8
$\begingroup$

The statement is true for Lie groups and principal bundles, with every principal bundle admitting a connection and I see no reason for the analogue result not to hold in the Lie $2$-group case but I can't find the precise statement anywhere. As a bonus question, given a Lie $n$-group $G$, do principal $G$ $n$-bundles always admit an $n$-connection?

What I am mainly concerned about is the case of the Lie $2$-group $G=\operatorname{String}(k)$ (bonus: the other $n$-groups appearing in the Whitehead tower of the orthogonal group).

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

It depends on what version of connection on principal 2-bundles you consider. There are at least four versions:

  1. Fake-flat connections, these are the ones that have a well-defined 2-dimensional parallel transport

  2. Regular connections

  3. Adjusted connections (this requires additional structure on your Lie 2-group)

  4. General connections

Versions 1, 2, and 4 are discussed in my paper "A global perspective to connections on principal 2-bundles". Version 3 is discussed, e.g., in "Explicit Non-Abelian Gerbes with Connections" by Rist, Saemann, and Wolf.

EDIT: the underlying structure in all four versions is a Lie 2-algebra-valued 1-form $\Omega$ on the total space of the principal 2-bundle (which is a Lie groupoid). Note that a 1-form involves (because a Lie 2-algebra is considered to live in degrees $-1$ and $0$) two 1-forms and one 2-form. The 1-form $\Omega$ satisfies a condition completely analogous to the condition imposed on connection 1-forms on ordinary principal bundles. Without further conditions, this is version 4. The other versions impose conditions on the curvature 2-form.

For version 1 it is clear that one cannot expect the existence of connections, since there is a quadratic equation involved. The space of fake-flat connections on a trivial bundle is not contractible.

For version 2 the existence of connections is not clear to me.

For version 3 it seems that the question has not yet been investigated, but it could be true that every principal 2-bundle admits adjusted connections. At least this is true in certain examples of adjusted 2-groups.

For version 4, there is an existence theorem with a mild additional assumption (Theorem 5.2.14) in my above-mentioned paper. A particular weird problem in this context is that connections on 2-bundles cannot easily be pulled back along morphisms of 2-bundles. The morphism itself has first to be equipped with a kind of connection (called a "pullback" in my paper), and the existence thereof is also obstructed.

Better results are of course possible when restricting to 2-groups of the form $BA$, where $A$ is an ordinary abelian Lie group. Then, connections of versions 1 and 2 coincide, form a contractible space, and always exist.

For the String-2-group, every String-2-bundle admits a string connection in the sense developed in my paper "String Connections and Chern-Simons Theory", and the space of such string connections is contractible. However, as far as I know, it is not worked out to which of the above versions of connections on principal 2-bundles these string connections correspond. Probably, it is version 3.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If I just give you a notion of parallel transport along paths (invariant under thin homotopies), which notion of connection does this correspond to? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 11:03
  • $\begingroup$ @AndréHenriques: of course this depends on precise definitions, but if you want a 2-functorial parallel transport, invariant under thin homotopies of paths and surfaces, and depending smoothly on paths and surfaces, then you get Version 1. Urs Schreiber and I proved this in our paper arxiv.org/abs/0802.0663. In particular, Prop. 2.8 there shows that fake-flatness is necessary. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 11:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, I'm not talking about surfaces. I'm talking about something that just has parallel transport along paths. No data associated to surfaces. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 12:05
  • $\begingroup$ @AndréHenriques: every general connection (Version 4) gives you parallel transport along paths. This is in Section 3 of my paper arxiv.org/abs/1704.08542. If you ask for the minimal amount of data necessary to define parallel transport along paths, then the answer is not contained in the above list - you basically discard all 2-forms and all conditions involving 2-forms. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 13:32
1
$\begingroup$

For a solution that does not involve direct constructions using partitions of unity, we can deploy Theorem 1.1 in arXiv:1912.10544, which provides an explicit formula for the classifying space of an ∞-sheaf $F$ (valued in spaces or any algebraic ∞-category) on the site of smooth manifolds.

The classifying space is $$\def\hocolim{\mathop{\rm hocolim}}\def\op{{\rm op}}\def\gs{{\bf Δ}}\def\B{{\sf B}_\smallint}\B F=\hocolim_{n∈Δ^\op}F(\gs^n),$$ where $\gs^n$ denotes $n$-simplex considered as a smooth manifold.

In our case, $F(M)$ can be taken to be the 2-groupoid (more generally: $n$-groupoid) of principal $G$-bundles with connection over $M$. Thus, concordance classes of principal $G$-bundles with connection over $M$ are in bijection with elements of the set $[M,\B F]$.

The ∞-sheaf $F$ admits a forgetful map $F→L$, where $L$ is defined in the same way as $F$, but without connection. Thus, concordance classes of principal $G$-bundles over $M$ are in bijection with elements of the set $[M,\B L]$.

The map $F→L$ induces a map of classifying spaces $$\B F=\hocolim_{n∈Δ^\op}F(\gs^n)→\B L=\hocolim_{n∈Δ^\op}L(\gs^n).$$

In our case $π_0(L(\gs^n))$ is a singleton set and concordant sections of $L(\gs^n)$ are isomorphic, and this map is a weak equivalence if and only if for every section $p∈F(S^{n-1})$ whose image in $L(S^{n-1})$ extends along the map $S^{n-1}→D^n$, the section $p$ itself extends along the same map.

This boils down to saying that any connection on the trivial bundle over $S^{n-1}$ extends to a connection on the trivial bundle over $D^n$.

For example, if $G$ is an ordinary Lie group, then connections on the trivial $G$-bundle are given by Lie algebra-valued differential 1-forms, which do possess the extension property from spheres to disks because such differential forms are sections of a certain vector bundle. Thus, we have a bijection of sets $$[M,\B F]→[M,\B L]$$ induced by the map $F→L$. Hence, any principal $G$-bundle over $M$ admits a connection.

For the case when $G$ is a Lie 2-group, the argument has the same structure, but first one needs to decide on the notion of a connection to use (see Konrad Waldorf's answer), and then see whether the above extension property is satisfied.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ For $G$ a group this solves the question (brilliantly, I would say) thanks to the fact that principal $G$-bundles are isomorphic if and only if they are concordant. Does this remain true when $G$ is a higher group? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 7, 2022 at 22:23
  • $\begingroup$ @domenicofiorenza: Yes. For example, the proof at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/… carries over in essentially the same form. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 4:14
  • $\begingroup$ Clear, thanks! The other puzzlement I may have concerns the contractibility of the space of connections on a trivial bundle: if I'm not confused here, among the local data for a string connection one has an $\mathfrak{so}$-valued 1-form $A$ such that $CS(A):=dA\wedge A +2/3 A\wedge A\wedge A$ is an exact 3-form. Since $CS(A)$ is nonhomogeneous in $A$ I do not immediately see this space is contractible. The main problem here seems to be that there are competing (non-equivalent (?)) definitions of connections on higher bundles. I agree that with the right one your statement has to be correct. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 7:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Your argument uses that the space of connections on a trivial G-bundle is contractible. For connections on higher bundles, this depends on what version you use. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 10:03
  • $\begingroup$ @domenicofiorenza: I rewrote the answer and identified the condition that should be satisfied. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2022 at 19:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .