Torsors in Grothendieck Toposes
Let be some Grothendieck topos, that is a category of sheaves on some Grothendieck topology. This text will look at some properties of torsors in
and how they might be classified using cohomology and homotopy theory. For this we will first need to define group objects. Torsors will then be associated to those.
A group object in a category is an object
such that the associated Yoneda functor
actually takes values in the category
of groups.
A trivial kind of example would be just a group considered as an object in . A more involved example would be a group scheme
over some base
. Such a thing is essentially defined as a group object in the category
. If we have any subcanonical topology on
, then
defines a sheaf on the associated site and we obtain in this way a group object in the corresponding topos on
.
Let’s now assume we have a group object in a Grothendieck topos
. Then we can define torsors over
as follows:
A trivial –torsor is an object
with a left
–action which is isomorphic to
itself with the action given by left multiplication.
A –torsor is an object
with a left
–action which is locally isomorphic to a trivial torsor; that is, there is an epimorphism
such that
is a trivial torsor in
over
.
I want to show that for any –torsor
according to this definition the left action of
on
is free and transitive, that is the map
given (on generalized elements) by
is an isomorphism. This is going to be some relatively elementary category theory but I think it’s worth writing it up. First a few facts about isomorphisms in toposes, they can be found for example in Sheaves in Geometry and Logic.1
Epimorphisms in a topos are stable under pullback.
In a topos every morphism has a functorial factorization
with
a monomorphism and
and epimorphism.
A morphism is an isomorphism if and only if
is both monic and epic.
Now, let be a local monomorphism, i.e. there is an epimorphism
such that the pullback
of
to
is a monomorphism. Then, since epimorphisms are stable under pullback, it follows that in the commutative square
both vertical maps are epimorphisms. Now let
be a pair of morphisms such that
. Then, denoting by
and
the pullbacks to
, we have
. but
is a monomorphism by assumption, so
. So we have a commutative diagram
in which the vertical maps are epimorphisms. It follows that
.
Now, if is a local epimorphism, then again we have the diagram
and it is immediate that
is an epimorphism. In summary:
In a topos, any local epimorphism is an epimorphism, any local monomorphism is a monomorphism, and any local isomorphism is an isomorphism.
Now, let’s check that –torsors
as defined above are free and transitive. Take an epimorphism
such that
is trivial in
. The action of
on itself by left multiplication is plainly free and transitive, so in
we have the isomorphism
and
and
because pullback preserves products. So,
is a local isomorphism, hence an isomorphism.
Saunders Mac Lane, Ieke Moerdijk. Sheaves in geometry and logic. Springer, 1994. ISBN: 0-387-97710-4↩