This entry is about a refinement of the concept of cohesive topos. The definition here expresses an intuition not unrelated to that at cohesive (∞,1)-presheaf on E-∞ rings but the definitions are unrelated and apply in somewhat disjoint contexts.
structures in a cohesive (∞,1)-topos
infinitesimal cohesion?
typical contexts
A cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos is a gros (∞,1)-topos $\mathbf{H}$ that provides a context of generalized spaces in which higher geometry makes sense, in particular higher differential geometry. See also at motivation for cohesive toposes for a non-technical discussion.
Technically, it is an $(\infty,1)$-topos whose global section (∞,1)-geometric morphism $(Disc \dashv \Gamma): \mathbf{H} \stackrel{\overset{Disc}{\leftarrow}}{\underset{\Gamma}{\to}}$ ∞Grpd admits a further left adjoint (∞,1)-functor $\Pi$ and a further right adjoint $coDisc$:
with $Disc$ and $coDisc$ both full and faithful (∞,1)-functors and such that $\Pi$ moreover preserves finite (∞,1)-products. Here
the existence of $coDisc$ induces a sub-(∞,1)-quasitopos $Conc(\mathbf{H}) \hookrightarrow \mathbf{H}$ of concrete objects that behave like ∞-groupoids equipped with extra cohesive structure , such as with continuous structure, smooth structure, etc.
the existence of $\Pi$ induces a notion of geometric fundamental ∞-groupoid, hence under $|-| : \infty Grpd \simeq$ Top of geometric realization $|\Pi(-)|$ of objects in $\mathbf{H}$.
The functor $\Gamma$ itself may be thought of as sending a cohesive ∞-groupoid $X$ to its underlying bare $\infty$-groupoid $\Gamma(X)$. This is $X$ with all cohesion forgotten (for instance with the continuous or the smooth structure forgotten).
Conversely, $Disc$ and $CoDisc$ send an $\infty$-groupoid $A$ either to the discrete ∞-groupoid $Disc(A)$ with discrete cohesive structure (for instance with discrete topology) or to the codiscrete ∞-groupoid $Codisc(A)$ with the codiscrete cohesive structure (for instance with codiscrete topology).
This kind of adjoint quadruple, directly analgous to the structure introduced by William Lawvere for cohesive toposes, induces two adjoint modalities which in turn are adjoint to each other, to yield the adjoint string shape modality $\dashv$ flat modality $\dashv$ sharp modality $\int \dashv \flat \dashv \sharp$, which may be thought of as expressing “contiuum” and “quantity” in the sense of Georg Hegel’s Science of Logic (as explained in detail there.)
The existence of such an adjoint quadruple of adjoint $(\infty,1)$-functors alone implies a rich internal higher geometry in $\mathbf{H}$ that comes with its internal notion of Galois theory, Lie theory, differential cohomology, Chern-Weil theory.
Examples of cohesive $(\infty,1)$-toposes include
the $(\infty,1)$-topos $\mathbf{H} =$Disc∞Grpd of discrete ∞-groupoids;
the $(\infty,1)$-topos $\mathbf{H} =$ ETop∞Grpd of Euclidean-topological ∞-groupoids;
the $(\infty,1)$-topos $\mathbf{H} =$ Smooth∞Grpd of smooth ∞-groupoids;
the $(\infty,1)$-topos $\mathbf{H} =$ SynthDiff∞Grpd of formal smooth ∞-groupoids;
the $(\infty,1)$-topos $\mathbf{H} =$ Super∞Grpd of super ∞-groupoids;
the $(\infty,1)$-topos $\mathbf{H} =$ SmoothSuper∞Grpd of smooth super ∞-groupoids.
In ETop∞Grpd and those contexts containing it, the internal notions of geometric realization, geometric homotopy and Galois theory subsume the usual ones (over well-behaved topological spaces). In Smooth∞Grpd also the notions of Lie theory, differential cohomology and Chern-Weil theory subsume the usual ones. In SynthDiff∞Grpd the internal notion of Lie algebra and Lie algebroid subsumes the traditional one — and generalizes them to higher smooth geometry.
We state the definition in several equivalent ways.
externally in the ambient context;
internally to the cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos itselfs;
internally and formulated in homotopy type theory
The definition is the immediate analog of the definition of a cohesive topos.
An (∞,1)-topos $\mathbf{H}$ is cohesive if
it is a strongly ∞-connected (∞,1)-topos;
it is a local (∞,1)-topos.
As always in topos theory and higher topos theory, such definitions can be made sense of over any base . Here: over any base (∞,1)-topos.
Over the canonical base ∞Grpd of ∞-groupoids, the definition of a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos is equivalently the following:
the global section (∞,1)-geometric morphism $\Gamma : \mathbf{H} \to \infty Grpd$ lifts to an adjoint quadruple of adjoint (∞,1)-functors
where $\Pi$ preserves finite (∞,1)-products.
Often we will tacitly assume to work over ∞Grpd. But most statements and constructions have straightforward generalizations to arbitrary bases. In particular, below in the internal definition of cohesion, it takes more to fix the base topos than to leave it arbitrary.
Every adjoint quadruple induces an adjoint triple of endofunctors.
Here “$\mathbf{\flat}$” is meant to be pronounced “flat”. The interpretation of these three functors is discussed in detail at cohesive (∞,1)-topos -- structures.
Sometimes it is desireable to add further axioms, such as the following.
We say that pieces have points for an object $X$ in a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos $\mathbf{H}$ if the points-to-pieces transform
is an effective epimorphism in an (∞,1)-category, equivalently (as discussed there) such that this is an epimorphism on connected components.
Here the first morphismism is the image under $\Gamma$ of the $(Disc \dashv \Gamma)$-unit and the second is an inverse of the $(\Pi \dashv Disc)$-counit (which is invertible because $Disc$ is full and faithful in a local (∞,1)-topos.)
We say discrete objects are concrete in $\mathbf{H}$ if for all $S \in$∞Grpd the morphism
induces monomorphisms on all homotopy sheaves.
The following extra condition ensures that the shape modality is explicitly given by a geometric path ∞-groupoid construction.
Given a cohesive $\infty$-topos $\mathbf{H}$ and an object $\mathbb{A}^1 \in \mathbf{H}$, we say that $\mathbb{A}^1$ exhibits the cohesion if the shape modality $\Pi$ is equivalent to “A1-localization” $L_{\mathbb{A}^1}$, hence to localization of $\mathbf{H}$ at the class of projection morphisms of the form $(-)\times \mathbb{A}^1 \longrightarrow (-)$, i.e. if
In the example of smooth cohesion and its variants such as Euclidean topological cohesion, the standard real line $\mathbb{A}^1 = \mathbb{R}^1$ exhibits cohesion in the sense of def. 4 (by this discussion). Therefore one might also say that if an object $\mathbb{A}^1$ in a cohesive $\infty$-topos exhibits the cohesion, then it plays the role of the continuum in analogy of the traditional use of this term in geometry. See also at continuum – In cohesive homotopy theory.
We reformulate the above axioms for a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos without references to functors on it, and instead entirely in terms of structures in it.
A full sub-(∞,1)-category $\mathbf{B} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{H}$ is
reflectively embedded precisely if for every object $X \in \mathbf{H}$ there is a morphism
(the unit) with $L X \in \mathbf{B} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{H}$, such that for all $Y \in \mathbf{B} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{H}$ the value of the (∞,1)-categorical hom-space-functor
is an equivalence (of ∞-groupoids).
coreflectively embedded precisely if for every object $Y \in \mathbf{H}$ there is a morphism
(the counit) with $R Y \in \mathbf{B} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{H}$ such that for all $X \in \mathbf{B} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{H}$ the value of the (∞,1)-categorical hom-space-functor
is an equivalence (of ∞-groupoids).
This is proven here.
A reflective embedding
and a coreflective embedding
fit into a single adjoint triple
(hence there is an equivalence $\mathbf{B}_{disc} \simeq \mathbf{B}_{cod}$ that moreover makes the coreflector $\tilde\Gamma$ of $Disc$ coincide with the reflector $\Gamma$ of $coDisc$) precisely if for the unit and counit given by lemma 1 we have that the morphisms on the left of
are (natural) equivalences for all objects $X \in \mathbf{H}$, as indicated on the right.
It is clear that if we have an adjoint triple, then (1) and (2) are implied. We discuss now the converse.
