2
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a stack over $S$ i.e., a stack over category of schemes over $S$ (which we denote by $Sch/S$) which comes with a functor $\mathcal{X}\rightarrow Sch/S$. Consider the diagonal map of stacks $\mathcal{X}\rightarrow \mathcal{X}\times_{S}\mathcal{X}$. It is known that, if this diagonal map is representable, then, for any object $X$ of $Sch/S$ i.e., an $S$-scheme, any map of stacks $X\rightarrow \mathcal{X}$ is representable. The category of $Sch/S$ is not special here.

Let $\mathcal{X}$ be a stack over $\mathcal{Y}$ (which comes with a functor $\mathcal{X}\rightarrow \mathcal{Y}$). Suppose that the diagonal map $\mathcal{X}\rightarrow \mathcal{X}\times_{\mathcal{Y}}\mathcal{X}$ is representable. Then, for any object $Y$ of $\mathcal{Y}$, any map of stacks $Y\rightarrow \mathcal{X}$ is representable.

Let us fix $\mathcal{Y}$ to be the category of Manifolds, denoted by $\text{Man}$. Let us go one step higher (or some type of relative notation). Suppose we have two stacks over $\text{Man}$. Let $\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \text{Man}$ and $\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \text{Man}$ be two stacks. We are also given a map of stacks $F:\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{C}$.

I want to conclude about relative notion of representability of maps from an object of $\text{Man}$. Something like,

Let $M$ be an object of $\text{Man}$. If a map of stacks $p:M\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ is representable, then the composition $F\circ p : M\rightarrow \mathcal{C} $ is representable.

To conclude this,

  • asking for diagonal map $\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}\times_{\text{Man}}\mathcal{D}$ is useless as the map $M\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ is already representable. So, this extra condition would give mostly nothing new.
  • asking for diagonal map $\mathcal{C}\rightarrow \mathcal{C}\times_{\text{Man}}\mathcal{C}$ is least interesting case. As every map of stacks of the form $N\rightarrow \mathcal{C}$ is then representable, so would be the composition $M\rightarrow \mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{C}$. This would have nothing to do with representability of $M\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$.

As I am looking for a relative notion of representability, I thought I should impose the condition that the relative diagonal map i.e., the diagonal map $\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}\times_{\mathcal{C}}\mathcal{D}$ (induced from $F$) is representable. So, the result I want to prove is

Suppose $F:\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{C}$ be a map of stacks (over the category $\text{Man}$) such that the diagonal $\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}\times_{\mathcal{C}}\mathcal{D}$ is representable. Let $M$ be an object of $\text{Man}$. If a map of stacks $p:M\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ is representable, then the composition $F\circ p : M\rightarrow \mathcal{C} $ is representable.

We are given $p:M\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ is representable and the diagonal $\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}\times_{\mathcal{C}}\mathcal{D}$ is representable. Suppose we are given a map $q:N\rightarrow \mathcal{C}$. We want to prove that $X\times_\mathcal{C}N$ is a manifold (this is what we mean when we say $F\circ p:M\rightarrow \mathcal{C}$ is representable).

As $M\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ is representable, the stack $M\times_\mathcal{D}M$ is a manifold. There is an obvious map $M\times_{\mathcal{D}}M\rightarrow \mathcal{D}\times_\mathcal{C}\mathcal{D}$ given by $$(m_1,m_2,\alpha:p(m_1)\rightarrow p(m_2))\mapsto (p(m_1),p(m_2),F(p(m_1))\rightarrow F(p(m_2))).$$

As $\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}\times_{\mathcal{C}}\mathcal{D}$ is representable, considering the map of stacks $M\times_{\mathcal{D}}M\rightarrow \mathcal{D}\times_\mathcal{C}\mathcal{D}$ (note that $M\times_{\mathcal{D}}M$ is a manifold), $\mathcal{D}\times_{\mathcal{D}\times_{\mathcal{C}}\mathcal{D}}(M\times_{\mathcal{D}}M)$ is a manifold.

We have $$\mathcal{D}\times_{\mathcal{D}\times_{\mathcal{C}}\mathcal{D}}(M\times_{\mathcal{D}}M) \cong (M\times_{\mathcal{D}}M) \times_{M\times_{\mathcal{C}}M}(M\times_{\mathcal{D}}M)$$ Above result follows from an isomorphism in proposition (page $11$) here.

This does not anyways say that the composition $M\rightarrow \mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{C}$ is an atlas. For that, we need to prove $M\times_{\mathcal{C}}N$ is a manifold. All we know is that $M\times_{\mathcal{C}}M$ is a manifold.

Any comments are welcome.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is related to (continuation of) mathoverflow.net/questions/316484/…. Before I thought of adding something else, some one has answered that question. So, I thought I should ask this as separate question just to make sure that answer does not sound incomplete for that question. $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik Nov 29 '18 at 13:01
  • $\begingroup$ I have edited to remove unnecessary details. The content remains the same. I hope it is more readable now.. $\endgroup$ – Praphulla Koushik Dec 2 '18 at 9:51

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.