phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | descent for sheaves on compact Hausdorff spaces— “The first goal of these notes is to explain some descent results for ∞-categories of sheaves on locally compact Hausdorff spaces.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Specifically, given a compactly assembled ∞-category ℰ, we show that the functor sending a locally compact Hausdorff space 𝑋 to the ∞-category Shpost(𝑋; ℰ) of Postnikov complete ℰ-valued sheaves on 𝑋 satisfies descent for proper surjections.” | |
| method — evidence | — “Section 2 proves Theorem 0.5 and derives some consequences in shape theory.” | |
| mechanism | Descent fails because every compact Hausdorff space is covered by a profinite set, and sheaves on profinite sets are already Postnikov complete while sheaves on a general compact Hausdorff space are not, so the target of the limit is forced to satisfy a completeness the source lacks.— “The reason for this failure of descent is that every compact Hausdorff space admits a surjection from a profinite set, and the ∞-category of sheaves on a profinite set satisfies a strong completeness property which the ∞-category of (hyper)sheaves on a general compact Hausdorff space does not satisfy.” | mechanisms[0] |
| extends | Dyckhoff [7, Theorem 3.11; 8] and Clausen–Scholze [23, Theorem 3.2] comparison of sheaf and condensed cohomology— “We extend this result in two directions: to locally compact Hausdorff spaces and to very general coefficients.” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Clausen–Scholze's condensed/pyknotic mathematics, Barwick–Haine, and Lurie's work on ultracategories— “Our motivation comes from condensed/pyknotic mathematics developed by Clausen–Scholze [20; 21; 22; 23], in our joint work with Barwick [2, Chapter 13; 3], and in Lurie’s work on ultracategories [17; 18, Chapter 4].” | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | sheaf theory - THREE OF THEM, DISTINGUISHED ONLY OFF THE TRUNCATED PART: sheaves, hypersheaves and Postnikov complete sheaves all extend the classical theory and share their truncated objects, so the choice between them is undetectable in the bounded case— “(sheaves, hypersheaves, and Postnikov complete sheaves) extending the classical theory of sheaves on a topological space” | senses[0] |
| sense | the subject's name - CONDENSED/PYKNOTIC, BOTH CARRIED: the field is written with a slash between two names for it, in a paper by one of the pyknotic authors thanking the condensed ones— “We imagine that the reader might be interested in condensed/pyknotic mathematics but not necessarily familiar with all of the intricacies about the theory of ∞-topoi” | senses[1] |
| sense | the set theory - A DIFFERENCE DECLARED AND THEN SET ASIDE: universes here, no universes there, and an explicit decision not to mention it again— “This minor difference is only in the set theory and does not affect any arguments in an essential way, so we will not mention it again” | senses[2] |
| edge | Postnikov complete sheaves —distinct-from→ hypersheaves— “(sheaves, hypersheaves, and Postnikov complete sheaves) extending the classical theory of sheaves on a topological space. They all have the same truncated objects, so the subtle differences between these theories only appears when considering” | concept_edges[0] |
| for which use | limitation — a result stated for sheaves on a space: sheaves, hypersheaves and Postnikov complete sheaves all have the same truncated objects, and the differences between the three theories appear only on unbounded objects - so two such results can be compared safely in the truncated case and not otherwise— “They all have the same truncated objects, so the subtle differences between these theories only appears when considering” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — a comparison between results in this paper and results of Clausen and Scholze: the two use different set-theoretic foundations, one with universes and one avoiding them, which the author states is a minor difference not affecting any argument in an essential way— “Clausen and Scholze [23] use alternative set-theoretic foundations that avoid using universes. This minor difference is only in the set theory and does not affect any arguments in an essential way, so we will not mention it again” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — the claim that condensed and sheaf cohomology agree: the three-way agreement is asserted for a topological space admitting a locally finite CW structure, so it is a conditional identification rather than a general one— “As a consequence, the condensed, singular, and sheaf cohomologies of a topological space admitting a locally finite CW structure all agree” | limitations[5] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The descent and full-faithfulness results fail before Postnikov completion; the paper devotes sections to explaining why.— “We conclude by explaining why Corollary 4.11 is generally false before passing to Postnikov completions.” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Whether every-object-is-the-limit-of-its-Postnikov-tower is strictly weaker than Postnikov completeness is left open.— “As far as we are aware, it is not known if there exists an ∞-topos 𝒳 such that every object of 𝒳 is the limit of its Postnikov tower, but 𝒳 is not Postnikov complete.” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The protruncated shape, one of the derived consequences, does not preserve pullbacks.— “The protruncated shape does not preserve pullbacks of compact Hausdorff spaces.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | Three competing sheaf theories agree on all truncated objects, so which one a result used is invisible until unbounded objects are involved.— “They all have the same truncated objects, so the subtle differences between these theories only appears when considering” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | Two incompatible set-theoretic foundations are in use in this literature; the difference is declared inessential and then not mentioned again.— “Clausen and Scholze [23] use alternative set-theoretic foundations that avoid using universes. This minor difference is only in the set theory and does not affect any arguments in an essential way, so we will not mention it again” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The agreement between three cohomology theories is claimed for spaces satisfying a stated structural condition, not in general.— “As a consequence, the condensed, singular, and sheaf cohomologies of a topological space admitting a locally finite CW structure all agree” | limitations[5] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | For a compactly assembled coefficient ∞-category, the assignment of the ∞-category of Postnikov complete sheaves to a locally compact Hausdorff space satisfies descent along proper surjections.— “Specifically, given a compactly assembled ∞-category ℰ, we show that the functor sending a locally compact Hausdorff space 𝑋 to the ∞-category Shpost(𝑋; ℰ) of Postnikov complete ℰ-valued sheaves on 𝑋 satisfies descent for proper surjections.” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The same result gives proper descent for left complete derived ∞-categories and shows that Postnikov complete sheaves form a sheaf on compact Hausdorff spaces for the topology of finite jointly surjective families.— “This implies proper descent for left complete derived ∞-categories and that the functor Shpost(−; ℰ) is a sheaf on the category of compact Hausdorff spaces equipped with the topology of finite jointly surjective families.” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Neither ordinary sheaves nor hypersheaves define a sheaf on the site of compact Hausdorff spaces.— “The presheaves Sh, Shhyp ∶ Comp op → LTop∞ are not sheaves.” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Postnikov complete sheaves on a locally compact Hausdorff space embed fully faithfully into condensed objects over that space.— “Then the pullback functor 𝑐∗,post ∶ Shpost(𝑋; ℰ) → Shpost(Comp∕𝑋; ℰ) is fully faithful.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Consequently the sheaf cohomology and the condensed cohomology of a locally compact Hausdorff space coincide.— “This implies that the condensed and sheaf cohomologies of a locally compact Hausdorff space agree.” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | For a space carrying a locally finite CW structure, condensed, singular and sheaf cohomology all coincide.— “As a consequence, the condensed, singular, and sheaf cohomologies of a topological space admitting a locally finite CW structure all agree” | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Sheaves on a profinite set are Postnikov complete, whereas sheaves on the Hilbert cube are not, so Postnikov completeness is not automatic for compact Hausdorff spaces.— “The ∞-topos of sheaves on a profinite set is Postnikov complete. On the other hand, the ∞-topos of sheaves on the Hilbert cube [0, 1] is not Postnikov complete.” | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | The protruncated shape functor fails to preserve pullbacks of compact Hausdorff spaces.— “The protruncated shape does not preserve pullbacks of compact Hausdorff spaces.” | content_tags.findings[7] |
| definition | Postnikov completion— “Let 𝒳 be an ∞-topos. The Postnikov completion of 𝒳 is the limit” | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | Postnikov complete— “We say that an ∞-topos 𝒳 is Postnikov complete if the functor 𝑡∗ ∶ 𝒳 → 𝒳post is an equivalence of ∞-categories.” | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | proper descent— “descent if for every proper surjection of locally compact Hausdorff spaces 𝑝 ∶ 𝑋 ↠ 𝑌, the augmented cosimplicial diagram” | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | compactly assembled ∞-category— “A presentable ∞-category ℰ is compactly assembled if ℰ is a retract of a compactly… | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | hypercomplete objects | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | van Kampen colimit | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| definition | Postnikov complete sheaves | content_tags.definitions[6] |
| concept | hypersheaves | concepts[0] |
| concept | Postnikov complete sheaves | concepts[1] |
| concept | condensed cohomology Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | compact Hausdorff spaces Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | hypercompleteness Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824