First notice that the two embeddings always combine into an adjunction of the form
The natural equivalence (1) applied to a codiscrete object $X := coDisc A$ gives that $coDisc$ of the counit of this composite adjunction is an equivalence
for all $A$, and since $coDisc$ is full and faithful, so is the composite counit
itself. Analogously, (2) implies that the unit of the composite adjunction is an equivalence. Therefore (1) and (2) together imply that the adjunction itself exhibits an equivalence $\mathbf{B}_{disc} \simeq \mathbf{B}_{cod}$.
Using this we then find for each $X \in \mathbf{H}$ a composite natural equivalence
where the first morphism uses the above equivalence on the codiscrete object $\tilde \Gamma X$ and the second is a choice of natural inverse of (2).
Since $Disc$ is full and faithful, this mean that we have equivalences
natural in $X$, hence that $\tilde \Gamma \simeq \Gamma$.
In the above situation, the defining adjunction equivalence
exhibiting $(\mathbf{\Pi} \dashv \flat)$ is given by the composite of natural equivalences
from lemma 1, using that both $\mathbf{\Pi} X$ as well as $\flat A$ are discrete.
Using these lemmas we can now restate cohesiveness internally.
For $Disc : \mathbf{B} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{H}$ a sub-(∞,1)-category, the inclusion extends to an adjoint quadruple of the form
precisely if there exists for each object $X \in \mathbf{H}$
a morphism $X \to \mathbf{\Pi}(X)$ with $\mathbf{\Pi}(X) \in \mathbf{B} \stackrel{Disc}{\hookrightarrow} \mathbf{H}$;
a morphism $\mathbf{\flat} X \to X$ with $\mathbf{\flat} X \in \mathbf{B} \stackrel{Disc}{\hookrightarrow} \mathbf{H}$;
a morphism $X \to #X$ with $# X \in \mathbf{B} \stackrel{coDisc}{\hookrightarrow} \mathbf{H}$
such that for all $Y \in \mathbf{B} \stackrel{Disc}{\hookrightarrow} \mathbf{H}$ and $\tilde Y \in \mathbf{B} \stackrel{coDisc}{\hookrightarrow} \mathbf{H}$ the induced morphisms
$\mathbf{H}(\mathbf{\Pi}X , Y) \stackrel{\simeq}{\to} \mathbf{H}(X,Y)$;
$\mathbf{H}(Y, \mathbf{\flat}X) \stackrel{\simeq}{\to} \mathbf{H}(Y,X)$;
$\mathbf{H}(# X , \tilde Y) \stackrel{\simeq}{\to} \mathbf{H}(X,\tilde Y)$;
$# (\flat X \to X)$;
$\flat (X \to # X)$
are equivalences (the first three of ∞-groupoids the last two in $\mathbf{H}$).
Moreover, if $\mathbf{H}$ is a cartesian closed category, then $\Pi$ preserves finite products precisely if the $Disc$-inclusion is an exponential ideal.
The last statement follows from the $(\infty,1)$-category analog of the discussion here.
The axioms for cohesion, in the internal version, can be formulated in homotopy type theory, the internal language of an (∞,1)-topos.
The corresponging Coq-HoTT code is in (Shulman).
For more see cohesive homotopy type theory.
We discuss basic properties implied by the axioms for cohesive $(\infty,1)$-toposes in
Then we discuss presentations over special sites in
A nontrivial cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos
has the shape of the point;
has homotopy dimension 0;
has cohomology dimension 0.
The first holds for every ∞-connected (∞,1)-topos, see there.
The second holds for every local (∞,1)-topos, see there.
The third follows from the second, see homotopy dimension.
This says that a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos $\mathbf{H}$ is, when itself regarded as a little topos, a generalized space, a thickened point . We may think of it as the standard point equipped with a cohesive neighbourhood .
In this sense every space $X$ modeled on the cohesive structure defined by $\mathbf{H}$ is an étale space over $X$: its petit $(\infty,1)$-topos $\mathbf{H}/X$ sits by a locally homeomorphic geometric morphism over $\mathbf{H}$
We discuss a presentation of classes of cohesive (∞,1)-toposes by a model structure on simplicial presheaves over a suitable site.
For $C$ an ∞-cohesive site the (∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-sheaves $(\infty,1)Sh(C)$ over $C$ is a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos satisfying the two axioms pieces have points and discrete objects are concrete .
The detailed discussion is at ∞-cohesive site.
Every cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos over ∞Grpd is a hypercomplete (∞,1)-topos.
By the above proposition it has finite homotopy dimension. This implies hypercompeteness. See there.
