On Infinity Topoi
- 格式:pdf
- 大小:774.72 KB
- 文档页数:60
arXiv:math/0306109v2 [math.CT] 8 Jul 2003ON∞-TOPOIJACOBLURIE
LetXbeatopologicalspaceandGanabeliangroup.TherearemanydifferentdefinitionsforthecohomologygroupHn(X,G);wewillsingleoutthreeofthemfordiscussionhere.Firstofall,onehasthesingularcohomologyHnsing(X,G),whichisdefinedasthecohomologyofacomplexofG-valuedsingularcochains.Alternatively,onemayregardHn(•,G)asarepresentablefunctoronthehomotopycategoryoftopologicalspaces,andtherebydefineHnrep(X,G)tobethesetofhomotopyclassesofmapsfromXinto
anEilenberg-MacLanespaceK(G,n).AthirdpossibilityistousethesheafcohomologyHnsheaf(X,GonX.IfXisasufficientlynicespace(forexample,aCWcomplex),thenallthreeofthesedefinitionsagree.Ingeneral,however,allthreegivedifferentanswers.ThesingularcohomologyofXisconstructedusingcontinuousmapsfromsimplices∆kintoX.IftherearenotmanymapsintoX(forexampleifeverypathinXisconstant),thenwecannotexpectHnsing(X,G)totellusverymuchaboutX.Similarly,thecohomologygroupHnrep(X,G)isdefinedusingmapsfromXintoasimplicialcomplex,which(ultimately)reliesontheexistenceofcontinuousreal-valuedfunctionsonX.IfXdoesnotadmitmanyreal-valuedfunctions,weshouldnotexpectHnrep(X,G)tobeausefulinvariant.However,thesheafcohomologyofXseemstobeagoodinvariantforarbitraryspaces:ithasexcellentformalpropertiesingeneralandsometimesyieldsgoodresultsinsituationswheretheotherapproachesdonotapply(suchasthe´etaletopologyofalgebraicvarieties).WeshalltakethepointofviewthatthesheafcohomologyofaspaceXgivestherightanswerinallcases.Weshouldthenaskforconditionsunderwhichtheotherdefinitionsofcohomologygivethesameanswer.WeshouldexpectthistobetrueforsingularcohomologywhentherearemanycontinuousfunctionsintoX,andforEilenberg-MacLanecohomologywhentherearemanycontinuousfunctionsoutofX.Itseemsthatthelatterclassofspacesismuchlargerthantheformer:itincludes,forexample,allparacompactspaces,andconsequentlyforparacompactspacesonecanshowthatthesheafcohomologyHnsheaf(X,G)coincideswiththeEilenberg-MacLanecohomologyHnrep(X,G).Oneofthemainresultsofthispaperisageneralizationoftheprecedingstatementtonon-abeliancohomology,andtothecasewherethecoefficientsystemGisnotnecessarilyconstant.Classically,thenon-abeliancohomologyH1(X,G)ofXwithcoefficientsinapossiblynon-abeliangroupGisunderstoodasclassifyingG-torsorsonX.WhenXisparacompact,suchtorsorsareagainclassifiedbyhomotopyclassesofmapsfromXintoanEilenberg-MacLanespaceK(G,1).NotethatthegroupGandthespaceK(G,1)areessentiallythesamepieceofdata:GdeterminesK(G,1)uptohomotopyequivalence,andconverselyGmayberecoveredasthefundamentalgroupofK(G,1).Tomakethiscanonical,weshouldsaythatspecifyingGisequivalenttospecifyingthespaceK(G,1)togetherwithabasepoint;thespaceK(G,1)aloneonlydeterminesGuptoinnerautomorphisms.However,innerautomorphismsofGinducetheidentityonH1(X,G),sothatH1(X,G)isreallyafunctorwhichdependsonlyonK(G,1).Thissuggeststhepropercoefficientsfornon-abeliancohomologyarenotgroups,but“homotopytypes”(whichweregardaspurelycombinatorialentities,representedperhapsbysimplicialsets).Wemaydefinethenon-abeliancohomologyHrep(X,K)ofXwithcoefficientsinanysimplicialcomplexKtobethecollectionofhomotopyclassesofmapsfromXintoK.ThisleadstoagoodnotionwheneverXisparacompact.Moreover,wegainagreatdealbyallowingthecasewhereKisnotanEilenberg-MacLanespace.Forexample,ifK=BU×ZistheclassifyingspaceforcomplexK-theoryandXisacompactHausdorffspace,thenHrep(X,K)istheusualcomplexK-theoryofX,definedastheGrothendieckgroupofthemonoidofisomorphismclassesofcomplexvectorbundlesonX.
