I’m debating about having this web space be a regular log of whatever mathematics I look at on a given day. Part of the goal will be to jot down notes on my research. I don’t know why that’s a goal, what it will accomplish, but nevertheless… Anyway, if that’s going to be the case, I thought I should get some notation going.

So, I have some understanding of , the (suspension spectrum of the) space of configuration of points in a (real) vector space (with inner product). Namely, I can write it as

Here just means set functions from the set to . The category that the homotopy limit is taken over is the poset of set partitions of (besides the “discrete” partition, where nothing is related to anything else, besides itself). With this in mind, the notation stands for maps from to that factor through . For shorthand, I will let be the set of maps that do not factor through (that is, ). Here “nlc” stands for “non-locally constant” (a notational choice that might make more sense later, read on). Thus, I write

I also have some understanding of , the (suspension spectrum of the) space of linear inclusions. It can be written tantalizingly similarly, as

Here stands for linear maps, and we are picking out the linear maps that are non-constant on linear subspaces of . We might as well write this as , to parallel our earlier notation.

The idea of my research is to blend these two approaches and be able to understand (well, its suspension spectrum…). I have one sort of easy way to understand it, as a product, but the understanding is not natural enough (in a strict sense). What I’m currently working on is the more natural understanding.

Given a disjoint union of affine spaces, say , let us say that an equivalence relation on is locally affine if there are vector spaces ( is the vector space underlying the affine space ) such that factors through . That is to say, if () and , then whenever have (that is, the line is parallel to the line ), then . We say that a locally affine partition is complete if each (that is, the partition factors through the underlying set ). Thus, complete partitions are in 1-1 correspondence with set partitions of the underlying set . As another bit of notation, for any equivalence relation on , there is a unique finest coarsening of that is locally affine, and we denote this locally affine coarsening by .

Now, we make a category, , of complete locally affine partitions. The objects are tuples where , is a set partition of the finite set , and is the complete partition corresponding to the set partition . This notation is overdetermined, of course. What you need to determine an object is… a finite set with a partition and a dimension function . Intuitively, then, will be . Maps in this category will be locally affine maps such that . Perhaps a word on the notation… Given any old set partition, and a function out of that set, you can take the image of the partition. This gives you a relation (not necessarily transitive) on the target set, and you then take it’s transitive closure to get an equivalence relation on the target. For us, we then take the locally affine coarsening of this image relation. The inequality means that is a coarser partition than . This is equivalent to saying that the underlying set partition for is coarser than the underlying set partition for .

Let . (So, as a reminder, my overall goal is to understand .)

Next, we get a (contravariant) functor from this category to spaces. Intuitively, given a , is the subspace of maps that are affine on each component, and do not factor through the relation (as in our original two cases). Using this functor, we get the Grothendieck category (I think that’s the right word for it), which I denote by . Objects are pairs, where , and . Morphisms… are what you’d guess (being careful about the contravariance of ).

We also have a functor from to spaces (it’s the same thing as above, essentially). By factoring first through the projection we consider as a functor from to spaces. It is now a standard (or so) result that is equivalent to . Of course, being after (stable) homotopy types, I’m supposed to use instead of the normal limit, and end up with what my advisor calls the space of “homotopy natural transformations”. I’m also supposed to stick some s in there, to get an equivalence with .

Of course, I’m only hopeful that I will get an equivalence. I have not yet shown it’s true. In the above, some details were swept under the rug (surprise, surprise). For example, nearly all of the categories above were “topological”. Meaning, I have a space of objects, and a space of morphisms, and various maps… I’ve got a category object (pair?) in the category of spaces. And so “functor” is something you have to be a little more careful with defining, and then “holim” as well. Nevertheless… consider yourself mostly caught up. If nothing else, on the notation.

More to come? Until then, you can entertain yourself with my advisor’s work, that I am hugely indebted to. It’s on the arxiv.

Tags: affine, category, functor, imprecise, partition, summary

January 28, 2009 at 2:24 am |

[…] Now, I have this collection of spaces (either vector or affine) and an affine map to – that is, the map is affine (linear after a linear translation) on each space in . Since I have an equivalence relation (by abuse of notation) on my spaces in , I can take the transitive closure of the image, , and get an equivalence relation on . I then have this process in mind where I convert this equivalence relation on to one of a particularly nice form, which I have been calling ‘locally affine.’ For more, see my earlier writeup. […]