For $\mathbf{H}$ a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos, the (1,1)-topos $\tau_{\leq 1-1} \mathbf{H}$ of 0-truncated objects is a cohesive topos.
For a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos $(\Pi \dashv Disc \dashv \Gamma \dashv coDisc) : \mathbf{H} \to \infty Grpd$ over an ∞-cohesive site, the functor $\Pi$ preserves (∞,1)-pullbacks over discrete objects.
We first consider a lemma. Notice that for $A \in \infty Grpd$ the (∞,1)-Grothendieck construction gives an equivalence of (∞,1)-categories
from the over (∞,1)-category of $\infty Grpd$ over $A$ to the (∞,1)-functor (∞,1)-category from $A$ to $\infty Grpd$.
For $\mathbf{H}$ a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos over an ∞-cohesive site and for $A \in \infty Grpd$, we have an equivalence of (∞,1)-categories
We establish this via a presentation of $\mathbf{H}$ by a model structure on simplicial presheaves.
Let $C$ be an ∞-cohesive site of definition for $\mathbf{H}$. Then by the discussion there we have
Moreover, picking a Kan complex presentation for $A$, which we shall denote by the same symbol, we have that the constant simplicial presheaf $const A \in [C^{op}, sSet]_{proj, loc}$ is fibrant. Therefore by this proposition the induced model structure on an overcategory on $[C^{op}, sSet]/const A$ presents the given over (∞,1)-category
Now observe that we have an ordinary equivalence of categories
under which the model structure becomes that of the local projective model structure on functors with values in the model structure $(sSet/A)_{Quillen/A}$ that presents $\infty Grpd_{/ A}$.
Let then $sSet^+/A$ denote the model structure for left fibrations. By the discussion there, this also presents $\infty Grpd_{/ A}$. Hence by this proposition we have an equivalence of (∞,1)-categories
This allows now to apply this presentation of the (∞,1)-Grothendieck construction to find
where $w(A)$ is the simplicially enriched category corresponding to $A$ (as discussed at relation between quasi-categories and simplicial categories ) and $[w(A), sSet_{Quillen}]_{proj}$ is the global model structure on sSet-enriched presheaves.
Then using the cartesian closure of the category of simplicial presheaves (which is a topos) inside the $(-)^\circ$ we have
Finally this implies the claim using this proposition.
With this lemma we can now give the proof of prop. 5.
By the discussion at adjoint (∞,1)-functors on slices we have that $(\Pi \dashv Disc)$ induces an adjoint pair
Under the equivalence from lemma 3 the functor $\Pi/Disc A$ maps to
Since products of $(\infty,1)$-functor $(\infty,1)$-categories are computed objectwise, and since $\Pi$ preserves finite products by the axioms of cohesion, also $Func(A, \Pi)$ preserves finite products, and hence so does $\Pi/Disc A$. But products in the slice over $Disc A$ are (∞,1)-pullbacks over $Disc A$. So this proves the claim.
In the internal definition the base of discrete/codiscrete objects is not explicitly axiomatized to be an (∞,1)-topos itself (the base (∞,1)-topos), but this is implied by the axioms. We deduce that and related properties in stages.
In the following, let $\mathbf{H}$ be an (∞,1)-topos equipped with an adjoint quadruple of functors to an (∞,1)-category $\mathbf{B}$ – the base of cohesion, where $Disc$ and $coDisc$ are full and faithful.
The base $\mathbf{B}$ of cohesion has all (∞,1)-limits and (∞,1)-colimits.
This is a general property of a reflectively and coreflectively embedded subcategory. The limits are computed by computing them in $\mathbf{H}$ and then applying $\Gamma$ and the colimits are computed by computing them in $\mathbf{H}$ and then applying $\Pi$. For $X : I \to \mathbf{B}$ any diagram we have
Since $Disc$, being both a left adjoint as well as a right adjoint preserves limits and colimits, it follows that a (co)limit of discrete objects computed in $\mathbf{H}$ is itself again discrete and is the image under $Disc$ of the coresponding (co)limit computed in $\mathbf{B}$.
Since loop space objects are (∞,1)-limits it follows that the loop space object of any discrete object is itself again a discrete object.
We have also the following stronger statement.
The base of cohesion $\mathbf{B}$ is a presentable (∞,1)-category and in fact an (∞,1)-topos itself.
