Timeline for Categorification of covering morphisms
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 7, 2016 at 9:38 | vote | accept | Arrow | ||
| Jun 6, 2016 at 20:07 | answer | added | Arrow | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 29, 2016 at 23:30 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | I too was thinking you meant categorification in the sense of moving up a categorical level; this was the topic of my PhD thesis... | |
| May 29, 2016 at 23:07 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | "Categorification" seems like the wrong term here. This sits at the same category level as ordinary covering maps (that is, taking place in a 1-category). | |
| May 29, 2016 at 21:44 | history | edited | Arrow | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| May 29, 2016 at 21:38 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | I don't think superextensivity is necessary for fiber bundles to be stable under base change: just being a site means that coverings pull back. | |
| May 29, 2016 at 21:08 | comment | added | Dimitri Chikhladze | Can't think of all the details now, but the fact that the square is a pullback means that on any connected component $U$ of $E$ the morphism $p^\ast\alpha$ is of the form $F\times U$ where $F$ is in the image of $H$. So if $E$ is taken to be $\coprod U_i$ with the $U_i$ connected you get the same condition. But $F$ may vary with the $i$. | |
| May 29, 2016 at 20:31 | comment | added | Arrow | @DimitriChikhladze I'm not even close to seeing this. Could you post an elaboration? | |
| May 29, 2016 at 19:45 | comment | added | Dimitri Chikhladze | For $p = \coprod U_i \rightarrow B$ the two conditions are the same. | |
| May 29, 2016 at 9:58 | history | edited | Arrow | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 55 characters in body
|
| May 29, 2016 at 9:53 | history | asked | Arrow | CC BY-SA 3.0 |