Automated merge with https://tqft.net/hg/blob
authorScott Morrison <scott@tqft.net>
Sat, 10 Dec 2011 21:07:51 -0800
changeset 947 ceed680b7f42
parent 945 341c2a09f9a8 (diff)
parent 946 b07e2becdd58 (current diff)
child 948 727cefa97b8e
Automated merge with https://tqft.net/hg/blob
diagrams/tempkw/morita1.pdf
diagrams/tempkw/morita2.pdf
diagrams/tempkw/morita3.pdf
diagrams/tempkw/vcone.pdf
text/appendixes/comparing_defs.tex
--- a/blob to-do	Sat Dec 10 21:07:44 2011 -0800
+++ b/blob to-do	Sat Dec 10 21:07:51 2011 -0800
@@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
 * add "homeomorphism" spiel befure the first use of "homeomorphism in the intro
 * maybe also additional homeo warnings in other sections
 
+* Lemma 3.2.3 (\ref{support-shrink}) implicitly assumes embedded (non-self-intersecting) blobs. this can be fixed, of course, but it makes the arument more difficult to understand
+
+
 
 ====== minor/optional ======
 
@@ -31,8 +34,6 @@
 
 ====== Scott ======
 
-* SCOTT will go through appendix C.2 and make it better (Schulman's example?)
-
 * SCOTT: review/proof-read recent KW changes, especially colimit section and n-cat axioms
 
 
--- a/blob_changes_v3	Sat Dec 10 21:07:44 2011 -0800
+++ b/blob_changes_v3	Sat Dec 10 21:07:51 2011 -0800
@@ -37,4 +37,5 @@
 - small corrections to proof of product theorem (7.1.1)
 - added remarks that various homotopy equivalences we construct are well-defined up to a contractible set of choices
 - clarified that the surgery cylinder operad action is only up to coherent homotopy
+- added some details to the construction of a traditional 2-category from a disk-like 2-category
 
