While not every ordinary quasicoherent sheaf is equivalent to a vector bundle, every quasicoherent ∞-stack is weakly equivalent to a complex of projective modules. This may be thought of as an -vector bundle.
We consider a natural generalization of the notion of vector space/module, and vector bundle/quasicoherent sheaf of modules from ordinary category theory to the higher category theory of (∞,1)-categories. The notion is based based on
The general definition subsumes as a special case the “derived” quasicoherent sheaves considered by Ben-Zvi/Francis/Nadler. More generally, the definition yields a notion of smooth -vector bundles on spaces in any smooth (∞,1)-topos. There is an evident notion of -vector bundles associated to any principal ∞-bundle and from the theory of differential nonabelian cohomology we obtain a notion of smooth -vector bundles with connection.
But in fact, a closer look reveals that the notion of quasicoherent sheaf is of a fundamental simplicity that is not well reflected in its name: a classical quasicoherent sheaf of modules on a scheme is nothing but a morphism of stacks into the canonical stack of modules. (For details on this see the discussion at quasicoherent sheaf.)
Of this there is an obvious categorification: for any (∞,1)-category valued ∞-stack on any site , and for any ordinary (i.e. ∞Grpd-valued) ∞-stack we may think of a morphism as defining a “quasicoherent” -module on , with respect to the notion of module encoded by .
But moreover, after passage to (∞,1)-categories, a little miracle happens: there is now a canonical notion of for any given site : if we regard the objects of as test spaces and hence the objects of the oppposite (∞,1)-category as function rings on test spaces, then the -category of modules over the function ring may be identitfied simply with the stabilization of the overcategory of over :
or directly in terms of test spaces :
For the special case that is the formal dual of simplicial rings over a characteristic 0 ground field, example 8.6 of Stable ∞-Categories shows that this assignment does indeed reproduce the expected notion of modules over (simplicial) rings. So for this case the above general construction reproduces the one considered by Ben-Zvi/Francis/Nadler in their work on geometric ∞-function theory.
But this also serves to show that nothing in their discussion really depends on the choice of site . More generally we may notably use simplicial objects in a site for any smooth topos. This way the above general construction yields a notion of quasicoherent -sheaves – of -vector bundles – on objects in any smooth (∞,1)-topos.
Given a site , the ∞-stack (∞,1)-topos on may be thought of as modelling the (∞,1)-category of generalized spaces modeled on . With every such (∞,1)-topos comes canonically a notion of cohomology in and of principal ∞-bundles in classified by cocycles.
For any we call
the -category of canonical quasicoherent modules on . An object in this -category may be thought of as (the cocycle for) a generalized -vector bundle on .
If we think of an object as a base space, then objects in may geometrically be tought of as -vector bundles on .
If however an object is thought of as a coefficient object for cohomology in , then it is more natural to speak of objects in as representations of .
So in a higher categorical context modules, vector bundles and representations are all different aspects of the same general structure. Accordingly there is an evident categorification of the notion of associated bundle:
For a representation of , we say that the induced morphism
sends -principal -bundles to their -associated (generalized) -vector bundles.
Accordingly, we think of morphisms
as (cocycles for) flat -vector bundles on .
Under suitable conditions, as discussed at ∞-Lie differentiation and integration, we have that finite parallel transport is already equivalent to infinitesimal parallel transport, and flat -principal ∞-bundles are already equivalently encoded by their restriction along the inclusion of the infinitesimal path ∞-groupoid? of , and given by morphisms
that encodes the corresponding flat ∞-Lie algebroid valued differential forms.
Accordingly, we may think of morphisms
as generalized-vector bundles equipped with an infinitesimal notion of flat connection. In terms of quasicoherent -stacks this are D-modules on .
For notice the decategorification to the classical picture:
decategorifies to the deRham space of ;
decategorifies to the ordinary (1-categorical) quasicoherent sheaves on
to be filled in
to be filled in
In their work on geometric ∞-function theory, David Ben-Zvi, John Francis and David Nadler have studied the generalization of this construction from the site of rings to that of simplicial rings . Again, there is a canonical bifibration of modules over simplicial rings, classified by a functor , and this plays the role of the -sheaf of -vector bundles in this context. One shows in this context that the pull-push of objects in this bifibration along spans in nicely models integral transforms such as Fourier-Mukai transformations.
to be filled in
As discussed at geometric function theory, the above geometric ∞-function theory looks in several aspects like a generalization of the situation studied by John Baez, Jim Dolan and Todd Trimble under the term groupoidification. In our terms here, what these authors study is in the context of the site Grpd, the pull-push with respect to the codomain fibration : that which is classified by the functor that sends each object to its overcategory (see geometric function object for more on this).
And for this differs from the codomain fibration that implicitly underlies the Baez-Dolan situation only in that it assigns stabilized overcateories, instead of overcategories itself. But this should in fact be the step necessary to fully linearize the Baez-Dolan setup, something that these authors propose to emulate by other means.