By one of the equivalent characterizations of presentable (∞,1)-categories these are reflective sub-(∞,1)-categories of (∞,1)-categories of (∞,1)-presheaves where the embedding is by an accessible (∞,1)-functor.
Since $\mathbf{H}$ is itself accessibly and reflectively embedded into the presheaves $PSh(C)$ on a (∞,1)-site of definition, we have a composite reflective inclusions
Since $Disc$ even preserves all (∞,1)-colimits, it is in particular an accessible (∞,1)-functor, hence so is the above composite.
Finally, since $\Gamma$ preserves all (∞,1)-limits, hence in particular the finite limits, $(\Gamma, coDisc)$ is a geometric embedding that exhibits an sub-(∞,1)-topos.
Notice that the reflection $(\Pi \dashv Disc)$ does not in general constitute a geometric embedding, since $\Pi$ is only required to preserve finite products (and in interesting examples rarely preserves more limits than that).
The following statement and its proof about cohesive 1-toposes should hold verbatim also for cohesive $(\infty,1)$-toposes.
The reflective subcategories of discrete objects and of codiscrete objects are both exponential ideals.
By the discussion at exponential ideal a reflective subcategories of a cartesian closed category is an exponential ideal precisely if the reflector preserves products. For the codiscrete objects the reflector $\Gamma$ preserves even all limits and for the discrete objects the reflector $\Pi$ does so by assumotion of strong connectedness.
We discuss orthogonal factorization systems in a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos that characterize or are characterized by the reflective subcategory of dicrete objects, with reflector $\mathbf{\Pi} : \mathbf{H} \stackrel{\Pi}{\to} \infty Grpd \stackrel{Disc}{\hookrightarrow} \mathbf{H}$.
For $f : X \to Y$ a morphism in $\mathbf{H}$, write $c_{\mathbf{\Pi}} f \to Y$ for the (∞,1)-pullback in
where the bottom morphism is the $(\Pi \dashv Disc)$-unit. We say that $c_{\mathbf{\Pi}} f$ is the $\mathbf{\Pi}$-closure of $f$, and that $f$ is $\mathbf{\Pi}$-closed if $X \simeq c_{\mathbf{\Pi}} f$.
If $\mathbf{H}$ has an ∞-cohesive site of definition, then every morphism $f : X \to Y$ in $\mathbf{H}$ factors as
such that $X \to c_{\mathbf{\Pi}} f$ is a $\mathbf{\Pi}$-equivalence in that it is inverted by $\mathbf{\Pi}$.
The factorization is given by the naturality of $\mathbf{\Pi}$ and the universal property of the $(\infty,1)$-pullback in def. 5.
Then by prop. 5 the functor $\mathbf{\Pi}$ preserves the $(\infty,1)$-pullback over the discrete object $\mathbf{\Pi}Y$ and since $\mathbf{\Pi}(X \to \mathbf{\Pi}X)$ is an equivalence, it follows that $\mathbf{\Pi}(X \to c_{\mathbf{\Pi}f})$ is an equivalence.
The pair of classes
is an orthogonal factorization system in $\mathbf{H}$.
This follows by the general reasoning discussed at reflective factorization system:
By prop. 9 we have the required factorization. It remains to check the orthogonality.
So let
be a square diagram in $\mathbf{H}$ where the left morphism is a $\mathbf{\Pi}$-equivalence and the right morphism is $\mathbf{\Pi}$-closed. Then by assumption there is a pullback square on the right in
By naturality of the adjunction unit, the total rectangle is equivalent to
Here by assumption the middle morphism is an equivalence. Therefore there is an essentially unique lift in the square on the right and hence a lift in the total square. Again by the universality of the adjunction, any such lift factors through $\mathbf{\Pi} B$ and hence also this lift is essentially unique.
Finally by universality of the pullback, this induces an essentially unique lift $\sigma$ in
For $f : X \to Y$ a $\mathbf{\Pi}$-closed morphism and $y : * \to Y$ a global element, the homotopy fiber $X_y := y^* X$ is a discrete object.
By the def. 5 and the pasting law we have that $y^* X$ is equivalently the $\infty$-pullback in
Since the terminal object is discrete, and since the right adjoint $Disc$ preserves $\infty$-pullbacks, this exhibits $y^* X$ as the image under $Disc$ of an $\infty$-pullback of $\infty$-groupoids.
A cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos is a general context for higher geometry with good cohomology and homotopy properties. We list fundamental structures and constructions that exist in every cohesvive $(\infty,1)$-topos.
This section is at
We discuss extra structure on a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos that encodes a refinement of the corresponding notion of cohesion to infinitesimal cohesion . More precisely, we consider inclusions $\mathbf{H} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{H}_{th}$ of cohesive $(\infty,1)$-toposes that exhibit the objects of $\mathbf{H}_{th}$ as infinitesimal cohesive neighbourhoods of objects in $\mathbf{H}$.
This section is at
Every cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos $\mathbf{H}$ equipped with differential cohesion comes canonically equipped with a notion of formally étale morphisms (as discussed there). Combined with the canonical interpretation of $\mathbf{H}$ as the classifying topos of a theory of local T-algebras, this caninically induces a notion of locally algebra-ed (∞,1)-toposes with cohesive structure, generalizing the notion of locally ringed spaces and locally ringed toposes.
This section is at
We list examples of cohesive $(\infty,1)$-toposes, both specific ones as well as classes of examples constructed in a certan way.
Let $\mathbf{H}$ be an cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos.
Let $D$ be a small category (diagram) with initial object $\bottom$ and terminal object $\top$, or else a presentable (∞,1)-category. Write
for the triple of adjoint (∞,1)-functors given by including $\bottom$ and $\top$.
Then the (∞,1)-functor category $\mathbf{H}^D$ is again a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos, exhibited by the adjoint quadruple which is the composite
where the adjoint quadruple on the left is that induced under (∞,1)-Kan extension from $(\bottom \dashv p \dashv \top)$.
By the discussion at (∞,1)-Kan extension each of the original three functors induces [adjoint triples etc, as indicated. In particular is a right adjoint and therefore preserves finite products (and all small (∞,1)-limits, even).]
By the original adjunctions one finds that $\bottom_! \simeq p^*$ and $p_! \simeq \top^*$, which implies the adjoint quadruple as indicated above by essential uniqueness of adjoints.
Finally it is clear that $\top^* p^* \simeq Id$, which implies that $p^*$ is a full and faithful (∞,1)-functor (and hence so is $\bottom_*$).
In particular we have
For $\mathbf{H}$ a cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos, also its arrow (∞,1)-category $\mathbf{H}^{\Delta[1]}$ is cohesive.
For $\mathbf{H} =$ ∞Grpd (“discrete cohesion”, see below) the corresponding cohesive $(\infty,1)$-topos $\infty Grpd^{\Delta[1]}$ is known as the Sierpinski (∞,1)-topos.
For $\mathbf{H}$ a cohesive $(\infty.1)$-topos its (∞,1)-category of simplicial objects $\mathbf{H}^{\Delta^{op}}$ is cohesive over $\mathbf{H}$
Here
$\Pi_I$ sends a simplicial object to the homotopy colimit over its components, hence to its “geometric realization” as seen in $\mathbf{H}$.
$\Gamma_I$ evaluates on the 0-simplex;
$Disc_I$ sends an object in $\mathbf{H}$ to the simplicial object which is simplicially constant on $A$.
Hence cohesion of $\mathbf{H}^{\Delta^{op}}$ relative to $\mathbf{H}$ expresses the existence of a discrete and directed notion of path.
The simplicial interval $\Delta^1 \in \mathbf{H}^{\Delta^{op}}$ (regarded under (∞,1)-Yoneda embedding) exhibits the cohesion of $\mathbf{H}^{\Delta^{op}}$ over $\mathbf{H}$ in the sense of def. 4, in that the relative shape modality $\Pi_I$ is equivalent to the “A1-localization” at $\mathbb{A}^1 = \Delta^1$
Notice that there is an inclusion
of the groupoid objects internal to $\mathbf{H}$ and of the category objects internal to $\mathbf{H}$ inside $\mathbf{H}^{\Delta^{op}}$.
Here $\mathbf{H}^{\Delta^{op}}$ is also the classifying topos for linear intervals. Its homotopy type theory internal language is equipped with an interval type.
For more see at simplicial object in an (∞,1)-category.
The tangent (∞,1)-category $T\mathbf{H}$ to a cohesive $\infty$-topos is itself cohesive, (by the discussion at tangent ∞-category – Examples – Of an ∞-topos), the tangent cohesive (∞,1)-topos.
