Applied Mathematics
Vol.08 No.06(2017), Article ID:77061,11 pages
10.4236/am.2017.86065
Axiomatic Differential Geometry III-3-Its Landscape-Chapter 3: The Old Kingdom of Differential Geometers
Hirokazu Nishimura
Institute of Mathematics University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
Copyright © 2017 by author and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Received: March 6, 2017; Accepted: June 18, 2017; Published: June 21, 2017
ABSTRACT
The principal objective of this paper is to study the relationship between the old kingdom of differential geometry (the category of smooth manifolds) and its new kingdom (the category of functors on the category of Weil algebras to some smooth category). It is shown that the canonical embedding of the old kingdom into the new kingdom preserves Weil functors.
Keywords:
Axiomatic Differential Geometry, Synthetic Differential, Geometry, Weil Algebra, Weil Functor
1. Introduction
Roughly speaking, the path to axiomatic differential geometry is composed of five acts. Act One was Weil’s algebraic treatment of nilpotent infinitesimals in [1] , namely, the introduction of so-called Weil algebras. It showed that nil- potent infinitesimals could be grasped algebraically. While nilpotent infinitesimals are imaginary entities, Weil algebras are real ones. Act Two began almost at the same time with Steenrod’s introduction of convenient categories of topological spaces (cf. [2] ), consisting of a string of proposals of convenient categories of smooth spaces. Its principal slogan was that the category of differential geometry should be (locally) cartesian closed. The string was panoramized by [3] as well as [4] . Act Three was so-called synthetic differential geometry, in which synthetic methods as well as nilpotent infinitesimals play a predominant role. It demonstrated amply that differential geometry could be made axiomatic in the same sense that Euclidean geometry is so, though it should resort to re- incarnation of nilpotent infinitesimals. In any case, synthetic differential geo- meters were forced to fabricate their own world and call well-adapted models, where they could indulge in their favorite nilpotent infinitesimals incessantly. Their unblushing use of moribund nilpotent infinitesimals alienated most of orthodox mathematicians, because nilpotent infinitesimals were almost era- dicated as genuine hassle and replaced by so-called arguments in the 19th century. The reader is referred to [5] and [6] for good treatises on synthetic differential geometry. Act Four was the introduction of Weil functors and their thorough study by what was called the Czech school of differential geometers in the 1980’s, for which the reader is referred to Chapter VIII of [7] and §31 of [8] . Weil functors, which are a direct generalization of the tangent bundle functor, open a truly realistic path of axiomatizing differential geometry without nilpotent infinitesimals. Then Act Five is our axiomatic differential geometry, which is tremendously indebted to all previous four acts. For axiomatic differential geometry, the reader is referred to [9] - [15] .
In our previous two papers [14] and [15] , we have developed model theory for axiomatic differential geometry, in which the category of functors on the category of Weil algebras to the smooth category (by which we mean any proposed or possible convenient category of smooth spaces) and their natural transformations play a crucial role. We will study the relationship between the category of smooth manifolds and smooth mappings and our new kingdom as well as that between and in this paper.
2. Convenient Categories of Smooth Spaces
The category of topological spaces and continuous mappins is by no means cartesian closed. In 1967 Steenrod [2] popularized the idea of convenient category by announcing that the category of compactly generated spaces and continuous mappings renders a good setting for algebraic topology. The pro- posed category is cartesian closed, complete and cocomplete, and contains all CW complexes.
At about the same time, an attempt to give a convenient category of smooth spaces began, and we have a few candidates at present. For a thorough study upon the relationship among these already proposed candidates, the reader is referred to [3] , in which he or she will find, by way of example, that the category of Frölicher spaces is a full subcategory of that of Souriau spaces, and the category of Souriau spaces is in turn a full subcategory of that of Chen spaces. We have no intention to discuss which is the best convenient category of smooth spaces here, but we note in passing that both the category of Souriau spaces and that of Chen spaces are locally cartesian closed, while that of Frölicher spaces is not. At present we content ourselves with denoting some of such convenient categories of smooth spaces by , which is required to be complete and cartesian closed at least, containing the category of smooth manifolds as a full subcategory. Obviously the category contains the set of real num- bers.
3. Weil Functors
Weil algebras were introduced by Weil himself [1] . For a thorough treatment of Weil algebras as smooth algebras, the reader is referred to III.5 in [5] .
