ScalingStacks

3.4. Pushforward

We prove that factorization homology satisfies βŠ—\otimes-excision. We do this as an instance of a general paradigm: pushforward.

The following technical lemma is the crux of the later results of this paper. An earlier treatment, not in terms of the pushforward, is in [Fra2]; a generalization of this result to structured stratified spaces is given in Β§2 ofΒ [AFT2]. We state the the lemma now, and prove it at the end of this section.

0N47

Lemma 3.18. For 𝒱\mathcal{V} a symmetric monoidal ∞\oo-category which is βŠ—\otimes-presentable, factorization homology valued in 𝒱\mathcal{V} satisfies βŠ—\otimes-excision: for any π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡π–‘\disk_{n}^{B}-algebra AA in 𝒱\mathcal{V}, and for any collar-gluing M′​⋃M0×ℝ​Mβ€²β€²β‰…MM^{\prime}\underset{M_{0}\times\mathbb{R}}{\bigcup}M^{\prime\prime}\cong M among BB-framed nn-manifolds, the canonical morphism in 𝒱\mathcal{V}

∫Mβ€²Aβ€‹β¨‚βˆ«M0×ℝA∫Mβ€²β€²Aβ†’β‰ƒβˆ«MA\int_{M^{\prime}}A\bigotimes_{\displaystyle\int_{M_{0}\times\mathbb{R}}A}\int_{M^{\prime\prime}}A\xrightarrow{~\simeq~}\int_{M}A

is an equivalence.

We give the following n=1n=1 example to indicate the utility of βŠ—\otimes-excision as well as some intuition about how factorization homology behaves. SeeΒ [Lu2] for a different proof of the following result.

0N48

Theorem 3.19. For an associative algebra AA in a symmetric monoidal ∞\oo-category 𝒱\mathcal{V} which is βŠ—\otimes-presentable, there is an equivalence

∫S1Aβ‰ƒπ–§π–’βˆ—β‘(𝖠)\int_{S^{1}}A~\simeq~\hh_{*}(A)

between the factorization homology of the circle with coefficients in AA and the Hochschild complex of AA.

0N49

Proof. Regard the associative algebra AA as a symmetric monoidal functor A:π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„πŸ£π—ˆπ—‹β†’π’±A\colon\disk^{\sf or}_{1}\to\mathcal{V}, as in SectionΒ 3.2. Consider the standard collar-gluing β„β€‹β‹ƒβ„βŠ”β„β€‹β„β‰…S1\mathbb{R}\underset{\mathbb{R}\sqcup\mathbb{R}}{\bigcup}\mathbb{R}\cong S^{1} by hemispheres. LemmaΒ 3.18, which states that factorization homology staisfies βŠ—\otimes-excision, determines the first of the equivalences in the expression:

∫S1Aβ‰ƒβˆ«β„Aβ€‹β¨‚βˆ«S0×ℝAβ€‹βˆ«β„A≃A​⨂AβŠ—Aπ—ˆπ—‰β€‹Aβ‰ƒπ–§π–’βˆ—β‘(𝖠).\int_{S^{1}}A~\simeq~\int_{\mathbb{R}}A\underset{{\displaystyle\int_{{S^{0}\times\mathbb{R}}}\!A}}{\bigotimes}\int_{\mathbb{R}}A~\simeq~A\underset{A\otimes A^{\op}}{\bigotimes}A~\simeq~\hh_{*}(A)~.

The second equivalence is by inspecting values, and the final equivalence is definitional.

∎

The next definition makes use of the multi-functor fβˆ’1:π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­βˆ‚,π—ˆπ—‹β†’β„³β€‹π–Ώπ—…π–½n/MBf^{-1}\colon\disk^{\partial,\sf or}_{k/N}\to\mfld^{B}_{n/M} of ConstructionΒ 2.21 associated to each continuous map Mβ†’NM\rightarrow N for which each of the restrictions, M|Nβˆ–βˆ‚Nβ†’Nβˆ–βˆ‚NM_{|N\smallsetminus\partial N}\to N\smallsetminus\partial N and M|βˆ‚Nβ†’βˆ‚NM_{|\partial N}\to\partial N, are manifold bundles.

