In algebraic geometry, what kind of theory can only be described by topos but not a site?
A (Grothendieck) topos is defined to be a category equivalent to the category of sheaves on some site. The main difference for a topos and a site is about their morphisms. I noticed that some books about Etale cohomology don't use the notion of topos. It seems study of sites is enough for Etale cohomology. But topos was invented in algebraic geometry. I wonder in what area of algebraic geometry, study of topoi can not be replaced by study of sites?
algebraic-geometry topos-theory big-picture
asked Dec 26 at 12:51
Nicky
415
add a comment |
A (Grothendieck) topos is defined to be a category equivalent to the category of sheaves on some site. The main difference for a topos and a site is about their morphisms. I noticed that some books about Etale cohomology don't use the notion of topos. It seems study of sites is enough for Etale cohomology. But topos was invented in algebraic geometry. I wonder in what area of algebraic geometry, study of topoi can not be replaced by study of sites?
algebraic-geometry topos-theory big-picture
asked Dec 26 at 12:51
Nicky
415
add a comment |
A (Grothendieck) topos is defined to be a category equivalent to the category of sheaves on some site. The main difference for a topos and a site is about their morphisms. I noticed that some books about Etale cohomology don't use the notion of topos. It seems study of sites is enough for Etale cohomology. But topos was invented in algebraic geometry. I wonder in what area of algebraic geometry, study of topoi can not be replaced by study of sites?
algebraic-geometry topos-theory big-picture
asked Dec 26 at 12:51
Nicky
415
A (Grothendieck) topos is defined to be a category equivalent to the category of sheaves on some site. The main difference for a topos and a site is about their morphisms. I noticed that some books about Etale cohomology don't use the notion of topos. It seems study of sites is enough for Etale cohomology. But topos was invented in algebraic geometry. I wonder in what area of algebraic geometry, study of topoi can not be replaced by study of sites?
algebraic-geometry topos-theory big-picture
algebraic-geometry topos-theory big-picture
asked Dec 26 at 12:51
Nicky
415
asked Dec 26 at 12:51
Nicky
415
edited Dec 26 at 14:34
asked Dec 26 at 12:51
Nicky
415
asked Dec 26 at 12:51
Nicky
415
asked Dec 26 at 12:51
Nicky
415
415
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Indeed, all the topoi I personally know to appear in algebraic geometry are Grothendieck toposes, hence toposes of sheaves over some site.
However, there is NO one-to-one correspondence between morphisms of sites and morphisms of the toposes over them. In particular the morphisms between crystalline toposes can not be realized by morphisms between the underlying sites. This is one reason why we're very much interested in toposes.
There are also other reasons, for instance that they provide a "base-independent" (site-independent) notion; exploiting that the same topos can be presented by vastly different sites is the heart of Olivia Caramello's program of toposes as bridges. We can also exploit the internal language of a topos allows to reduce some notions and theorems of algebraic geometry to notions and theorems of linear algebra and to develop a synthetic account of scheme theory (see these notes).
answered Dec 26 at 17:03
Ingo Blechschmidt
1,350715
I studied a bit topos theory from logic point of view and read that topos arose in algebraic geometry to define cohomology to solve Weil conjecture. But books on Etale cohomology based on SGA4 don't seem to use the notion of topos. Could you say about the ideas of topos in SGA4?
– Nicky
Dec 26 at 19:28
add a comment |
The theorem "topos= sheaf in some site" fails for $infty$-topoi. So I guess spectral algebraic geometry might be a natural answer.
Edit: Also, even in the ordinary theory, often it's easier to think of cohomology in the topos than in the site. The silliest way to explain this would be: for cohomology in a site which does not have a final object, cohomology of an abelian sheaf $F$ is naturally $text{Ext}^i (*, F).$ The topos has an initial object(*) even though the site doesn't have a final object. The way to describe this by staying in the site would involve derived inverse limits.
answered yesterday
Shubhodip Mondal
2,156916
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052912%2fin-algebraic-geometry-what-kind-of-theory-can-only-be-described-by-topos-but-no%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Indeed, all the topoi I personally know to appear in algebraic geometry are Grothendieck toposes, hence toposes of sheaves over some site.