This $T \mathbf{H}$ the $\infty$-topos of parameterized spectra in $\mathbf{H}$, hence is context for cohesive stable homotopy theory.
Rezk-global equivariant homotopy theory:
cohesive (∞,1)-topos | its (∞,1)-site | base (∞,1)-topos | its (∞,1)-site |
---|---|---|---|
global equivariant homotopy theory $PSh_\infty(Glo)$ | global equivariant indexing category $Glo$ | ∞Grpd $\simeq PSh_\infty(\ast)$ | point |
… sliced over terminal orbispace: $PSh_\infty(Glo)_{/\mathcal{N}}$ | $Glo_{/\mathcal{N}}$ | orbispaces $PSh_\infty(Orb)$ | global orbit category |
… sliced over $\mathbf{B}G$: $PSh_\infty(Glo)_{/\mathbf{B}G}$ | $Glo_{/\mathbf{B}G}$ | $G$-equivariant homotopy theory of G-spaces $L_{we} G Top \simeq PSh_\infty(Orb_G)$ | $G$-orbit category $Orb_{/\mathbf{B}G} = Orb_G$ |
Examples of ∞-cohesive sites are
any category with finite products and equipped with the trivial coverage.
the full subcategory $CartSp_{top} \subset$ Top on open balls with the good open cover coverage;
the site CartSp of Cartesian spaces with smooth functions between them and good open cover coverage.
the Cahiers topos-site ThCartSp of infinitesimally thickened Cartesian spaces.
From this one obtains the following list of examples of cohesive $(\infty,1)$-toposes.
One can consider the tangent (∞,1)-topos of the cohesive (∞,1)-topos
of ∞-stacks on the site of smooth manifolds with values in turn in ∞-stack over a site of arithmetic schemes, hence by smooth ∞-groupoids but over a base (∞,1)-topos of algebraic ∞-stacks.
This leads to differential algebraic K-theory. See there for details.
see differential cohesion and idelic structure
cohesion in E-∞ arithmetic geometry:
cohesion modality | symbol | interpretation |
---|---|---|
flat modality | $\flat$ | formal completion at |
shape modality | $ʃ$ | torsion approximation |
dR-shape modality | $ʃ_{dR}$ | localization away |
dR-flat modality | $\flat_{dR}$ | adic residual |
the differential cohomology hexagon/arithmetic fracture squares:
The above examples relativize to arbitrary bases.
For instance smooth cohesion over an (∞,1)-topos over a suitable site of schemes is the natural context for differential algebraic K-theory. See there for more.
As a context for geometric spaces and paths in geometric spaces, cohesive $(\infty,1)$-toposes are a natural context in which to formulate fundamental fundamental physics. See higher category theory and physics for more on this.
See also
local topos / local (∞,1)-topos
cohesive topos / cohesive (∞,1)-topos
and
unrelated is the notion of cohesive ∞-prestack
The category-theoretic definition of cohesive topos was proposed by Bill Lawvere. See the references at cohesive topos.
The observation that the further left adjoint $\Pi$ in a locally ∞-connected (∞,1)-topos defines an intrinsic notion of paths and geometric homotopy groups in an (∞,1)-topos was suggested by Richard Williamson.
The observation that the further right adjoint $coDisc$ in a local (∞,1)-topos serves to characterize concrete (∞,1)-sheaves was amplified by David Carchedi.
Some aspects of the discussion here are, more or less explicitly, in
For instance something similar to the notion of ∞-connected site and the fundamental ∞-groupoid in a locally ∞-connected (∞,1)-topos is the content of section 2.16. The infinitesimal path ∞-groupoid adjunction $(\mathbf{Red} \dashv \mathbf{\Pi}_{inf} \dashv \mathbf{\flat}_{inf})$ is essentially discussed in section 3. The notion of geometric realization (see structures in a cohesive (∞,1)-topos – geometric realization), is touched on around remark 2.22, referring to
But, more or less explicitly, the presentation of geometric realization of simplicial presheaves is much older, going back to Artin-Mazur. See geometric homotopy groups in an (∞,1)-topos for a detailed commented list of literature.
A characterization of infinitesimal extensions and formal smoothness by adjoint functors (discussed at infinitesimal cohesion) is considered in
in the context of Q-categories .
The material presented here is also in section 3 of
Expositions and discussion of the formalization of cohesion in homotopy type theory is in
The corresponding Coq-code is in
Exposition is at