Why are sheafs defined using abelian groups?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dx
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of sheaves in the context of mathematics, particularly focusing on why sheaves are defined using abelian groups. Participants explore the implications of this definition, its motivation, and its relationship to concepts such as fiber bundles and continuous parametrization of objects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss the cotangent bundle and the relationship between sections of the cotangent bundle and sheaves, noting that restrictions of sections have a vector space structure.
  • Others question the necessity of assigning abelian groups to sheaf restrictions, suggesting that sheaves of sets could exist without such structure.
  • One participant cites Jean Dieudonné's definition of a sheaf as a "family of objects" parametrized by points in a space, seeking to understand how this definition is motivated.
  • Another participant references Charles Nash's description of sheaves as parameterized families of functions, expressing uncertainty about the intended meaning.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of understanding the definition of a sheaf and its examples, particularly in relation to fiber bundles.
  • A participant provides a technical definition of a sheaf of abelian groups, highlighting the continuity of the parametrization and the structure of the associated space.
  • Another participant discusses the utility of sheaves in differential geometry, noting that while smooth functions can often be extended globally, sheaves are necessary for defining objects in more general spaces.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of abelian groups in the definition of sheaves, with some advocating for their importance while others suggest alternative structures could suffice. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the motivation behind defining sheaves in this manner.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the abstract nature of the technical definitions related to sheaves, germs, and stalks, indicating a desire for more intuitive understanding without resolving the complexities involved.

dx
Homework Helper
Messages
2,143
Reaction score
52
TL;DR
why are sheafs defined using abelian groups?
Let M be a manifold. The space of cotangent spaces to M is called the cotangent bundle T*M. a function on M can be lifted into the cotangent bundle. On the manifold T*M we can define a 1-form θ which describes the natural lifts and so on. A vector field on M is a section of the tangent bundle. The space of sections of T*M is denoted Γ(T*M) and is an example of a sheaf. The set of k-forms at the point p is denoted ∧kT*Mp. the sheaf of p-forms on M is denoted Ωp, which is equal to Γ(∧pT*M). Restrictions of the sections Γ to an open set U has the natural structure of a vector space. If we want to talk about a sheaf of groups, or a sheaf of rings or a sheaf of some other type of objects, we have to assign abelian groups to the restrictions Γ(U) rather than vector spaces. how is this idea motivated or understood?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
First of all, ##\Gamma(T^*M)## usually denotes the space of global sections of ##T^*M## and so it not a sheaf (which should include the data of sections of ##T^*M## over any open subset of ##M##).

love_42 said:
If we want to talk about a sheaf of groups, or a sheaf of rings or a sheaf of some other type of objects, we have to assign abelian groups to the restrictions Γ(U) rather than vector spaces.

Why do you think this is true? You can have a sheaf of sets with no such structure.

Also, the plural of "sheaf" is "sheaves".
 
Even the wikipedia article has enough information.
 
In the book "A Panorama of Pure Mathematics" on page 243, Jean Dieudonne says that a sheaf is a "family of objects" that is "continuously parametrized by the points of an underlying space."

I was just wondering how the definition of sheaf achieves this idea, whatever it means. How does one motivate the definition of sheaf using the above mentioned vague idea of a family of objects varying as a function of a parameter?
 
This same statement is made in the book "Differential Topology and Quantum Field Theory" by Charles Nash. He says "loosely speaking, one can think of a sheaf as a kind of parameterized family of functions." I'm not entirely sure what they are imagining when they say this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you understand the definition of a sheaf? And have seen some examples? If not, it would be impossible to learn from short statements meant for people that have already seen the definitions.
 
martinbn said:
Do you understand the definition of a sheaf? And have seen some examples? If not, it would be impossible to learn from short statements meant for people that have already seen the definitions.

Yes, I have seen the definition. I also know an example, the sheaf of p-forms. I would like to understand the idea of sheaf by analogy to fiber bundles. I have read that they are closely related notions. From the statements above, it seems like a sheaf of groups on a space X is somehow connected with the idea of a family of groups Gx which are parametrised in a suitably continuous way by the points x ∈ X. So it looks like Gx is like the fiber at the point x. But the technical definition of a sheaf, and also of things like germ, stalk, gerbe etc. are rather abstract. I would like to gain some intuition into these things so that the technical definitions are more digestible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thought above is a direct quotation from Saunders MacLane

Saunders MacLane said:
Roughly speaking, a sheaf A of abelian groups on a topological space X is a family of abelian groups Ax, parametrized by the points x ∈ X in a suitably "continuous" way. This means in particular that the disjoint union of all these groups is a space, so topologized that the projection of this space into X (sending each group Ax to the point x) is continuous and also etale
 
love_42 said:
The thought above is a direct quotation from Saunders MacLane

It's an interesting question and I would like to know how to intuitively think about sheaves. The technical definition seems pretty straightforward on wikipedia.

It just associates data/objects/functions/sections to your open sets of your manifold that respect restriction.

The simplest example would be continuous functions on ##U##. This is an abelian group under restriction, (or vector space or a ring) and the satisfy the pre-sheaf requirements,

$$f: U \rightarrow \mathbb{R}, U \subset V \subset W, f_{|W} = (f_{|V})_{|W}$$

and the sheaf requirements which are just about the ability to glue together sheaves that agree on overlap.

You can see that your examples say of a vector field are also abelian group sheaves. You can add vector fields and restrict their domains to open sets.

From what I gather the POV isn't that useful for differential geometry because smooth functions can be extended to global smooth functions via partitions of unity. So everything can be considered as global sections.

But in other spaces, you can't do that so you need sheaves to talk about what is defined where.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K