However, there is NO one-to-one correspondence between morphisms of sites and morphisms of the toposes over them. In particular the morphisms between crystalline toposes can not be realized by morphisms between the underlying sites. This is one reason why we're very much interested in toposes.
There are also other reasons, for instance that they provide a "base-independent" (site-independent) notion; exploiting that the same topos can be presented by vastly different sites is the heart of Olivia Caramello's program of toposes as bridges. We can also exploit the internal language of a topos allows to reduce some notions and theorems of algebraic geometry to notions and theorems of linear algebra and to develop a synthetic account of scheme theory (see these notes).
answered Dec 26 at 17:03
Ingo Blechschmidt
1,350715
I studied a bit topos theory from logic point of view and read that topos arose in algebraic geometry to define cohomology to solve Weil conjecture. But books on Etale cohomology based on SGA4 don't seem to use the notion of topos. Could you say about the ideas of topos in SGA4?
– Nicky
Dec 26 at 19:28
add a comment |
Indeed, all the topoi I personally know to appear in algebraic geometry are Grothendieck toposes, hence toposes of sheaves over some site.
However, there is NO one-to-one correspondence between morphisms of sites and morphisms of the toposes over them. In particular the morphisms between crystalline toposes can not be realized by morphisms between the underlying sites. This is one reason why we're very much interested in toposes.
There are also other reasons, for instance that they provide a "base-independent" (site-independent) notion; exploiting that the same topos can be presented by vastly different sites is the heart of Olivia Caramello's program of toposes as bridges. We can also exploit the internal language of a topos allows to reduce some notions and theorems of algebraic geometry to notions and theorems of linear algebra and to develop a synthetic account of scheme theory (see these notes).
answered Dec 26 at 17:03
Ingo Blechschmidt
1,350715
I studied a bit topos theory from logic point of view and read that topos arose in algebraic geometry to define cohomology to solve Weil conjecture. But books on Etale cohomology based on SGA4 don't seem to use the notion of topos. Could you say about the ideas of topos in SGA4?
– Nicky
Dec 26 at 19:28
add a comment |
Indeed, all the topoi I personally know to appear in algebraic geometry are Grothendieck toposes, hence toposes of sheaves over some site.
However, there is NO one-to-one correspondence between morphisms of sites and morphisms of the toposes over them. In particular the morphisms between crystalline toposes can not be realized by morphisms between the underlying sites. This is one reason why we're very much interested in toposes.
There are also other reasons, for instance that they provide a "base-independent" (site-independent) notion; exploiting that the same topos can be presented by vastly different sites is the heart of Olivia Caramello's program of toposes as bridges. We can also exploit the internal language of a topos allows to reduce some notions and theorems of algebraic geometry to notions and theorems of linear algebra and to develop a synthetic account of scheme theory (see these notes).
answered Dec 26 at 17:03
Ingo Blechschmidt
1,350715
Indeed, all the topoi I personally know to appear in algebraic geometry are Grothendieck toposes, hence toposes of sheaves over some site.
However, there is NO one-to-one correspondence between morphisms of sites and morphisms of the toposes over them. In particular the morphisms between crystalline toposes can not be realized by morphisms between the underlying sites. This is one reason why we're very much interested in toposes.
There are also other reasons, for instance that they provide a "base-independent" (site-independent) notion; exploiting that the same topos can be presented by vastly different sites is the heart of Olivia Caramello's program of toposes as bridges. We can also exploit the internal language of a topos allows to reduce some notions and theorems of algebraic geometry to notions and theorems of linear algebra and to develop a synthetic account of scheme theory (see these notes).
answered Dec 26 at 17:03
Ingo Blechschmidt
1,350715
answered Dec 26 at 17:03
Ingo Blechschmidt
1,350715
answered Dec 26 at 17:03
Ingo Blechschmidt
1,350715
answered Dec 26 at 17:03
Ingo Blechschmidt
1,350715
1,350715
I studied a bit topos theory from logic point of view and read that topos arose in algebraic geometry to define cohomology to solve Weil conjecture. But books on Etale cohomology based on SGA4 don't seem to use the notion of topos. Could you say about the ideas of topos in SGA4?
