Given a category $\mathsf{A}$, let $\mathsf{Fam}(\mathsf{A})$ be its free coproduct cocompletion (which is always extensive). This means every object has a unique up to iso presentation as a coproduct of connected objects. This category is really part of the data of a fibration $\Pi_0:\mathsf{Fam}(\mathsf{A})\longrightarrow \mathsf{Set}$ assigning to each object its set of connected components. There's also an adjunction $\Pi_0\dashv H$ where $H$ is the "discrete" functor taking a set $A$ to $A\cdot \mathbf{1}=\coprod_A\mathbf{1}$.

In the book Galois Theories by Borceux and Janelidze, a neat process of abstraction leads to the following definition.

Definition 6.5.9. An arrow $\alpha:A\longrightarrow B$ in $\mathsf{C}=\mathsf{Fam}(\mathsf A)$ is said to be a covering morphism if there exists an effective descent morphism $p:E\longrightarrow B$ such that the square below is a pullback. $$\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} E\times_BA @>{\eta_{E\times_BA}}>> H\Pi_0(E\times_BA)\\ @V{p^\ast\alpha}VV @VV{H\Pi_0(p^\ast\alpha)}V\\ E @>>{\eta_E}> H\Pi_0(E) \end{CD}$$

Concretely, the unit $\eta$ takes a point to its connected component.

Since I'm having a hard time visualizing this definition as it's presented, I thought of abstracting the definition of a fiber bundle, and the trying to abstract the definition of a covering space as a fiber bundle with discrete fibers.

Definition 1. A trivial fiber bundle with fiber $F$ is an arrow which is isomorphic to $\pi_1:B\times F\longrightarrow B$ in $\mathsf{C}/B$.

Definition 2. Let $\mathcal M$ be a class of arrows in a site $\mathsf{C}$. An arrow $\pi:E\longrightarrow B$ is said to be locally in $\mathcal M$ if there's a covering $\left\{u_i:U_i\rightarrow B \right\}$ such that $u_i^\ast\pi$ are all in $\mathcal M$.

Definition 3. A fiber bundle with fiber $F$ a locally trivial fiber bundle with fiber $F$, i.e it is locally in the class of projections $X\times F\longrightarrow X$.

If $\mathsf{C}$ is complete, trivial fiber bundles are stable under base change (with invariant fiber). If $\mathsf{C}$ is a complete superextensive site, fiber bundles are stable under base change, also with invariant fiber. So complete superextensive sites look like especially good settings for working with fiber bundles.

Definition 4. A covering morphism is a fiber bundle such that $F$ is in the essential image of $H$.

Why is this definition poor, and why does it not capture what we want a covering morphism to capture? How does it compare to definition 6.5.9 (e.g if we take the extensive topology on $\mathsf{C}$)?

What do we want a covering morphism to capture?

  • $\begingroup$ For $p = \coprod U_i \rightarrow B$ the two conditions are the same. $\endgroup$ – Dimitri Chikhladze May 29 '16 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ @DimitriChikhladze I'm not even close to seeing this. Could you post an elaboration? $\endgroup$ – Arrow May 29 '16 at 20:31
  • $\begingroup$ 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 $i$. $\endgroup$ – Dimitri Chikhladze May 29 '16 at 21:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ – Mike Shulman May 29 '16 at 21:38
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "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). $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan May 29 '16 at 23:07

First, definition 3 must be mended to allow varying fibers, so a fiber bundle is locally some product projection. Then, definition 4 also allows for varying discrete fibers. Whenever both definitions (this and 6.5.9) are applicable, they coincide.

We'll work our way into increasing generality starting with spaces. $\mathsf{Top}$ with its usual topology is a superextensive site. This allows to replace every covering family with a single arrow - its associated cover (see below). Being an extensive category, $\mathsf{Top}$ has universal coproducts, which ensures the the squares on the left below are pullbacks iff the right one is.

$$\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} U_i\times F_i @>>> A\\ @VVV @VV{\alpha}V\\ U_i @>>> B \end{CD}\forall i\iff\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} \coprod_iU_i\times F_i @>>> A\\ @V{p^\ast\alpha}VV @VV{\alpha}V\\ \coprod_iU_i @>>{p}> B \end{CD}$$

This allows us to encapsulate the local triviality definition for fiber bundles in terms of a single base change. Next, for spaces, note the associated cover $p$ is an étale surjection. Étale surjections are effective descent morphsims of spaces, which suggests generalizing to such morphisms in general contexts.

The problem is that we can't even write a pullback square with varying fibers if we replace $\coprod_iU_i$ by $E$. However, if we assume $\mathsf{C}$ is actually a free coproduct cocompletion, we may write $E\cong \coprod_iE_i$ where $E_i$ are the connected components of $E$.

This yields a notion of a "generalized fiber bundle" - an arrow $\alpha$ for which there exists an effective descent morphism making the square below a pullback.

$$\begin{CD} \coprod_iE_i\times F_i @>>> A\\ @VVV @VV{\alpha}V\\ \coprod_iE_i @>>{p}> B \end{CD}$$

Following the setting of spaces, say an arrow is a trivial covering morphism if it's a trivial fiber bundle with discrete fiber (in the essential image of the copower functor $H:A\mapsto \coprod_A\mathbf 1=A\cdot \bf 1$. Since $\mathsf{C}$ is extensive and has products, it is distributive, hence $E_i\times F_i\cong |F_i|\cdot E_i$. This shows the connected component decomposition of the total space of a trivial covering morphism simply has duplicates of the connected compnents of the base space, with multiplicity equal to the cardinality of the fiber (which is always given by $|\Pi_0(F_i)|$).

Proposition. Suppose $\mathsf C$ is a free coproduct cocompletion. Then $\alpha$ is a trivial covering morphism if and only if the square below is a pullback.

$$\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} A @>{\eta_A}>> H\Pi_0(A)\\ @V{\alpha}VV @VV{H\Pi_0(\alpha)}V\\ B @>>{\eta_B}> H\Pi_0(B) \end{CD}$$

Proof. Let $B\cong\coprod_iB_i$ be the connected components decompositio of $B$. The pullback $B\times_{H\Pi_0(B)}H\Pi_0(A)$ is $\coprod_i | (\Pi_0\alpha)^\ast \left\{ i \right\}|\cdot B_i$ with projection on $B$ given componentwise by identities. The description for $\alpha$ as a trivial fiber bundle with discrete fibers is equivalent, since the components $\alpha:\coprod_i | (\Pi_0\alpha)^\ast \left\{ i \right\}|\cdot B_i\rightarrow \coprod_iB_i$ correspond by connectedness of $B_i$ to the identity. $\square$


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.