There is then a general notion of
spaces modeled on that are testable by objects of ;
quantities with values in .
we think of each such presheaf as being a rule that assigns to each test space the set of allowed maps from into the would-be space ;
we think of each such copresheaf as a rule that assigns to each test space the set of allowed maps from a would-be space into , hence as the collection of -valued functions on . Since a function on a point is a “quantity”, this are generalized quantities.
Typically the admissible (co)presheaves that are regarded as generalized spaces and quantities modeled on are required to respect certain properties of :
is the topos of spaces modeled on objects in . More details on how to think of sheaves as generalized spaces is at motivation for sheaves, cohomology and higher stacks.
Given any generalized spaces, functions out of it are expected to respect products of coefficient objects, in that a function with values in is the same as a pair of functions, one with values in , one with values in . Hence one is typically interested in coprosheaves that preserve at least product
As indicated in
from page 17 on, the general situation involving
(generalized) quantities (e.g. function algebras);
the duality between the two;
which underlies much of mathematics is at its heart controled by the following elementary category theoretic reasoning:
Let be some category whose objects we want to think of as certain simple spaces on which we want to model more general kinds of spaces. For instance , the simplicial category, or CartSp.
An ordinary manifold, for instance, is a space required to be locally isomorphic to an object in . But more generally, a space modeled on need only be probeable by objects of , giving a rule which to each test object assigns the collection of admissible maps from to , such that this assignment is well-behaved with respect to morphisms in . Such an assignment is nothing but a presheaf on , i.e. a contravariant functor
Therefore general spaces modeled on are nothing but presheaves on :
Of course this is an extremely general notion of spaces modeled on .
We have the Yoneda embedding and using this we can say that the collection of functions on a generalized space with values in is
This assignment is manifestly covariant in , and hence more generally we can consider the functions on , to be a copresheaf on , namely a covariant functor
One can think of as being a generalized quantity which may be co-probed by objects of .
In this vein, one can say, generally, that co-presheaves on are generalized quantities modeled on , and we write
Given any such generalized quantity , we can ask which generalized space it behaves like the algebra of functions on. This generalized space should be called and can be defined as a presheaf by the assignment
In total this yields an adjoint pair of functors between generalized spaces and generalized quantities:
Lawvere addresses this adjoint pair as Isbell conjugation.
This story generalizes straightforwardly from presheaves with values in Set to presheaves with values in other categories. Of relevance are in particular presheaves with values in the category Top of topological spaces and presheaves with values in the category of spectra. See the examples below.
we describe the duality between space and quantity induced by forming
functions on spaces;
spectra of function algebras.
There is canonically a -adjunction
the Isbell adjunction. Here
sends a presheaf to the copresheaf ;
sends a copresheaf to the presheaf .
Analogously we find
Consider the category of test spaces CartSp.
quantities modeled on are smooth algebras (-rings).
The adjunction sends a smooth space to its smooth algebra of functions and a smooth algebra of functions to its “spectrum”.
There are various specializations of interest on this
higher categorical version
With the advent of Higher Topos Theory abstract concepts of space and quantity have been realized fully in the context of (∞,1)-toposes in terms of structured (∞,1)-toposes and generalized schemes. For a summary see the tables at notions of space.
The notion originates somewhere around
A kind of review is in