Meaning of A-infinity relationsIs theory with domain of interpretation in second order objects a First Order Theory?t-structures and higher categories?Is a background in Category Theory enough for starting a PhD in Category Theory?Gauss Sums over “semisimple spherical tensor category”?Difficulties with descent data as homotopy limit of image of Čech nerveAre there topological versions of the idea of divisor?The “derived drift” is pretty unsatisfying and dangerous to category theory (or at least, to me)Tricategorical coherence

Meaning of A-infinity relations


Is theory with domain of interpretation in second order objects a First Order Theory?t-structures and higher categories?Is a background in Category Theory enough for starting a PhD in Category Theory?Gauss Sums over “semisimple spherical tensor category”?Difficulties with descent data as homotopy limit of image of Čech nerveAre there topological versions of the idea of divisor?The “derived drift” is pretty unsatisfying and dangerous to category theory (or at least, to me)Tricategorical coherence













6















$begingroup$


I am learning A-infinity category with Fukaya category in mind, and would like to understand the meaning of A-infinity relations.



In particular, as $N=1$, it means $dd=0$. As $N=2$, it means that $d$ satisfies Leibniz's rule if we regard the second operation as multiplication. As $N=3$, it means that the multiplication satisfies associativity at the homology level.



Questions



  1. These are "classical" interpretations. Though, I still wish to understand the higher operations. What are their meanings? Are there ways to view it as natural in a pure operad-ic view point?


  2. As mentioned above, the second operation can be viewed as ordinary multiplication at the homology level. How about the higher ones? How do they behave at the homology level (or perhaps this is not the right question to ask..) ?


I have tried some papers on Fukaya category, wikipedia, and n-lab. Any other references will be appreciated. Thank you very much.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$



















    6















    $begingroup$


    I am learning A-infinity category with Fukaya category in mind, and would like to understand the meaning of A-infinity relations.



    In particular, as $N=1$, it means $dd=0$. As $N=2$, it means that $d$ satisfies Leibniz's rule if we regard the second operation as multiplication. As $N=3$, it means that the multiplication satisfies associativity at the homology level.



    Questions



    1. These are "classical" interpretations. Though, I still wish to understand the higher operations. What are their meanings? Are there ways to view it as natural in a pure operad-ic view point?


    2. As mentioned above, the second operation can be viewed as ordinary multiplication at the homology level. How about the higher ones? How do they behave at the homology level (or perhaps this is not the right question to ask..) ?


    I have tried some papers on Fukaya category, wikipedia, and n-lab. Any other references will be appreciated. Thank you very much.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$

















      6













      6









      6


      3



      $begingroup$


      I am learning A-infinity category with Fukaya category in mind, and would like to understand the meaning of A-infinity relations.



      In particular, as $N=1$, it means $dd=0$. As $N=2$, it means that $d$ satisfies Leibniz's rule if we regard the second operation as multiplication. As $N=3$, it means that the multiplication satisfies associativity at the homology level.



      Questions



      1. These are "classical" interpretations. Though, I still wish to understand the higher operations. What are their meanings? Are there ways to view it as natural in a pure operad-ic view point?


      2. As mentioned above, the second operation can be viewed as ordinary multiplication at the homology level. How about the higher ones? How do they behave at the homology level (or perhaps this is not the right question to ask..) ?


      I have tried some papers on Fukaya category, wikipedia, and n-lab. Any other references will be appreciated. Thank you very much.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I am learning A-infinity category with Fukaya category in mind, and would like to understand the meaning of A-infinity relations.



      In particular, as $N=1$, it means $dd=0$. As $N=2$, it means that $d$ satisfies Leibniz's rule if we regard the second operation as multiplication. As $N=3$, it means that the multiplication satisfies associativity at the homology level.



      Questions



      1. These are "classical" interpretations. Though, I still wish to understand the higher operations. What are their meanings? Are there ways to view it as natural in a pure operad-ic view point?