0N4A

Definition 3.20. Let MM be an BB-framed nn-manifold, and let NN be an oriented kk-manifold, possibly with boundary. For f:Mβ†’Nf:M\rightarrow N a map such that the restrictions of ff over each of the interior of NN and of the boundary of NN is a fiber bundle, the ∞\oo-category π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π–Ώ\disk_{f} is the limit of the diagram among ∞\infty-categories

π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬𝖑\textstyle{\disk^{B}_{n/M}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝖠𝗋⁑(ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽n/MB)\textstyle{\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\sf Ar}(\mfld^{B}_{n/M})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝖾𝗏0\scriptstyle{{\sf ev}_{0}}𝖾𝗏1\scriptstyle{{\sf ev}_{1}}π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­βˆ‚,π—ˆπ—‹\textstyle{\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\disk_{k/N}^{\partial,{\sf or}}}fβˆ’1\scriptstyle{f^{-1}}ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽n/MB\textstyle{\mfld^{B}_{n/M}}ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽n/MB\textstyle{\mfld^{B}_{n/M}}

where 𝖠𝗋⁑(ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽n/MB){\sf Ar}(\mfld^{B}_{n/M}) is the ∞\oo-category of functors [1]→ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽n/MB[1]\to\mfld^{B}_{n/M}.

Informally, π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π–Ώ\disk_{f} consists of compatible triples (V,U,Vβ†ͺfβˆ’1U)(V,U,V\hookrightarrow f^{-1}U) such that: UU is an open submanifold of NN that is homeomorphic to a disjoint union of Euclidean spaces; VV is an open submanifold of MM that is homeomorphic to a disjoint union of Euclidean spaces; the embedding Vβ†ͺfβˆ’1​UV\hookrightarrow f^{-1}U is compatible with the embeddings fβˆ’1​Uβ†ͺMf^{-1}U\hookrightarrow M and Vβ†ͺMV\hookrightarrow M. The relevance of the ∞\oo-category π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π–Ώ\disk_{f} is the following technical result.

0N4B

Lemma 3.21. In the situation of DefinitionΒ 3.20, the functor 𝖾𝗏0:π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π–Ώβ†’π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬𝖑{\sf ev}_{0}:\disk_{f}\rightarrow\disk_{n/M}^{B} is final.

0N4C

Proof. After LemmaΒ 2.5, it will suffice to prove the result for the case B=π–‘π–³π—ˆπ—‰β‘(𝗇)B=\BTop(n), and so we omit BB from the notation and discussion. The functor 𝖾𝗏0{\sf ev}_{0} is a Cartesian fibration of ∞\oo-categories. Thus, to check finality, by Lemma 4.1.3.2 of [Lu1], it suffices to show that, for each (Vβ†ͺM)βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬(V\hookrightarrow M)\in\disk_{n/M}, the fiber ∞\infty-category 𝖾𝗏0βˆ’1​V{\sf ev}_{0}^{-1}V has contractible classifying space. That is, we show that the ∞\oo-category (π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/𝖭)𝖡/(\disk_{k/N})^{V/}, of kk-disks UU in NN equipped with an embedding Vβ†ͺfβˆ’1​UV\hookrightarrow f^{-1}U, has a contractible classifying space.

There is an identification of spaces

𝖑(π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/𝖭)𝖴/β‰ƒπ–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†(𝖡β†ͺ𝖭)βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/𝖭𝖬𝖺𝗉ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽n/M(𝖴,π–Ώβˆ’πŸ£π–΅).\mathsf{B}\bigl(\disk_{k/N}\bigr)^{U/}~{}~\simeq~{}~\underset{(V\hookrightarrow N)\in\disk_{k/N}}{\colim}~\Map_{\mfld_{n/M}}(U,f^{-1}V)~.

Formally, the sequence of maps

𝖬𝖺𝗉ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽n/M⁑(𝖴,π–Ώβˆ’πŸ£β€‹π–΅)βŸΆπ–¬π–Ίπ—‰β„³β€‹π–Ώπ—…π–½n⁑(𝖴,π–Ώβˆ’πŸ£β€‹π–΅)βŸΆπ–¬π–Ίπ—‰β„³β€‹π–Ώπ—…π–½n⁑(𝖴,𝖬)\Map_{\mfld_{n/M}}(U,f^{-1}V)~\longrightarrow~\Map_{\mfld_{n}}(U,f^{-1}V)~\longrightarrow~\Map_{\mfld_{n}}(U,M)

is a fiber sequence (here the fiber is taken over any implicit morphism Uβ†ͺMU\hookrightarrow M, thereby giving meaning to the lefthand space). So we seek to show the map from the colimit

