functor, that is the functor that assigns to a $k$-algebra $R$ the set of $R$-linear tensor-automorphisms $F(-)\otimes R$. This will of course be a group-valued functor, and the theory says it's representable by a group scheme $\Pi_1$, such that there is a tensor equivalence of categories $Rep_k(\Pi_1)\cong \mathbb{T}$.

Both theories "describe" under which conditions a given category is the (tensor) category of representations of a group scheme (considering $\pi_1$-sets as "representations on sets" and $\pi_1$ as constant group scheme). Hence the question:

Are both theories special cases of some general concept? (Maybe, inspired by recent questions, the first theory can be thought of as "Tannaka formalism for $k=\mathbb{F}_1$"? :-))

For quite a while, I have been wondering if there is a general principle/theory that has both Tannaka fundamental groups and étale fundamental groups as a special case.

To elaborate: The theory of the étale fundamental group (more generally of Grothendieck's Galois categories from SGA1, or similarly of the fundamental group of a topos) works like this: Take a set valued functor from the category of finite étale coverings of a scheme satisfying certain axioms, let $\pi_1$ be its automorphism group and you will get an equivalence of categories ( (pro-)finite étale coverings) <-> ( (pro-)finite cont. $\pi_1$-sets).

The Tannaka formalism goes like this: Take a $k$-linear abelian category $\mathbb{T}$ tensor category satisfying certain axioms (e.g. the category of finite dim. $k$-representations of an abstract group), and a $k$-Vector space valued tensor functor $F$ (the category with this functor is then called neutral Tannakian), and let $Aut$ be its tensor-automorphism functor, that is the functor that assigns to a $k$-algebra $R$ the set of $R$-linear tensor-automorphisms $F(-)\otimes R$. This will of course be a group-valued functor, and the theory says it's representable by a group scheme $\Pi_1$, such that there is a tensor equivalence of categories $Rep_k(\Pi_1)\cong \mathbb{T}$.

Both theories "describe" under which conditions a given category is the (tensor) category of representations of a group scheme (considering $\pi_1$-sets as "representations on sets" and $\pi_1$ as constant group scheme). Hence the question:

Are both theories special cases of some general concept? (Maybe, inspired by a recent questions, the first theory can be thought of as "Tannaka formalism for $k=\mathbb{F}_1$"? :-))

For quite a while, I have been wondering if there is a general principle/theory that has both Tannaka fundamental groups and étale fundamental groups as a special case.

To elaborate: The theory of the étale fundamental group (more generally of Grothendieck's Galois categories from SGA1, or similarly of the fundamental group of a topos) works like this: Take a set valued functor from the category of finite étale coverings of a scheme satisfying certain axioms, let $\pi_1$ be its automorphism group and you will get an equivalence of categories ( (pro-)finite étale coverings) <-> ( (pro-)finite cont. $\pi_1$-sets).

The Tannaka formalism goes like this: Take a $k$-linear abelian tensor category $\mathbb{T}$ satisfying certain axioms (e.g. the category of finite dim. $k$-representations of an abstract group), and a $k$-Vector space valued tensor functor $F$ (the category with this functor is then called neutral Tannakian), and let $Aut$ be its tensor-automorphism functor, that is the functor that assigns to a $k$-algebra $R$ the set of $R$-linear tensor-automorphisms $F(-)\otimes R$. This will of course be a group-valued functor, and the theory says it's representable by a group scheme $\Pi_1$, such that there is a tensor equivalence of categories $Rep_k(\Pi_1)\cong \mathbb{T}$.

Both theories "describe" under which conditions a given category is the (tensor) category of representations of a group scheme (considering $\pi_1$-sets as "representations on sets" and $\pi_1$ as constant group scheme). Hence the question:

Are both theories special cases of some general concept? (Maybe, inspired by recent questions, the first theory can be thought of as "Tannaka formalism for $k=\mathbb{F}_1$"? :-))