--- a/text/appendixes/comparing_defs.tex	Sat Dec 10 21:07:44 2011 -0800
+++ b/text/appendixes/comparing_defs.tex	Sat Dec 10 21:07:51 2011 -0800
@@ -530,7 +530,7 @@
 Figure \ref{fig:horizontal-compositions-equal}illustrates part of the proof that these four 2-morphisms are equal.
 Similar arguments show that horizontal composition is associative.
 \begin{figure}[t]
-\begin{equation*}
+\begin{align*}
 \raisebox{-.9cm}{
 \begin{tikzpicture}
 	\draw (0,0) .. controls +(1,.8) and +(-1,.8) .. node[above] {$b$} (2.9,0)
@@ -544,7 +544,7 @@
 				.. controls +(-1,-.8) and +(1,-.8) .. node[below] {$c$} (0,0);
 	\draw[->, thick, orange!50!brown] (1.45,-.4)--  node[left, black] {$g$} +(0,.8);
 \end{tikzpicture}}
-\;=\;
+\;&=\;
 \raisebox{-1.9cm}{
 \begin{tikzpicture}
 	\draw (0,0) coordinate (p1);
@@ -569,11 +569,86 @@
 	\draw[->, thick, orange!50!brown] (1.45,-1.1)--  node[left, black] {$f$} +(0,.7);
 	\draw[->, thick, orange!50!brown] (4.35,.4)--  node[left, black] {$g$} +(0,.7);
 	\draw[->, thick, blue!75!yellow] (1.5,.78) node[black, above] {$(b\cdot c)\times I$} -- (2.5,0);
-\end{tikzpicture}}
-\end{equation*}
-\begin{equation*}
-\mathfig{0.6}{triangle/triangle3b}
-\end{equation*}
+\end{tikzpicture}} \\
+\;&=\;
+\raisebox{-2.1cm}{
+\begin{tikzpicture}
+	\draw (0,0) coordinate (p1);
+	\draw (5.8,0) coordinate (p2);
+	\draw (2.9,0) coordinate (pu);
+	\draw (2.9,-.9) coordinate (pd);
+	\begin{scope}
+		\clip (p1) .. controls +(.6,-.3) and +(-.5,-.3) .. (pu)
+					.. controls +(.5,-.3) and +(-.6,-.3) .. (p2)
+					.. controls +(-.6,-.9) and +(.5,0) .. (pd)
+					.. controls +(-.5,0) and +(.6,-.9) .. (p1);
+		\foreach \t in {0,.03,...,1} {
+			\draw[green!50!brown] ($(p1)!\t!(p2) + (0,2)$) -- +(0,-4);
+		}
+	\end{scope}
+	\draw  (p1) .. controls +(.6,-.3) and +(-.5,-.3) .. (pu)
+					.. controls +(.5,-.3) and +(-.6,-.3) .. (p2)
+					.. controls +(-.6,-.9) and +(.5,0) .. (pd)
+					.. controls +(-.5,0) and +(.6,-.9) .. (p1);
+	\draw (p1) .. controls +(1,1) and +(-1,1) .. (pu);
+	\draw (p2) .. controls +(-1,1) and +(1,1) .. (pu);
+	\draw[->, thick, orange!50!brown] (1.45,-0.1)--  node[left, black] {$f$} +(0,.7);
+	\draw[->, thick, orange!50!brown] (4.35,-0.1)--  node[left, black] {$g$} +(0,.7);
+	\draw[->, thick, blue!75!yellow] (4.3,-1.5) node[black, below] {$(a\cdot c)\times I$} -- (3.3,-0.5);
+\end{tikzpicture}} \\
+\;&=\;
+\raisebox{-1.9cm}{
+\begin{tikzpicture}[y=-1cm]
+	\draw (0,0) coordinate (p1);
+	\draw (5.8,0) coordinate (p2);
+	\draw (2.9,.3) coordinate (pu);
+	\draw (2.9,-.3) coordinate (pd);
+	\begin{scope}
+		\clip (p1) .. controls +(.6,.3) and +(-.5,0) .. (pu)
+					.. controls +(.5,0) and +(-.6,.3) .. (p2)
+					.. controls +(-.6,-.3) and +(.5,0) .. (pd)
+					.. controls +(-.5,0) and +(.6,-.3) .. (p1);
+		\foreach \t in {0,.03,...,1} {
+			\draw[green!50!brown] ($(p1)!\t!(p2) + (0,2)$) -- +(0,-4);
+		}
+	\end{scope}
+	\draw (p1) .. controls +(.6,.3) and +(-.5,0) .. (pu)
+				.. controls +(.5,0) and +(-.6,.3) .. (p2)
+				.. controls +(-.6,-.3) and +(.5,0) .. (pd)
+				.. controls +(-.5,0) and +(.6,-.3) .. (p1);
+	\draw (p1) .. controls +(1,-2) and +(-1,-1) .. (pd);
+	\draw (p2) .. controls +(-1,2) and +(1,1) .. (pu);
+	\draw[<-, thick, orange!50!brown] (1.45,-1.1)--  node[left, black] {$f$} +(0,.7);
+	\draw[<-, thick, orange!50!brown] (4.35,.4)--  node[left, black] {$g$} +(0,.7);
+	\draw[->, thick, blue!75!yellow] (1.5,.78) node[black, below] {$(a\cdot d)\times I$} -- (2.5,0);
+\end{tikzpicture}} \\
+\;&=\;
+\raisebox{-1.0cm}{
+\begin{tikzpicture}[y=-1cm]
+	\draw (0,0) coordinate (p1);
+	\draw (5.8,0) coordinate (p2);
+	\draw (2.9,0) coordinate (pu);
+	\draw (2.9,-.9) coordinate (pd);
+	\begin{scope}
+		\clip (p1) .. controls +(.6,-.3) and +(-.5,-.3) .. (pu)
+					.. controls +(.5,-.3) and +(-.6,-.3) .. (p2)
+					.. controls +(-.6,-.9) and +(.5,0) .. (pd)
+					.. controls +(-.5,0) and +(.6,-.9) .. (p1);
+		\foreach \t in {0,.03,...,1} {
+			\draw[green!50!brown] ($(p1)!\t!(p2) + (0,2)$) -- +(0,-4);
+		}
+	\end{scope}
+	\draw  (p1) .. controls +(.6,-.3) and +(-.5,-.3) .. (pu)
+					.. controls +(.5,-.3) and +(-.6,-.3) .. (p2)
+					.. controls +(-.6,-.9) and +(.5,0) .. (pd)
+					.. controls +(-.5,0) and +(.6,-.9) .. (p1);
+	\draw (p1) .. controls +(1,1) and +(-1,1) .. (pu);
+	\draw (p2) .. controls +(-1,1) and +(1,1) .. (pu);
+	\draw[<-, thick, orange!50!brown] (1.45,-0.1)--  node[left, black] {$f$} +(0,.7);
+	\draw[<-, thick, orange!50!brown] (4.35,-0.1)--  node[left, black] {$g$} +(0,.7);
+	\draw[->, thick, blue!75!yellow] (4.3,-1.5) node[black, above] {$(b\cdot d)\times I$} -- (3.3,-0.5);
+\end{tikzpicture}} 
+\end{align*}
 \caption{Horizontal composition of 2-morphisms}
 \label{fzo5}
 \end{figure}
--- a/text/basic_properties.tex	Sat Dec 10 21:07:44 2011 -0800
+++ b/text/basic_properties.tex	Sat Dec 10 21:07:51 2011 -0800
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 
 In this section we complete the proofs of Properties \ref{property:disjoint-union}--\ref{property:contractibility}.
 Throughout the paper, where possible, we prove results using Properties \ref{property:functoriality}--\ref{property:contractibility}, 
-rather than the actual definition of blob homology.
+rather than the actual definition of the blob complex.
 This allows the possibility of future improvements on or alternatives to our definition.
 In fact, we hope that there may be a characterization of the blob complex in 
 terms of Properties \ref{property:functoriality}--\ref{property:contractibility}, but at this point we are unaware of one.
@@ -112,9 +112,9 @@
 }
 The sum is over all fields $a$ on $Y$ compatible at their
 ($n{-}2$-dimensional) boundaries with $c$.
-``Natural" means natural with respect to the actions of diffeomorphisms.
+``Natural" means natural with respect to the actions of homeomorphisms.
 In degree zero the map agrees with the gluing map coming from the underlying system of fields.
 \end{prop}
 