– Nicky
Dec 26 at 19:28
add a comment |
I studied a bit topos theory from logic point of view and read that topos arose in algebraic geometry to define cohomology to solve Weil conjecture. But books on Etale cohomology based on SGA4 don't seem to use the notion of topos. Could you say about the ideas of topos in SGA4?
– Nicky
Dec 26 at 19:28
I studied a bit topos theory from logic point of view and read that topos arose in algebraic geometry to define cohomology to solve Weil conjecture. But books on Etale cohomology based on SGA4 don't seem to use the notion of topos. Could you say about the ideas of topos in SGA4?
– Nicky
Dec 26 at 19:28
I studied a bit topos theory from logic point of view and read that topos arose in algebraic geometry to define cohomology to solve Weil conjecture. But books on Etale cohomology based on SGA4 don't seem to use the notion of topos. Could you say about the ideas of topos in SGA4?
– Nicky
Dec 26 at 19:28
add a comment |
The theorem "topos= sheaf in some site" fails for $infty$-topoi. So I guess spectral algebraic geometry might be a natural answer.
Edit: Also, even in the ordinary theory, often it's easier to think of cohomology in the topos than in the site. The silliest way to explain this would be: for cohomology in a site which does not have a final object, cohomology of an abelian sheaf $F$ is naturally $text{Ext}^i (*, F).$ The topos has an initial object(*) even though the site doesn't have a final object. The way to describe this by staying in the site would involve derived inverse limits.
answered yesterday
Shubhodip Mondal
2,156916
add a comment |
The theorem "topos= sheaf in some site" fails for $infty$-topoi. So I guess spectral algebraic geometry might be a natural answer.
Edit: Also, even in the ordinary theory, often it's easier to think of cohomology in the topos than in the site. The silliest way to explain this would be: for cohomology in a site which does not have a final object, cohomology of an abelian sheaf $F$ is naturally $text{Ext}^i (*, F).$ The topos has an initial object(*) even though the site doesn't have a final object. The way to describe this by staying in the site would involve derived inverse limits.
answered yesterday
Shubhodip Mondal
2,156916
add a comment |
The theorem "topos= sheaf in some site" fails for $infty$-topoi. So I guess spectral algebraic geometry might be a natural answer.
Edit: Also, even in the ordinary theory, often it's easier to think of cohomology in the topos than in the site. The silliest way to explain this would be: for cohomology in a site which does not have a final object, cohomology of an abelian sheaf $F$ is naturally $text{Ext}^i (*, F).$ The topos has an initial object(*) even though the site doesn't have a final object. The way to describe this by staying in the site would involve derived inverse limits.
answered yesterday
Shubhodip Mondal
2,156916
The theorem "topos= sheaf in some site" fails for $infty$-topoi. So I guess spectral algebraic geometry might be a natural answer.
Edit: Also, even in the ordinary theory, often it's easier to think of cohomology in the topos than in the site. The silliest way to explain this would be: for cohomology in a site which does not have a final object, cohomology of an abelian sheaf $F$ is naturally $text{Ext}^i (*, F).$ The topos has an initial object(*) even though the site doesn't have a final object. The way to describe this by staying in the site would involve derived inverse limits.
answered yesterday
Shubhodip Mondal
2,156916
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Shubhodip Mondal
2,156916
answered yesterday
Shubhodip Mondal
2,156916
answered yesterday
Shubhodip Mondal
2,156916
2,156916
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3052912%2fin-algebraic-geometry-what-kind-of-theory-can-only-be-described-by-topos-but-no%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
