9
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a locally compact topological group (or more generally a localic group). Is there an infinity topos which classify principal $G$ bundles ?

More precisely, is there an $\infty$-topos $BG$ such that for every localic topos $\mathcal{L}$ the category of geometric morphism from $\mathcal{L}$ to $BG$ is equivalent to the category of $G$ principal bundle over $\mathcal{L}$, where a $G$-principal bundle over $\mathcal{L}$ is a locale $\mathcal{X}$ endowed with a $G$ action and an invariant map $p: \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{L}$

such that:

1)$p$ is an open surjection.

2) The canonical map $\mathcal{X} \times G \rightarrow \mathcal{X} \times_{\mathcal{L}} \mathcal{X}$ is an isomorphism.

I am especially interested in the cases where $G= \mathbb{U}$ (the group of complex number of module $1$) and $G=\mathbb{R}$.

Of course, if $G$ is pro-discrete, then the answer is yes: it suffice to consider the infinity topos associated to the $1$-topos of continuous $G$ set. In the general case, one should look for an infinity topos of spaces endowed with a $G$ action (up to homotopy), but my knowledge of homotopy theory is not enough to see if this trivially work/does not work or if it is a difficult question...

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If I understand correctly, you are only interested in localic topoi and G-bundles which are locales. If you are using "locale" in a common sense (a Heyting algebra), then I don't see why should you care about $\infty$-topoi. Your question seems to be purely 1-categorical, and is classical as such. $\endgroup$ – Anton Fetisov Jan 22 '14 at 1:18
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with you, but for topological group which are not pro discrete (a compact connected topological group for instance) there is no classifying $1$-topos. Moreover, I don't see any reason why an infinity topos $\mathcal{T}$ such that for any localic topos $\mathcal{L}$ the category of morphisms from $\mathcal{L}$ to $\mathcal{T}$ is equivalent to a $1$-category should be a $1$-topos. Hence it is not impossible that for some topological group $G$ there is classifying infinity topos $BG$ which is not a $1$-topos. $\endgroup$ – Simon Henry Jan 22 '14 at 6:42
9
$\begingroup$

The projection map $p: \mathbf{R} \rightarrow \ast$ induces a fully faithful embedding of sheaf categories $p^{\ast}: Shv(\ast) \rightarrow Shv( \mathbf{R} )$. This is equally true for sheaves of sets, sheaves of spaces, or other variants. It follows that for any topos (or $\infty$-topos) $\mathcal{X}$, the ($\infty$-)category of geometric morphisms from $\ast$ to $\mathcal{X}$ embeds fully faithfully into the ($\infty$-)category of geometric morphisms from $\mathbf{R}$ into $\mathcal{X}$. As a consequence, there can't be a classifying topos (or $\infty$-topos) for $U(1)$-bundles in the sense you describe (the category of $U(1)$-bundles on a point does not embed fully faithfully in the category of $U(1)$-bundles on $\mathbf{R}$). The same counterexample works if you replace $U(1)$ by any topological group $G$ for which there exists a nonconstant continuous map $\mathbf{R} \rightarrow G$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, that is exactly the kind of restriction I was looking for ! The fact that $p^*$ is also fully faithful on sheaves of space is essentially because $\mathbb{R}$ is contractible ? $\endgroup$ – Simon Henry Jan 26 '14 at 15:22
4
$\begingroup$

[I would comment, but I don't have enough points yet!]

Marta Bunge (*) shows that for any open localic group $G$, $BG$ classifies the principal bundles of the etale completion of $G$. I think you are asking about the case where $G$ is not necessarily etale complete. Here the only result I am aware of is that the category of stably Frobenius adjunctions from $\bf{Loc}$ to $[G , \bf{Loc}]$ (i.e. to the presheaf category, seeing $G$ as an internal category of $\bf{Loc}$) and over $\bf{Loc}$, classify principal bundles (by a general argument about cartesian categories). Since, in the case when $G$ is etale complete, these adjunctions correspond exactly to geometric morphisms, I think that's as good as you are going to get.

(*) An application of descent to a classification theorem for toposes. Math Proc Camb Phil Soc 1990

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I think I had confounded the category of CGWH spaces with something I had read by Flach. In Section 2.2 of "The Weil-Etale Cohomology of Arithmetic Schemes," Flach works in a topos $T$ of sheaves on the site $(Top^{lc}, J_{op})$ of locally compact topological spaces with the usual open-cover topology. Flach notes that the category of compact spaces is a generating full subcategory of $T$. Flach goes on (in Section 2.3 of loc. cit.) to work with classifying spaces, etc., in the topos $T$. This might be more helpful to the poster of the question.

I think I had confused the topos $T$ (generated by compact spaces) with the CGWH spaces I read about in Strickland's notes. In any case, I hope the work of Flach is more helpful.

------------------Original answer below-------------

I'll give this answer, but I'm unsure of the details since I'm no expert in topos theory. Let's stick with $G$ being a locally compact (= Hausdorff too) topological group.

Let $T$ be the topos of compactly-generated weakly Hausdorff (CGWH) spaces. Strickland has some nice notes on CGWH spaces at http://math.mit.edu/~mbehrens/18.906/cgwh.pdf

Then $G$ is a group in this topos, and one can look at the 1-topos $BG$ of objects in $T$ endowed with $G$-actions in $T$.

I believe this should work, but I am a bit too time-constrained to work out the details/references. Also, I have no experience with infinity-categories, so I'll leave it to others to "take the associated infinity-category" if needed.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The category of CGWH spaces is not a topos. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jan 21 '14 at 13:38
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately, all the difficulties lies in the "take the associated infinity-category" because one has to work with topological spaces up to weak homotopy in order to have any hopes that this construction might yields the good answer. $\endgroup$ – Simon Henry Jan 21 '14 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ Hmmm - I guess the ncat lab says CGWH is Cartesian closed but not locally Cartesian closed. Well, I'll leave the answer as a warning to others. $\endgroup$ – Marty Jan 21 '14 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ For the edited answer: this construction only work "up to homotopy" for example for a discrete group $G$ the topos $BG$ is the topos of $G$-sets, if we use the topos of $T$ object endowed with an action of the object of $T$ corresponding to $G$ then one get a topos largely biger than $BG$ but which is homotopy equivalent. $\endgroup$ – Simon Henry Jan 21 '14 at 19:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.