Notation 1 We denote by the category of Weil algebras over .
Let us endow the category with Weil functors.
Proposition 2 Let W be an object in the category with its finite presentation
as a smooth algebra in the sense of III.5 of [5] . Let , , and . If
then
Proof. Given , we have
so that we have the desired result. ■
Corollary 3 We can naturally make a functor
Proposition 4 Let and be objects in the category with their finite presentations
as smooth algebras. Let
be a morphism in the category , so that there exists a morphism
in the category such that the composition with renders a mapping
inducing . Let and . If
then
Proof. Given any , we have
since , and the composition with maps into . ■
Corollary 5 The above procedure automatically induces a natural transfor- mation
Notation 6 Given an object W in the category , the restriction of the functor to the category is denoted by . Given a morphism in the category , the corresponding restriction of is denoted by .
Remark 7 Weil functors
are given distinct (but equivalent) definitions and studied thoroughly in Chapter VIII of [7] in the finite-dimensional case and §31 of [8] in the infinite- dimensional case.
It is well known that
Proposition 8 We have the following:
1) Given an object in the category , the functor
abides by the following conditions:
・ preserves finite products.
・ The functor
is the identity functor.
・ We have
for any objects and in the category .
2) Given a morphism in the category , is a natural transformation subject to the following conditions:
・ We have
for any identity morphism in the category .
・ We have
for any morphisms and in the category .
・ Given an object and a morphism in the category , the diagrams
and
are commutative.
3) Given an object in the category , we have
4) Given a morphism in the category , we have
4. A New Kingdom for Differential Geometers
Notation 9 We introduce the following notation:
1) We denote by the category whose objects are functors from the category to the category and whose morphisms are their natural transformations.
2) Given an object in the category , we denote by
the functor obtained as the composition with the functor
so that for any object in the category , we have
3) Given a morphism in the category , we denote by
the natural transformation such that, given an object in the category , the morphism
is
4) We denote by the functor
We have established the following proposition in [14] and [15] .
Proposition 10 We have the following:
1) is a category which is complete and cartesian closed.
2) Given an object in the category , the functor
abides by the following conditions:
・ preserves limits.
・ The functor
is the identity functor.
・ We have
for any objects and in the category .
・ We have
for any objects and in the category .
3) Given a morphism in the category ,
is a natural transformation subject to the following conditions:
・ We have
for any identity morphism in the category .
・ We have
for any morphisms and in the category .
・ Given objects and in the category , the diagram
is commutative.
・ Given an object and a morphism in the category , the diagrams
and
are commutative.
4) Given an object in the category , we have
5) Given a morphism in the category , we have
5. From the Old Kingdom to the New One
Notation 11 We write
for the functor
provided with an object object in the category , and
provided with a morphism in the category and an object in the category . The restriction of to the subcategory is denoted by
Theorem 12 Given an object in the category , the diagram
is commutative.
Proof. Given an object in the category , we have
Given a morphism
in the category , we have
■
Theorem 13 Given a morphism in the category , the diagram
is commutative.
Proof. Given an object in the category , we have
■
6. Microlinearity
Definition 14 Given a category endowed with a functor for each object in the category and a natural transformation for each morphism in the category , an object in the category is called microlinear if any limit diagram in the category makes the diagram a limit diagram in the category , where the diagram consists of objects
for any object in the diagram and morphisms
for any morphism in the diagram .
Proposition 15 Every manifold as an object in the category is microlinear.
Proof. This can be established in three steps.
1) The first step is to show that is micorlinear for any natural number , which follows easily from
and
for any morphism in the category .
2) The second step is to show that any open subset of is microlinear in homage to the result in the first step.
3) The third step is to establish the desired result by remarking that a smooth manifold is no other than an overlapping family of open subsets of .
The details can safely be left to the reader. ■
Theorem 16 The embedding
maps smooth manifolds to microlinear objects in the category .
Proof. Let be a limit diagram in the category . Let be a smooth manifold in the category . Given an object in the category , the diagram , which consists of objects
for any object in the category and morphisms
for any morphism in the category , is a limit diagram in the category , because is a microlinear object in the category in homage to Proposition 15. Therefore the diagram is a limit diagram in the category thanks to The- orem 7.5.2 and Remarks 7.5.3 in [16] . ■
7. Transversal Limits
Definition 17 A cone in the category is called a transversal limit diagram if the diagram is a limit diagram for any object in the category . In this case, the vertex of the cone is called a transversal limit.