π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†(Vβ†ͺN)βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/𝖭​𝖬𝖺𝗉ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽n⁑(𝖴,π–Ώβˆ’πŸ£β€‹π–΅)βŸΆπ–¬π–Ίπ—‰β„³β€‹π–Ώπ—…π–½n⁑(𝖴,𝖬)\underset{(V\hookrightarrow N)\in\disk_{k/N}}{\colim}\Map_{\mfld_{n}}(U,f^{-1}V)~{}~\longrightarrow~{}~\Map_{\mfld_{n}}(U,M)

is an equivalence of spaces. We recognize this map of spaces as the map of fibers over Uβˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡U\in\disk_{n} of the map of right fibrations over π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡\disk_{n}:

π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†(Vβ†ͺN)βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­β€‹π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–Ώβˆ’πŸ£β€‹π–΅βŸΆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬.\underset{(V\hookrightarrow N)\in\disk_{k/N}}{\colim}\disk_{n/f^{-1}V}\longrightarrow\disk_{n/M}~.

Being right fibrations, it is enough to show that this functor is an equivalence on maximal ∞\infty-subgroupoids. Using Lemma 2.12 which identifies these maximal ∞\infty-subgroupoids, this is the problem of showing, for each finite set JJ, that the map of spaces

π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†(Vβ†ͺN)βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­β€‹π–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ​(fβˆ’1​V)Ξ£JβŸΆπ–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ⁑(M)Ξ£J\underset{(V\hookrightarrow N)\in\disk_{k/N}}{\colim}\conf_{J}\bigl(f^{-1}V\bigr)_{\Sigma_{J}}~\longrightarrow~\conf_{J}(M)_{\Sigma_{J}}

is an equivalence.

LemmaΒ 2.19 implies the functor π–£π—‚π—Œπ—„k/Nβ†’π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/𝖭\ddisk_{k/N}\to\disk_{k/N} is final, and so the forgetful map

π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†(Vβ†ͺN)βˆˆπ–£π—‚π—Œπ—„k/Nβ€‹π–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ​(fβˆ’1​V)Ξ£Jβ†’β‰ƒπ–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†(Vβ†ͺN)βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­β€‹π–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ​(fβˆ’1​V)Ξ£J\underset{(V\hookrightarrow N)\in\ddisk_{k/N}}{\colim}\conf_{J}\bigl(f^{-1}V\bigr)_{\Sigma_{J}}~\xrightarrow{~\simeq~}~\underset{(V\hookrightarrow N)\in\disk_{k/N}}{\colim}\conf_{J}\bigl(f^{-1}V\bigr)_{\Sigma_{J}}

is an equivalence of spaces. Now notice that, for each (Vβ†ͺN)βˆˆπ–£π—‚π—Œπ—„k/N(V\hookrightarrow N)\in\ddisk_{k/N}, the map π–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ⁑(fβˆ’1​V)β†’π–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ⁑(M)\conf_{J}(f^{-1}V)\to\conf_{J}(M) an open embedding. Also, for each point c:Jβ†ͺMc\colon J\hookrightarrow M the image f⁑(c⁑(J))βŠ‚Nf\bigl(c(J)\bigr)\subset N has cardinality at most JJ. So there is an object (Vβ†ͺN)(V\hookrightarrow N) of π–£π—‚π—Œπ—„k/N\ddisk_{k/N} whose image contains the subset f⁑(c⁑(J))f\bigl(c(J)\bigr). We see then that the collection of open embeddings

{π–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ⁑(fβˆ’1​V)Ξ£Jβ†ͺπ–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ⁑(M)Ξ£I∣(Vβ†ͺN)βˆˆπ–£π—‚π—Œπ—„k/N}\Bigl\{\conf_{J}(f^{-1}V)_{\Sigma_{J}}\hookrightarrow\conf_{J}(M)_{\Sigma_{I}}\mid(V\hookrightarrow N)\in\ddisk_{k/N}\Bigr\}

forms an open cover.