      2. As mentioned above, the second operation can be viewed as ordinary multiplication at the homology level. How about the higher ones? How do they behave at the homology level (or perhaps this is not the right question to ask..) ?


      I have tried some papers on Fukaya category, wikipedia, and n-lab. Any other references will be appreciated. Thank you very much.







      ct.category-theory soft-question higher-category-theory fukaya-category






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Oct 1 at 13:40









      StudentStudent

      1,0651 silver badge8 bronze badges




      1,0651 silver badge8 bronze badges























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          11

















          $begingroup$

          For your first question. Suppose $(A,d,m,m_3,m_4dots)$ is an $A_infty$-algebra. The operation $m_3$ gives a homotopy between $m(-,m(-,-))$ and $m(m(-,-),-)$, which I will abusively denote as $a(bc)$ and $(ab)c$.



          Now consider the two operations $A^otimes 4 to A$ given by $a(b(cd))$ and $((ab)c)d$. Using $m_3$, you have two ways of going from the first to the second:



          • Use $m_3$ three times to create a homotopy:
            $$a(b(cd)) to a((bc)d) to (a(bc))d to ((ab)c)d.$$

          • Use $m_3$ twice to create a homotopy:
            $$a(b(cd)) to (ab)(cd) to ((ab)c)d.$$

          If you combine these two homotopies, you get two classes of degree $2$ maps $A^otimes 4 to A$. These two maps have no reason to be homotopic. Well, the higher operation $m_4$ gives a homotopy between these two homotopies!



          The even higher operations $m_5$, $m_6$ and so on work the same way. This is very nicely encoded in Stasheff's associahedra. The first two associahedra is just a point, representing the identity and $m_2$; the next one is a segment, representing $m_3$, a homotopy between $a(bc)$ and $(ab)c$; the next one is a pentagon, whose edges are the five arrows I drew above; and so on.



          For your second question, the answer is Massey products. Very briefly, suppose that you have a differential graded algebra $A$ and three cycles $a,b,c$ such that $ab = dalpha$ and $bc = dbeta$. Then the class $abc$ vanishes "in two different ways", because $abc = d(alpha c) = d(a beta)$. It follows that $alpha c - a beta$ is a homology class, called the triple Massey product $langle a,b,c rangle$. The operation $m_3$ can be used to represent this triple Massey product on homology. It's a bit technical to explain how, and the explanation involves the Homotopy Transfer Theorem.



          For both answers, I think a good reference that cites pretty much all the other possible ones is the book Algebraic Operads by Loday and Vallette.






          share|cite|improve this answer










          $endgroup$





















            6

















            $begingroup$

            I'll be informal but try to give a topologist's intuitive interpretation, which gives the original source of the idea. Historically, $A_infty$ structures start with Stasheff's work determining what higher coherence homotopies are needed to ensure that an $H$-space X (a space with a product with unit) has a classifying space, given by a bar construction. This was later interpreted as meaning that $X$ has an action by the Stasheff operad in spaces, in fact CW complexes. The chain complex associated to that operad gives an operad in chain complexes and thus a notion of $A_infty$ algebra in chain complexes, with its associated bar construction. Going from there to DG categories is not a big leap. Thus the idea is that the specifics of the definition are encoding relevant higher homotopies.






            share|cite|improve this answer










            $endgroup$





















              4

















              $begingroup$

              One interpretation I prefer is obtained by defining $A_infty$ structures on graded space $L$ as a degree $-1$ square zero derivation $d$ on (co)free coalgebra on $L[-1]$ aka its bar construction. As it is cofree, derivation is determined by projection on cogenerators, so you have a bunch of maps $L^otimes k to L$ of degree $2-k$. Now all relations become consequences of the fact that $d^2 = 0$ on $T_*(L[-1])$ and can be obtained by collecting elements of same degree. Other way around, beginning with a ($A_infty$-)coalgebra one can construct free algebra with a square zero derivation on it encoding comultiplication (and higher operations). Composing these two together, we obtain a strictly associative dg algebra which is an "unfolded model" of $infty$-algebra.



