Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userTangent infinity-categories and Goodwillie calculus
161
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We make precise the analogy between Goodwillies calculus of functors in homotopy theory and the differential calculus of smooth manifolds by introducing a higher-categorical framework of which both theories are examples. That framework is an extension to infinity-categories of the tangent categories of Cockett and Cruttwell (introduced originally by Rosicky). A tangent structure on an infinity-category X consists of an endofunctor on X, which plays the role of the tangent bundle construction, together with various natural transformations that mimic structure possessed by the ordinary tangent bundles of smooth manifolds and that satisfy similar conditions. The tangent bundle functor in Goodwillie calculus is Luries tangent bundle for infinity-categories, introduced to generalize the cotangent complexes of Andre, Quillen and Illusie. We show that Luries construction admits the additional structure maps and satisfies the conditions needed to form a tangent infinity-category, which we refer to as the Goodwillie tangent structure on the infinity-category of infinity-categories. Cockett and Cruttwell (and others) have started to develop various aspects of differential geometry in the abstract context of tangent categories, and we begin to apply those ideas to Goodwillie calculus. For example, we show that the role of Euclidean spaces in the calculus of manifolds is played in Goodwillie calculus by the stable infinity-categories. We also show that Goodwillies n-excisive functors are the direct analogues of n-jets of smooth maps between manifolds; to state that connection precisely, we develop a notion of tangent (infinity, 2)-category and show that Goodwillie calculus is best understood in that context.
rate research
Read More
This is the first of a series of papers on enriched infinity categories, seeking to reduce enriched higher category theory to the higher algebra of presentable infinity categories, which is better understood and can be approached via universal properties. In this paper, we introduce enriched presheaves on an enriched infinity category. We prove analogues of most familiar properties of presheaves. For example, we compute limits and colimits of presheaves, prove that all presheaves are colimits of representable presheaves, and prove a version of the Yoneda lemma.
We develop a localisation theory for certain categories, yielding a 3-arrow calculus: Every morphism in the localisation is represented by a diagram of length 3, and two such diagrams represent the same morphism if and only if they can be embedded in a 3-by-3 diagram in an appropriate way. The methods to construct this localisation are similar to the Ore localisation for a 2-arrow calculus; in particular, we do not have to use zigzags of arbitrary length. Applications include the localisation of an arbitrary model category with respect to its weak equivalences as well as the localisation of its full subcategories of cofibrant, fibrant and bifibrant objects, giving the homotopy category in all four cases. In contrast to the approach of Dwyer, Hirschhorn, Kan and Smith, the model category under consideration does not need to admit functorial factorisations. Moreover, our method shows that the derived category of any abelian (or idempotent splitting exact) category admits a 3-arrow calculus if we localise the category of complexes instead of its homotopy category.
Following the pattern from linear logic, the coKleisli category of a differential category is a Cartesian differential category. What then is the coEilenberg-Moore category of a differential category? The answer is a tangent category! A key example arises from the opposite of the category of Abelian groups with the free exponential modality. The coEilenberg-Moore category, in this case, is the opposite of the category of commutative rings. That the latter is a tangent category captures a fundamental aspect of both algebraic geometry and Synthetic Differential Geometry. The general result applies when there are no negatives and thus encompasses examples arising from combinatorics and computer science. This is an extended version of a conference paper for CSL2020.
Bimonoidal categories are categorical analogues of rings without additive inverses. They have been actively studied in category theory, homotopy theory, and algebraic $K$-theory since around 1970. There is an abundance of new applications and questions of bimonoidal categories in mathematics and other sciences. This work provides a unified treatment of bimonoidal and higher ring-like categories, their connection with algebraic $K$-theory and homotopy theory, and applications to quantum groups and topological quantum computation. With ample background material, extensive coverage, detailed presentation of both well-known and new theorems, and a list of open questions, this work is a user friendly resource for beginners and experts alike.
We continue the study of enriched infinity categories, using a definition equivalent to that of Gepner and Haugseng. In our approach enriched infinity categories are associative monoids in an especially designed monoidal category of enriched quivers. We prove that, in case the monoidal structure in the basic category M comes from direct product, our definition is essentially equivalent to the approach via Segal objects. Furthermore, we compare our notion with the notion of category left-tensored over M, and prove a version of Yoneda lemma in this context. Version 2: An error in 2.6.2 corrected. Version 3: a few minor corrections. Version 4: Section 8 added, describing correspondences of enriched categories. In case the basic monoidal category M is a prototopos with a cartesian structure, we prove that the category of correspondences is equivalent to the category of enriched categories over [1]. Version 5: terminology changed (former bicartesian fibrations became bifibrations), a few misprints corrected. Version 6: Section 2.11 added, dealing with operadic sieves. A number of corrections and clarifications made per referees request. Version 7: final version, accepted to Advances in Math. Version 8: a minor correction of 2.8.9-2.8.10.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