Because NN is a manifold, the collection of open embeddings from Euclidean spaces into NN form a basis for the topology of NN. It follows that the collection of (at most) |J||J|-tuples of disjoint open disks in NN forms an open cover of NN in such a way that any finite intersection of such is again covered by such. This is to say that this collection of open embeddings forms a hypercover of π–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ⁑(M)Ξ£J\conf_{J}(M)_{\Sigma_{J}}. Corollary 1.6 ofΒ [DI] gives that the map

π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†(Vβ†ͺN)βˆˆπ–£π—‚π—Œπ—„k/Nβ€‹π–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ​(fβˆ’1​V)Ξ£Jβ†’β‰ƒπ–’π—ˆπ—‡π–ΏJ⁑(M)Ξ£J\underset{(V\hookrightarrow N)\in\ddisk_{k/N}}{\colim}\conf_{J}\bigl(f^{-1}V\bigr)_{\Sigma_{J}}~\xrightarrow{~\simeq~}~\conf_{J}(M)_{\Sigma_{J}}

is an equivalence of spaces, which completes the proof.

∎

Here is an important technical property of the ∞\infty-category of disks over a manifold. (See also Proposition 5.5.2.16 of [Lu2].)

0N4D

Corollary 3.22. For MM a BB-framed nn-manifold, the ∞\oo-category π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬𝖑\disk_{n/M}^{B} is sifted.

0N4E

Proof. The ∞\oo-category π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬𝖑\disk_{n/M}^{B} is evidently nonempty, as it contains the object (βˆ…β†ͺM)(\emptyset\hookrightarrow M). We must then prove that the diagonal functor π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬π–‘β†’π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬π–‘Γ—π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬𝖑\disk_{n/M}^{B}\to\disk_{n/M}^{B}\times\disk_{n/M}^{B} is final. This diagonal functor fits into a diagram among ∞\infty-categories

π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„βˆ‡\textstyle{\disk_{\nabla}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝖾𝗏0\scriptstyle{{\sf ev}_{0}}𝖾𝗏1\scriptstyle{{\sf ev}_{1}}π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬βŠ”π–¬π–‘\textstyle{\disk_{n/M\sqcup M}^{B}}π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬𝖑\textstyle{\disk_{n/M}^{B}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝖽𝗂𝖺𝗀\scriptstyle{\sf diag}π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬π–‘Γ—π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬𝖑\textstyle{\disk_{n/M}^{B}\times\disk_{n/M}^{B}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}≃\scriptstyle{\simeq}βŠ”\scriptstyle{\sqcup}

that we now explain. The upper left ∞\infty-category is that of DefinitionΒ 3.20 applied to the fold map βˆ‡:MβŠ”Mβ†’M\nabla\colon M\sqcup M\to M; it is equipped with the indicated projection functors. The right vertical arrow is induced by the symmetric monoidal structure on ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽nB\mfld_{n}^{B}, which is disjoint union. This right vertical arrow is an equivalence; an inverse is given by declaring its projection to each factor to be given by intersecting with the corresponding cofactor of the disjoint union. Therefore, to prove that the diagonal functor is final it is sufficient to prove that both of the projection functors 𝖾𝗏1{\sf ev}_{1} and 𝖾𝗏0{\sf ev}_{0} are final. The finality of 𝖾𝗏0{\sf ev}_{0} is LemmaΒ 3.21.

We explain that 𝖾𝗏1{\sf ev}_{1} is final. Note that the functor βˆ‡βˆ’1:π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬𝖑→ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽n/MβŠ”MB\nabla^{-1}\colon\disk_{n/M}^{B}\to\mfld_{n/M\sqcup M}^{B} factors through the full ∞\infty-subcategory π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬βŠ”π–¬π–‘\disk_{n/M\sqcup M}^{B}. As so, there is a canonical identification between ∞\infty-categories

π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„βˆ‡β‰ƒπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬π–‘β€‹Γ—π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬βŠ”π–¬π–‘β€‹π– π—‹β€‹(π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬βŠ”π–¬π–‘)\disk_{\nabla}~\simeq~\disk_{n/M}^{B}\underset{\disk_{n/M\sqcup M}^{B}}{\times}{\sf Ar}(\disk_{n/M\sqcup M}^{B})

over π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬𝖑\disk_{n/M}^{B}. Through this identification, the composite functor

π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬π–‘β†’βˆ‡π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬βŠ”π–¬π–‘β†’π–Όπ—ˆπ—‡π—Œπ—π– π—‹β‘(π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–¬βŠ”π–¬π–‘)\disk_{n/M}^{B}\xrightarrow{~\nabla~}\disk_{n/M\sqcup M}^{B}\xrightarrow{~\sf const~}{\sf Ar}(\disk_{n/M\sqcup M}^{B})

determines a right adjoint to the functor 𝖾𝗏1{\sf ev}_{1}. The finality of 𝖾𝗏1{\sf ev}_{1} thereby follows.