12JACOBLURIEWhenXisnotparacompact,weareforcedtoseekabetterwayofdefiningH(X,K).Giventheappar-entpowerandflexibilityofsheaf-theoreticmethods,itisnaturaltolookforsomegeneralizationofsheafcohomology,usingascoefficients“sheavesofhomotopytypesonX.”Inotherwords,wewantatheoryof∞-stacks(ingroupoids)onX,whichwewillhenceforthrefertosimplyasstacks.OneapproachtothistheoryisprovidedbytheJoyal-JardinehomotopytheoryofsimplicialpresheavesonX.Accordingtothisapproach,ifKisasimplicialset,thenthecohomologyofXwithcoefficientsinKshouldbedefinedasHJJ(X,K)=π0(F(X)),whereFisafibrantreplacementfortheconstantsimplicialpresheafwithvalueKonX.WhenKisanEilenberg-MacLanespaceK(G,n),thenthisagreeswiththesheaf-cohomologygroup(orset)Hnsheaf(X,G).ItfollowsthatifXisparacompact,thenHJJ(X,K)=Hrep(X,K)wheneverKisanEilenberg-MacLanespace.However,itturnsoutthatHJJ(X,K)=Hrep(X,K)ingeneral,evenwhenXisparacompact.Infact,onecangiveanexampleofacompactHausdorffspaceforwhichHJJ(X,BU×Z)isnotequaltothecomplexK-theoryofX.WeshallproceedontheassumptionthatK(X)isthe“correct”answerinthiscase,andgiveanalternativetotheJoyal-Jardinetheorywhichcomputesthisanswer.OuralternativeisdistinguishedfromtheJoyal-Jardinetheorybythefactthatwerequireourstackstosatisfyadescentconditiononlyforcoverings,ratherthanforarbitraryhypercoverings.Asidefromthispointweproceedinthesameway,settingH(X,K)=π0(F′(X)),whereF′isthestackwhichisobtainedbyforcingthe“constantprestackwithvalueK”tosatisfythisweakerformofdescent.Ingeneral,F′willnotsatisfydescentforhypercoverings,andconsequentlyitwillnotbeequivalenttothesimplicialpresheafFusedinthedefinitionofHJJ.Theresultingtheoryhasthefollowingproperties:•IfXisparacompact,H(X,K)isthesetofhomotopyclassesfromXintoK.•IfXisaparacompactspaceoffinitecoveringdimension,thenourtheoryofstacksisequivalenttotheJoyal-Jardinetheory.(Thisisalsotrueforcertaininductivelimitsoffinitedimensionalspaces,andinparticularforCWcomplexes.)•ThecohomologiesHJJ(X,K)andH(X,K)alwaysagreewhenKis“truncated”,forexamplewhenKisanEilenberg-MacLanespace.Inparticular,H(X,K(G,n))isequaltotheusualsheafcohomologyHnsheaf(X,G).Inaddition,ourtheoryof∞-stacksenjoysgoodformalpropertieswhicharenotalwayssharedbytheJoyal-Jardinetheory;weshallsummarizethesituationin§2.10.However,thegoodpropertiesofourtheorydonotcomewithouttheirprice.Itturnsoutthattheessentialdifferencebetweenstacks(whicharerequiredtosatisfydescentonlyforordinarycoverings)andhyperstacks(whicharerequiredtosatisfydescentforarbitraryhypercoverings)isthattheformercanfailtosatisfytheWhiteheadtheorem:onecanhave,forexample,apointedstack(E,η)forwhichπi(E,η)isatrivialsheafforalli≥0,suchthatEisnot“contractible”(forthedefinitionofthesehomotopysheaves,see§2.8).InordertomakeathoroughcomparisonofourtheoryofstacksonXandtheJoyal-JardinetheoryofhyperstacksonX,itseemsdesirabletofitbothofthemintosomelargercontext.Theproperframeworkisprovidedbythenotionofan∞-topos,whichisintendedtobean∞-categorythat“lookslike”the∞-categoryof∞-stacksonatopologicalspace,justasanordinarytoposissupposedtobeacategorythat“lookslike”thecategoryofsheavesonatopologicalspace.ForanytopologicalspaceX(or,moregenerally,anytopos),the∞-stacksonXcomprisean∞-topos,asdothe∞-hyperstacksonX.However,itistheformer∞-toposwhichenjoysthemoreuniversalpositionamong∞-topoirelatedtoX(seeProposition2.7.4).Letusnowoutlinethecontentsofthispaper.Wewillbeginin§1withaninformalreviewofthetheoryof∞-categories.Therearemanyapproachestothefoundationofthissubject,eachhavingitsownparticularmeritsanddemerits.Ratherthansingleoutoneofthosefoundationshere,weshallattempttoexplaintheideasinvolvedandhowtoworkwiththem.Thehopeisthatthiswillrenderthispaperreadabletoawideraudience,whileexpertswillbeabletofillinthedetailsmissingfromourexpositioninwhateverframeworktheyhappentoprefer.Section2isdevotedtothenotionofan∞-topos.Wewillbeginwithanintrinsiccharacterization(analogoustoGiraud’saxiomswhichcharacterizeordinarytopoi:see[5]),andthenarguethatany∞-categorysatisfyingouraxiomsactuallyarisesasan∞-categoryof“stacks”onsomething.Wewillthenshow