 This map is very far from being an isomorphism, even on homology.
-We fix this deficit in \S\ref{sec:gluing} below.
+We eliminate this deficit in \S\ref{sec:gluing} below.
--- a/text/evmap.tex	Sat Dec 10 21:07:44 2011 -0800
+++ b/text/evmap.tex	Sat Dec 10 21:07:51 2011 -0800
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@
 \medskip
 
 If $b$ is a blob diagram in $\bc_*(X)$, recall from \S \ref{sec:basic-properties} that the {\it support} of $b$, denoted
-$\supp(b)$ or $|b|$, to be the union of the blobs of $b$.
+$\supp(b)$ or $|b|$, is the union of the blobs of $b$.
 %For a general $k$-chain $a\in \bc_k(X)$, define the support of $a$ to be the union
 %of the supports of the blob diagrams which appear in it.
 More generally, we say that a chain $a\in \bc_k(X)$ is supported on $S$ if
@@ -64,14 +64,14 @@
 $f$ is supported on $Y$.
 
 If $f: M \cup (Y\times I) \to M$ is a collaring homeomorphism
-(cf. end of \S \ref{ss:syst-o-fields}),
+(cf.\ the end of \S \ref{ss:syst-o-fields}),
 we say that $f$ is supported on $S\sub M$ if $f(x) = x$ for all $x\in M\setmin S$.
 
 \medskip
 
 Fix $\cU$, an open cover of $X$.
 Define the ``small blob complex" $\bc^{\cU}_*(X)$ to be the subcomplex of $\bc_*(X)$ 
-of all blob diagrams in which every blob is contained in some open set of $\cU$, 
+generated by blob diagrams such that every blob is contained in some open set of $\cU$, 
 and moreover each field labeling a region cut out by the blobs is splittable 
 into fields on smaller regions, each of which is contained in some open set of $\cU$.
 
@@ -114,7 +114,7 @@
 The composition of all the collar maps shrinks $B$ to a ball which is small with respect to $\cU$.
 