∎

The pushforward property for factorization homology immediately follows from LemmaΒ 3.21, as the next result articulates. We will use the notation

fβˆ—β€‹A:Β Β Β Β π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­βˆ‚,π—ˆπ—‹Β Β Β Β fβˆ’1         ℳ​𝖿𝗅𝖽n/MB    ∫A         𝒱    f_{\ast}A:\lx@xy@svg{\hbox{\raise 2.5pt\hbox{\kern 18.80838pt\hbox{\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\hbox{\vtop{\halign{\entry@#!@&&\entry@@#!@\cr&&\crcr}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern-18.80838pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\disk_{k/N}^{\partial,{\sf or}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 23.39894pt\raise 6.80057pt\hbox{{}\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise-2.43947pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle{f^{-1}}$}}}\kern 3.0pt}}}}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 42.80838pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 42.80838pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\mfld_{n/M}^{B}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 88.26624pt\raise 6.1111pt\hbox{{}\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise-1.75pt\hbox{$\scriptstyle{\int A}$}}}\kern 3.0pt}}}}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 108.6835pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 108.6835pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\mathcal{V}}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces}}}}\ignorespaces

for the composite functor, where fβˆ’1f^{-1} is as in ConstructionΒ 2.21.

0N4F

Proposition 3.23. Let MM be a BB-framed nn-manifold, NN an oriented kk-manifold, possibly with boundary, and f:Mβ†’Nf:M\rightarrow N a map which fibers over the interior and boundary of NN. For AA a BB-framed nn-disk algebra in 𝒱\mathcal{V}, a symmetric monoidal ∞\oo-category which is βŠ—\otimes-presentable, then the canonical morphism in 𝒱\mathcal{V}

∫Nfβˆ—β€‹Aβ†’β‰ƒβˆ«MA\int_{N}f_{\ast}A\xrightarrow{~\simeq~}\int_{M}A

is an equivalence.

0N4G

Proof. After PropositionΒ 3.9, we can assume that BB is equivalent to π–‘π–³π—ˆπ—‰β‘(𝗇)\BTop(n), and so we omit it from the notation and discussion. We will explain the string of canonical equivalences in 𝒱\mathcal{V}:

∫Nfβˆ—β€‹A\displaystyle\int_{N}f_{\ast}A ≃Def​3.2\displaystyle\underset{\rm Def~\ref{coend}}{\simeq} π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†π–΄βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­βˆ‚,π—ˆπ—‹π–Ώβˆ—β€‹π– β€‹(𝖴)\displaystyle\colim_{U\in\disk_{k/N}^{\partial,{\sf or}}}f_{\ast}A(U)
≃Def​fβˆ—\displaystyle\underset{{\rm Def~}f_{\ast}}{\simeq} π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†π–΄βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­βˆ‚,π—ˆπ—‹βˆ«π–Ώβˆ’πŸ£β€‹π–΄π– \displaystyle\colim_{U\in\disk_{k/N}^{\partial,{\sf or}}}\int_{f^{-1}U}A
≃Def​3.2\displaystyle\underset{\rm Def~\ref{coend}}{\simeq} π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†π–΄βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­βˆ‚,π—ˆπ—‹π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†π–΅βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–Ώβˆ’πŸ£β€‹π–΄β€‹π– β€‹(𝖡)\displaystyle\colim_{U\in\disk_{k/N}^{\partial,{\sf or}}}\colim_{V\in\disk_{n/f^{-1}U}}A(V)
≃(1)\displaystyle\underset{(1)}{\simeq} π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†(𝖴,𝖡)βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π–Ώπ– β€‹(𝖡)\displaystyle\colim_{(U,V)\in\disk_{f}}A(V)
β†’(2)≃\displaystyle\underset{(2)}{\xrightarrow{\simeq}} π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†π–΅βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬𝖠​(𝖡)\displaystyle\colim_{V\in\disk_{n/M}}A(V)
≃Def​3.2\displaystyle\underset{\rm Def~\ref{coend}}{\simeq} ∫MA.\displaystyle\int_{M}A~.