              So the way I interpret higher operations is that they are just cramped up ordinary associative multiplication when underlying space is too small.



              Main upshot is that this kind of algebraic structure can be transferred along vector space retractions, and as every chain complex can be retracted onto its homology, it feels like a "right one" for doing algebra in chain complexes.



              Good refences are "Algebraic operads" by J.-L. Loday and B. Valette, "Koszul duality for operads" by Ginzburg and Kapranov and "Modules over Operads and Functors" by Fresse.






              share|cite|improve this answer












              $endgroup$









              • 2




                $begingroup$
                I agree with the general approach of this answer, but one aspect needs to be corrected. Technically, it is not true that the relations of an $A_infty$-algebra are consequences of the fact that $d$ is a (co)derivation of the cofree coalgebra. Any sequence of linear maps $m_kcolon L^otimes kto L$ of degrees $2-k$ defines a coderivation of $T_*(L[1])$ of degree $1$. The $A_infty$-algebra equations on the maps $m_k$ are an expression of the equation $d^2=0$.
                $endgroup$
                – Leonid Positselski
                Oct 1 at 15:33











              • $begingroup$
                Thanks, that was definitely a slip of a tongue.
                $endgroup$
                – Denis T.
                Oct 1 at 19:41










              • $begingroup$
                I have encountered "bar construction" many times but have not found a time to learn it. I will take a look at the reference. Before that, is there an intuitive explanation of what bar construction is?
                $endgroup$
                – Student
                Oct 2 at 2:48











              • $begingroup$
                For any space $X$ chain complex is a coalgebra with Alexander-Whitney comultiplication. Chain complex of loop space $Omega X$ is a bialgebra where multiplication of coming from loop space multiplication. Cobar construction was invented by Adams as a purely algebraic formalisation of such functor, and bar construction is almost a dual of this (if one considers only complete filtered coalgebras, there are no caveats).
                $endgroup$
                – Denis T.
                Oct 2 at 21:02










              • $begingroup$
                Any of aforementioned books are good references. Original Adams paper "On the cobar construction" is clear and concise, and worth taking a look at.
                $endgroup$
                – Denis T.
                Oct 2 at 21:05












              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "504"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );














              draft saved

              draft discarded
















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f342855%2fmeaning-of-a-infinity-relations%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown


























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              11

















              $begingroup$

              For your first question. Suppose $(A,d,m,m_3,m_4dots)$ is an $A_infty$-algebra. The operation $m_3$ gives a homotopy between $m(-,m(-,-))$ and $m(m(-,-),-)$, which I will abusively denote as $a(bc)$ and $(ab)c$.



              Now consider the two operations $A^otimes 4 to A$ given by $a(b(cd))$ and $((ab)c)d$. Using $m_3$, you have two ways of going from the first to the second:



              • Use $m_3$ three times to create a homotopy:
                $$a(b(cd)) to a((bc)d) to (a(bc))d to ((ab)c)d.$$

              • Use $m_3$ twice to create a homotopy:
                $$a(b(cd)) to (ab)(cd) to ((ab)c)d.$$

              If you combine these two homotopies, you get two classes of degree $2$ maps $A^otimes 4 to A$. These two maps have no reason to be homotopic. Well, the higher operation $m_4$ gives a homotopy between these two homotopies!



              The even higher operations $m_5$, $m_6$ and so on work the same way. This is very nicely encoded in Stasheff's associahedra. The first two associahedra is just a point, representing the identity and $m_2$; the next one is a segment, representing $m_3$, a homotopy between $a(bc)$ and $(ab)c$; the next one is a pentagon, whose edges are the five arrows I drew above; and so on.



              For your second question, the answer is Massey products. Very briefly, suppose that you have a differential graded algebra $A$ and three cycles $a,b,c$ such that $ab = dalpha$ and $bc = dbeta$. Then the class $abc$ vanishes "in two different ways", because $abc = d(alpha c) = d(a beta)$. It follows that $alpha c - a beta$ is a homology class, called the triple Massey product $langle a,b,c rangle$. The operation $m_3$ can be used to represent this triple Massey product on homology. It's a bit technical to explain how, and the explanation involves the Homotopy Transfer Theorem.



