Suppose that $C$ is a Grothendieck site, and $\mathscr{X}$ is a stack over $C$ (which is NOT equivalent to a sheaf). Let $$\pi_{\mathscr{X}}:\int_{C} \mathscr{X}\to C$$ denote the associated fibered category. The underlying category $\int_{C} \mathscr{X}$ carries an induced Grothendieck topology such that $$St\left(\int_{C} \mathscr{X}\right) \simeq St\left(C\right)/\mathscr{X}$$ where the latter is the slice 2-category over $\mathscr{X}$.

Now the functor $\pi_{\mathscr{X}}$ induces the functor $$\left(\pi_{\mathscr{X}}\right)_{!} :Sh\left(\int_{C} \mathscr{X}\right) \to Sh(C).$$ It also induces a $2$-functor $$\left(\pi_{\mathscr{X}}\right)_{!} :St\left(\int_{C} \mathscr{X}\right) \to St(C)$$ by taking the weak left Kan extension of $y \circ \pi_{\mathscr{X}}$ along Yoneda, where $y$ here denotes the Yoneda embedding $C \to St(C)$ of $C$. Under the equivalence $$St\left(\int_{C} \mathscr{X}\right) \simeq St\left(C\right)/\mathscr{X},$$ $\left(\pi_{\mathscr{X}}\right)_{!}$ corresponds to the projection $$St(C)/\mathscr{X} \to St(C),$$ since this is weak colimit preserving and agrees with $\left(\pi_{\mathscr{X}}\right)_{!}$ on representables.

This implies that $$\left(\pi_{\mathscr{X}}\right)_{!}\left(1\right)\simeq \mathscr{X}.$$ But the terminal object $1$ is a sheaf, so we should have $\left(\pi_{\mathscr{X}}\right)_{!}\left(1\right) \in Sh(C)$, but we should also have it equivalent to $\mathscr{X}$ which is NOT equivalent to a sheaf. What am I missing?

  • $\begingroup$ Silly off-topic question: why the integral? :S $\endgroup$ – Mattia Talpo Jan 9 '12 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Mattia: This is the Grothendieck construction; it expresses a pseudo-functor $C^{op} \to \mathrm{Cat}$ as a fibered category over $C$. You learn more about it in Angelo Vistoli's notes on descent theory. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Jan 9 '12 at 15:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin: ok thanks, I know about the construction you're mentioning, I was just wondering about the symbol. Is there some reason why it should be analogue to an integral? $\endgroup$ – Mattia Talpo Jan 9 '12 at 15:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Mattia: One may think of it as adding all of the images of the pseudo-functor together to get the source category of the fibration. I don't know of a more precise analogy. $\endgroup$ – S. Carnahan Jan 10 '12 at 6:51

Here's what's wrong:

The inclusion $j:Sh(C) \to St(C)$ does not preserve colimits. Notice that $j$ has a right-adjoint given by $\pi_0,$ at least making sheaves reflective. To see that $j$ does not preserve colimits, take for instance the colimit of $\pi_\mathscr{X}$, first by composing with the Yoneda embedding into stacks, and second by composing it with the Yoneda embedding into sheaves. The former is $j$ composed with the latter. If $y$ denotes the Yoneda embedding into stacks, the former is the colimit of $y \circ \pi_{\mathscr{X}}$ which is canonically equivalent to $\mathscr{X},$ whereas the latter is the colimit of $\pi_0 \circ y \circ \pi_\mathscr{X}$ which is equivalent to $\pi_0(\mathscr{X})$.

  • $\begingroup$ Note that that inclusion doesn't preserve colimits even when $C$ is the trivial site (when it is $Set \to Gpd$). $\endgroup$ – Mike Shulman Jan 13 '12 at 17:15

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.