It is easy to see that
Proposition 18 A transversal limit diagram is a limit diagram, so that a transversal limit is a limit.
Proof. Since
for any cone in the category , the desired conclusion follows immediately. ■
What makes the notion of a transversal limit significant is the following theorem.
Theorem 19 The embedding
maps transversal limit diagrams in the category to limit diagrams in the category .
Proof. This follows directly in homage to Theorem 7.5.2 and Remarks 7.5.3 in [16] . ■
Now we are going to show that the above embedding preserves vertical Weil functors, as far as fibered manifolds are concerned. Let us recall the definition of vertical Weil functor given in [9] .
Definition 20 Let us suppose that we are given a left exact category en- dowed with a functor for each object in the category and a natural transformation for each morphism in the category . Given a morphism in the category , its vertical Weil functor is defined to be the equalizer of the parallel morphisms
Lemma 21 The equalizer of the above diagram in the category is transversal, as far as is a fibered manifold in the sense of 2.4 in [7] .
Proof. The proof is similar to that in Proposition 15.
1) In case that , , and is the canonical projection, the equalizer is the canonical injection
and it is easy to see that it is transversal.
2) Then we prove the statement in case that , , and is the canonical projection, where is an open subset of , and is an open subset of .
3) The desired statement in full generality follows from the above case by remarking that the fiber bundle is no other than an overlapping family of such special cases.
The details can safely be left to the reader. ■
Theorem 22 Given an object in the category and a fibered manifold in the category , we have
Proof. In homage to Theorems 12 and 13, the functor maps the diagram
in the category into the diagram
in the category . Since the equalizer of the former diagram is transversal by Lemma 21, it is preserved by the functor by Theorem 19, so that the desired result follows. ■
Corollary 23 Given a morphism in the category and a fibered manifold in the category , we have
Cite this paper
Nishimura, H. (2017) Axiomatic Differential Geometry III-3-Its Landscape-Chapter 3: The Old Kingdom of Differential Geometers. Applied Mathematics, 8, 835-845. https://doi.org/10.4236/am.2017.86065
References
- 1. Weil, A. (1953) Théorie des points proches sur les varieties différentiables. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Reserche Scientifique, Strassbourg, 111-117.
- 2. Steenrod, N.E. (1967) A Convenient Category of Topological Spaces. Michigan Mathematical Journal, 14, 133-152. https://doi.org/10.1307/mmj/1028999711
- 3. Stacey, A. (2011) Comparative Smootheology. Theory and Applications of Categories, 25, 64-117.
- 4. Baez, J.C. and Hoffnung, A.E. (2011) Convenient Categories of Smooth Spaces. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 363, 5789-5825. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9947-2011-05107-X
- 5. Kock, A. (2006) Synthetic Differential Geometry. 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511550812
- 6. Lavendhomme, R. (1996) Basic Concepts of Synthetic Differential Geometry. Kluwer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-4588-7
- 7. Kolár, I., Michor, P.W. and Slovák, J. (1993) Natural Operations in Differential Geometry. Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-02950-3
- 8. Kriegl, Andreas and Michor, Peter W.: The Convenient Setting of Global Analysis, American Mathematical Society, Rhode Island, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1090/surv/053
- 9. Nishimura, H. (2012) Axiomatic Differential Geometry I-1. Mathematics for Applications (Brno), 1, 171-182.
- 10. Nishimura, H. (2012) Axiomatic Differential Geometry II-1. Mathematics for Applications (Brno), 1, 183-195.
- 11. Nishimura, H. (2013) Axiomatic Differential Geometry II-2. Mathematics for Applications (Brno), 2, 43-60. https://doi.org/10.13164/ma.2013.05
- 12. Nishimura, H. (2013) Axiomatic Differential Geometry II-3. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 83, 137-192. https://doi.org/10.12732/ijpam.v83i1.12
- 13. Nishimura, H. (2013) Axiomatic Differential Geometry II-4. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 83, 763-819.
- 14. Nishimura, H. (2013) Axiomatic Differential Geometry III-1, Model Theory I. Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 74, 17-26.
- 15. Nishimura, H. (2013) Axiomatic Differential Geometry III-2, Model Theory II. Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 74, 139-154.
- 16. Schubert, H. (1972) Categories. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-65364-3