              For both answers, I think a good reference that cites pretty much all the other possible ones is the book Algebraic Operads by Loday and Vallette.






              share|cite|improve this answer










              $endgroup$


















                11

















                $begingroup$

                For your first question. Suppose $(A,d,m,m_3,m_4dots)$ is an $A_infty$-algebra. The operation $m_3$ gives a homotopy between $m(-,m(-,-))$ and $m(m(-,-),-)$, which I will abusively denote as $a(bc)$ and $(ab)c$.



                Now consider the two operations $A^otimes 4 to A$ given by $a(b(cd))$ and $((ab)c)d$. Using $m_3$, you have two ways of going from the first to the second:



                • Use $m_3$ three times to create a homotopy:
                  $$a(b(cd)) to a((bc)d) to (a(bc))d to ((ab)c)d.$$

                • Use $m_3$ twice to create a homotopy:
                  $$a(b(cd)) to (ab)(cd) to ((ab)c)d.$$

                If you combine these two homotopies, you get two classes of degree $2$ maps $A^otimes 4 to A$. These two maps have no reason to be homotopic. Well, the higher operation $m_4$ gives a homotopy between these two homotopies!



                The even higher operations $m_5$, $m_6$ and so on work the same way. This is very nicely encoded in Stasheff's associahedra. The first two associahedra is just a point, representing the identity and $m_2$; the next one is a segment, representing $m_3$, a homotopy between $a(bc)$ and $(ab)c$; the next one is a pentagon, whose edges are the five arrows I drew above; and so on.



                For your second question, the answer is Massey products. Very briefly, suppose that you have a differential graded algebra $A$ and three cycles $a,b,c$ such that $ab = dalpha$ and $bc = dbeta$. Then the class $abc$ vanishes "in two different ways", because $abc = d(alpha c) = d(a beta)$. It follows that $alpha c - a beta$ is a homology class, called the triple Massey product $langle a,b,c rangle$. The operation $m_3$ can be used to represent this triple Massey product on homology. It's a bit technical to explain how, and the explanation involves the Homotopy Transfer Theorem.



                For both answers, I think a good reference that cites pretty much all the other possible ones is the book Algebraic Operads by Loday and Vallette.






                share|cite|improve this answer










                $endgroup$
















                  11















                  11











                  11







                  $begingroup$

                  For your first question. Suppose $(A,d,m,m_3,m_4dots)$ is an $A_infty$-algebra. The operation $m_3$ gives a homotopy between $m(-,m(-,-))$ and $m(m(-,-),-)$, which I will abusively denote as $a(bc)$ and $(ab)c$.



                  Now consider the two operations $A^otimes 4 to A$ given by $a(b(cd))$ and $((ab)c)d$. Using $m_3$, you have two ways of going from the first to the second:



                  • Use $m_3$ three times to create a homotopy:
                    $$a(b(cd)) to a((bc)d) to (a(bc))d to ((ab)c)d.$$

                  • Use $m_3$ twice to create a homotopy:
                    $$a(b(cd)) to (ab)(cd) to ((ab)c)d.$$

                  If you combine these two homotopies, you get two classes of degree $2$ maps $A^otimes 4 to A$. These two maps have no reason to be homotopic. Well, the higher operation $m_4$ gives a homotopy between these two homotopies!



                  The even higher operations $m_5$, $m_6$ and so on work the same way. This is very nicely encoded in Stasheff's associahedra. The first two associahedra is just a point, representing the identity and $m_2$; the next one is a segment, representing $m_3$, a homotopy between $a(bc)$ and $(ab)c$; the next one is a pentagon, whose edges are the five arrows I drew above; and so on.



