Dear Categorists - Algebraic topologists like to use not Top but a "convenient category" of topological spaces which has the advantage of being cartesian closed. The most popular seems to be CGHaus, the category of compactly generated Hausdorff spaces, or "Kelly spaces". It's cartesian closed, complete and cocomplete. I'll take these as the requirements for a category being "convenient". Lawvere and others have considered various topoi of "smooth spaces" in their work on synthetic differential geometry. I'm looking for something similar, but apparently a bit different. I want a convenient category of smooth spaces equipped with a forgetful functor to CGHaus: U: Smooth -> CGHaus so I can do differential geometry and the apply it to algebraic topology with the greatest of ease. I want U to be faithful, so that smoothness is just a *property* of continuous maps between smooth spaces. And, I want U to preserve limits and colimits. The topoi used in synthetic differential geometry don't seem to meet these requirements, because the all-important "infinitesimal arrow" D doesn't seem to have a good underlying Hausdorff space. You could say its underlying Hausdorff space is the one-point space, but this would not give a *faithful* functor U. Chen and Mostow have given definitions of "smooth space" that might meet my requirements, and I'm wondering what people think of them: K.T. Chen, Iterated paths integrals of differential forms and loop space homology, Ann. Maths. 97 (1973) 213-237. M. A. Mostow, The differentiable space structures of Milnor classifying spaces, simplicial complexes, and geometric realizations, J. Diff. Geom. 14 (1979), 255-293. I only have the energy to describe Chen's definition. I'm hoping someone can give me an elegant proof that it gives a category meeting my requirements. I think it does, but I don't know an elegant proof. I'll use "space" to mean an object of CGHaus, though Chen actually uses it to mean an object of Top. Definition: A "smooth space" X is a space equipped with, for each convex open subset U of some R^n, a collection P(U,X) of continuous maps f: U -> X, called "plots". These need to satisfy various properties: 1) If f: U -> X is a plot and g: V -> U is a smooth map with V convex open in some R^m, then fg is a plot. 2) If U is covered by convex open sets U_a and the restriction of f: U -> X to each U_a is a plot, then f is a plot. 3) If U = R^0, every map f: U -> X is a plot. Definition: If X and Y are smooth spaces and g: X -> Y is continuous, g is defined to be "smooth" if for every plot f: U -> X, gf: U -> Y is a plot. We can try to psychoanalyze this definition: Instead of talking about "convex open sets of R^n's" and smooth maps between these, I'd prefer to talk about R^n's and smooth maps between these, because I believe these form an equivalent category. Let's call this category OpenBall. If we do this and then drop all but condition 1), Chen's definition would say that a smooth space is a space X equipped with a presheaf P on OpenBall assigning to each R^n a set of "plots" P(R^n,X). He also requires that P be a subpresheaf of the presheaf that assigns to each R^n the set of all continuous functions from R^n to X. Then, 2) says this presheaf P is actually a sheaf with respect to some Grothendieck topology on OpenBall. Then, 3) is some extra condition that guarantees smooth maps between smooth spaces are determined by what they do to global points. Or if you prefer, a condition that guarantees constant maps are smooth. So, his definition seems like a way of starting with OpenBall equipped with some Grothendieck topology, taking the category of sheaves on this, and then forming a subcategory with the help of the functor OpenBall -> CGHaus. I'm wondering if anyone recognizes this construction as a standard trick for building topoi... or the composite of a couple standard tricks. Or, if there's some similar but better way to meet my requirements! Happy Thanksgiving, jb 27-Nov-2004 13:23:18 -0400,1354;000000000000-00000000
Somewhere I have a paper that describes classes C of spaces with the property that C-generated spaces are CCC (as well as complete and cocomplete). One of the classes is that of the finite simplexes (you could obviously use cubes instead) which would seem to have at least the possibility of being able to define smoothness. I am away from home now and cannot give the exact reference, but I think it was in the Cahiers around 1980. My recollection is that the spaces in C had to be compact, so you could not use Euclidean spaces. Michael 27-Nov-2004 13:23:18 -0400,2771;000000000000-00000000
In reply to John Baez' questions on Nov. 26, I think that the general machinery which is relevant to the analysis of such categories of smooth spaces is the theory of concrete quasitoposes of Dubuc, cf. E. Dubuc, Concrete Quasitopoi, in "Applications of Sheaves", Proceedings Durham 1977 (Springer Lecture Notes 253). Note that the "differentiable spaces" of Chen (and the general machinery of Dubuc) deal with a COVARIANT determination of structure (i.e. the structure is given in terms of certain plots INTO a set/space), whereas the one considered by Mostow is CONTRAVARIANT (structure given in terms of certain functions OUT OF the set/space). You may have a "double" determination of mutually "balancing" plots and functions. This is the situation studied by Frölicher et al., aimed particularly at smooth spaces (cf. e.g. Frölicher and Kriegl: Linear Spaces and Differentiation Theory, Wiley 1988) (leading to the notion of Convenient Vector Space). A short survey of the Frölicher-Kriegl-Michor theory, and some references, are contained in Kock and Reyes: "Categorical Distribution Theory; Heat Equation" Aarhus Preprint 2004 no. 17; available electronically from the Aarhus Preprint Server, at http://www.imf.au.dk Anders Kock
Dear Anders Kock - Thanks very much for your suggestions! Giuseppe Rosolini also recommended Dubuc's work, so definitely I'll look at that, as well as the other references you mention. Rosolini also recommended the book by Wyler.
Note that the "differentiable spaces" of Chen (and the general machinery of Dubuc) deal with a COVARIANT determination of structure (i.e. the structure is given in terms of certain plots INTO a set/space), whereas the one considered by Mostow is CONTRAVARIANT (structure given in terms of certain functions OUT OF the set/space).
Right. Chen's approach seemed a bit nicer for internal homs, since products are easily defined by saying a plot R^n -> A x B is a plot in A and a plot in B, and then we can define the internal hom by saying a plot R^n -> hom(X,Y) is a smooth map R^n x X -> Y. Perhaps this is an illusion of some sort, and the contravariant approach is just as good? One might fear that the covariant approach, being nice for products, would be bad for coproducts. But, one can take advantage of the fact that R^n is connected to say a plot R^n -> A + B is either a plot in A or a plot in B. Best, jb
participants (3)
-
John Baez -
kock -
Michael Barr