 Let $\cV_1$ be an auxiliary open cover of $X$, subordinate to $\cU$ and 
-fine enough that a condition stated later in the proof is satisfied.
+fine enough that a condition stated later in this proof is satisfied.
 Let $b = (B, u, r)$, with $u = \sum a_i$ the label of $B$, and $a_i\in \bc_0(B)$.
 Choose a sequence of collar maps $\bar{f}_j:B\cup\text{collar}\to B$ satisfying conditions 
 specified at the end of this paragraph.
@@ -426,7 +426,7 @@
 \eq{
     e_{XY} : \CH{X \to Y} \otimes \bc_*(X) \to \bc_*(Y) ,
 }
-well-defined up to (coherent) homotopy,
+well-defined up to coherent homotopy,
 such that
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item on $C_0(\Homeo(X \to Y)) \otimes \bc_*(X)$ it agrees with the obvious action of 
--- a/text/hochschild.tex	Sat Dec 10 21:07:44 2011 -0800
+++ b/text/hochschild.tex	Sat Dec 10 21:07:51 2011 -0800
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@
 (a) the point * is not on the boundary of any blob or
 (b) there are no labeled points or blob boundaries within distance $\ep$ of *,
 other than blob boundaries at * itself.
-Note that all blob diagrams are in $F_*^\ep$ for $\ep$ sufficiently small.
+Note that all blob diagrams are in some $F_*^\ep$ for $\ep$ sufficiently small.
 Let $b$ be a blob diagram in $F_*^\ep$.
 Define $f(b)$ to be the result of moving any blob boundary points which lie on *
 to distance $\ep$ from *.
@@ -228,6 +228,7 @@
 Otherwise, define $s(y)$ to be the result of adding a label 1 (identity morphism) at *.
 Extending linearly, we get the desired map $s: J_* \to K_*(C)$.
 It is easy to check that $s$ is a chain map and $s \circ i = \id$.
+What remains is to show that $i \circ s$ is homotopic to the identity.
 
 Let $N_\ep$ denote the ball of radius $\ep$ around *.
 Let $L_*^\ep \sub J_*$ be the subcomplex 
--- a/text/ncat.tex	Sat Dec 10 21:07:44 2011 -0800
+++ b/text/ncat.tex	Sat Dec 10 21:07:51 2011 -0800
@@ -57,14 +57,16 @@
 Still other definitions (see, for example, \cite{MR2094071})
 model the $k$-morphisms on more complicated combinatorial polyhedra.
 
-For our definition, we will allow our $k$-morphisms to have any shape, so long as it is 
+For our definition, we will allow our $k$-morphisms to have {\it any} shape, so long as it is 
 homeomorphic to the standard $k$-ball.
 Thus we associate a set of $k$-morphisms $\cC_k(X)$ to any $k$-manifold $X$ homeomorphic 
 to the standard $k$-ball.
-By ``a $k$-ball" we mean any $k$-manifold which is homeomorphic to the 
+
+Below, we will use ``a $k$-ball" to mean any $k$-manifold which is homeomorphic to the 
 standard $k$-ball.
-We {\it do not} assume that it is equipped with a 
-preferred homeomorphism to the standard $k$-ball, and the same applies to ``a $k$-sphere" below.
+We {\it do not} assume that such $k$-balls are equipped with a 
+preferred homeomorphism to the standard $k$-ball.
+The same applies to ``a $k$-sphere" below.
 
 Given a homeomorphism $f:X\to Y$ between $k$-balls (not necessarily fixed on 
 the boundary), we want a corresponding
@@ -240,8 +242,9 @@
 .$$
 These restriction maps can be thought of as 
 domain and range maps, relative to the choice of splitting $\bd X = B_1 \cup_E B_2$.
-These restriction maps in fact have their image in the subset $\cC(B_i)\trans E$,
-and so to emphasize this we will sometimes write the restriction map as $\cC(X)\trans E \to \cC(B_i)\trans E$.
+%%%% the next sentence makes no sense to me, even though I'm probably the one who wrote it -- KW
+\noop{These restriction maps in fact have their image in the subset $\cC(B_i)\trans E$,
+and so to emphasize this we will sometimes write the restriction map as $\cC(X)\trans E \to \cC(B_i)\trans E$.}
 
 
 Next we consider composition of morphisms.
@@ -409,7 +412,7 @@
 The need for a strengthened version will become apparent in Appendix \ref{sec:comparing-defs}
 where we construct a traditional 2-category from a disk-like 2-category.
 For example, ``half-pinched" products of 1-balls are used to construct weak identities for 1-morphisms
-in 2-categories.
+in 2-categories (see \S\ref{ssec:2-cats}).
 We also need fully-pinched products to define collar maps below (see Figure \ref{glue-collar}).
 
 Define a {\it pinched product} to be a map