The only equivalences that are not definitional areΒ (1) andΒ (2). The equivalenceΒ (2) is a direct application of LemmaΒ 3.21, which states that the functor 𝖾𝗏0:π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π–Ώβ†’π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬{\sf ev}_{0}\colon\disk_{f}\to\disk_{n/M} is final. Consider the left Kan extension (non-commutative) diagram among ∞\infty-categories:

π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π–Ώ\textstyle{\disk_{f}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝖾𝗏1\scriptstyle{{\sf ev}_{1}}𝖾𝗏0\scriptstyle{{\sf ev}_{0}}π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/𝖬\textstyle{\disk_{n/M}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡\textstyle{\disk_{n}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}A\scriptstyle{A}𝒱\textstyle{\mathcal{V}}π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­βˆ‚,π—ˆπ—‹\textstyle{\disk^{\partial,\sf or}_{k/N}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝖫π–ͺ𝖺𝗇\scriptstyle{\sf LKan},

which exists because 𝒱\mathcal{V} is presentable. By construction, the functor 𝖾𝗏1:π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π–Ώβ†’π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­βˆ‚,π—ˆπ—‹{\sf ev}_{1}\colon\disk_{f}\to\disk^{\partial,\sf or}_{k/N} is a coCartesian fibration. In particular, for each object Uβˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­βˆ‚,π—ˆπ—‹U\in\disk^{\partial,\sf or}_{k/N}, the inclusion of the fiber into the over ∞\infty-category

𝖾𝗏1βˆ’1​(U)⟢(π’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π–Ώ)/𝖴{\sf ev}_{1}^{-1}(U)\longrightarrow(\disk_{f})_{/U}

is final. Therefore, the value of 𝖫π–ͺ𝖺𝗇{\sf LKan} on Uβˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—„/π–­βˆ‚,π—ˆπ—‹U\in\disk^{\partial,\sf or}_{k/N} is the colimit over the fiber:

π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†π–΅βˆˆπ’Ÿβ€‹π—‚π—Œπ—„π—‡/π–Ώβˆ’πŸ£β€‹π–΄π– β€‹(𝖡)​≃Def​3.20β€‹π–Όπ—ˆπ—…π—‚π—†π–΅βˆˆπ–Ύπ—πŸ£βˆ’πŸ£β€‹π–΄π– β€‹(𝖡)→≃𝖫π–ͺ𝖺𝗇⁑(𝖴).\colim_{V\in\disk_{n/f^{-1}U}}A(V)~\underset{\rm Def~\ref{disk-f}}{\simeq}~\colim_{V\in{\sf ev}_{1}^{-1}U}A(V)\xrightarrow{~\simeq~}{\sf LKan}(U)~.

So the colimit of 𝖫π–ͺ𝖺𝗇{\sf LKan} is the codomain ofΒ (1). The equivalenceΒ (1) follows from PropositionΒ 4.3.3.7 ofΒ [Lu1], which implies the colimit of a left Kan extension agrees with the colimit because they both satisfy the same universal property.

∎

0N4H

Proof of LemmaΒ 3.18. Given a collar-gluing f:Mβ†’[βˆ’1,1]f:M\rightarrow[-1,1], there are canonical morphisms in 𝒱\mathcal{V}

∫Mβ€²Aβ€‹β¨‚βˆ«M0×ℝA∫Mβ€²β€²A⟢∫[βˆ’1,1]fβˆ—β€‹A⟢∫MA.\int_{M^{\prime}}A\bigotimes_{\displaystyle\int_{M_{0}\times\mathbb{R}}A}\int_{M^{\prime\prime}}A\longrightarrow\int_{[-1,1]}f_{\ast}A\longrightarrow\int_{M}A~~.

The lefthand morphism is an equivalence by Lemma 3.12, which shows that factorization homology over the closed interval is equivalent to the bar construction, and inspection of the functor fβˆ—β€‹Af_{\ast}A. The righthand morphism is an equivalence by Proposition 3.23, which grants that factorization homology pushes forward along M→𝑓[βˆ’1,1]M\xrightarrow{f}[-1,1].

∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source collection and HTML conversion remain in progress.

David Ayala, John Francis

Original source: arXiv:1206.5522v6