                  For your second question, the answer is Massey products. Very briefly, suppose that you have a differential graded algebra $A$ and three cycles $a,b,c$ such that $ab = dalpha$ and $bc = dbeta$. Then the class $abc$ vanishes "in two different ways", because $abc = d(alpha c) = d(a beta)$. It follows that $alpha c - a beta$ is a homology class, called the triple Massey product $langle a,b,c rangle$. The operation $m_3$ can be used to represent this triple Massey product on homology. It's a bit technical to explain how, and the explanation involves the Homotopy Transfer Theorem.



                  For both answers, I think a good reference that cites pretty much all the other possible ones is the book Algebraic Operads by Loday and Vallette.






                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  $endgroup$



                  For your first question. Suppose $(A,d,m,m_3,m_4dots)$ is an $A_infty$-algebra. The operation $m_3$ gives a homotopy between $m(-,m(-,-))$ and $m(m(-,-),-)$, which I will abusively denote as $a(bc)$ and $(ab)c$.



                  Now consider the two operations $A^otimes 4 to A$ given by $a(b(cd))$ and $((ab)c)d$. Using $m_3$, you have two ways of going from the first to the second:



                  • Use $m_3$ three times to create a homotopy:
                    $$a(b(cd)) to a((bc)d) to (a(bc))d to ((ab)c)d.$$

                  • Use $m_3$ twice to create a homotopy:
                    $$a(b(cd)) to (ab)(cd) to ((ab)c)d.$$

                  If you combine these two homotopies, you get two classes of degree $2$ maps $A^otimes 4 to A$. These two maps have no reason to be homotopic. Well, the higher operation $m_4$ gives a homotopy between these two homotopies!



                  The even higher operations $m_5$, $m_6$ and so on work the same way. This is very nicely encoded in Stasheff's associahedra. The first two associahedra is just a point, representing the identity and $m_2$; the next one is a segment, representing $m_3$, a homotopy between $a(bc)$ and $(ab)c$; the next one is a pentagon, whose edges are the five arrows I drew above; and so on.



                  For your second question, the answer is Massey products. Very briefly, suppose that you have a differential graded algebra $A$ and three cycles $a,b,c$ such that $ab = dalpha$ and $bc = dbeta$. Then the class $abc$ vanishes "in two different ways", because $abc = d(alpha c) = d(a beta)$. It follows that $alpha c - a beta$ is a homology class, called the triple Massey product $langle a,b,c rangle$. The operation $m_3$ can be used to represent this triple Massey product on homology. It's a bit technical to explain how, and the explanation involves the Homotopy Transfer Theorem.



                  For both answers, I think a good reference that cites pretty much all the other possible ones is the book Algebraic Operads by Loday and Vallette.







                  share|cite|improve this answer













                  share|cite|improve this answer




                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Oct 1 at 15:30









                  Najib IdrissiNajib Idrissi

                  3,6991 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges




                  3,6991 gold badge13 silver badges29 bronze badges
























                      6

















                      $begingroup$

                      I'll be informal but try to give a topologist's intuitive interpretation, which gives the original source of the idea. Historically, $A_infty$ structures start with Stasheff's work determining what higher coherence homotopies are needed to ensure that an $H$-space X (a space with a product with unit) has a classifying space, given by a bar construction. This was later interpreted as meaning that $X$ has an action by the Stasheff operad in spaces, in fact CW complexes. The chain complex associated to that operad gives an operad in chain complexes and thus a notion of $A_infty$ algebra in chain complexes, with its associated bar construction. Going from there to DG categories is not a big leap. Thus the idea is that the specifics of the definition are encoding relevant higher homotopies.






                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      $endgroup$


















                        6

















                        $begingroup$

                        I'll be informal but try to give a topologist's intuitive interpretation, which gives the original source of the idea. Historically, $A_infty$ structures start with Stasheff's work determining what higher coherence homotopies are needed to ensure that an $H$-space X (a space with a product with unit) has a classifying space, given by a bar construction. This was later interpreted as meaning that $X$ has an action by the Stasheff operad in spaces, in fact CW complexes. The chain complex associated to that operad gives an operad in chain complexes and thus a notion of $A_infty$ algebra in chain complexes, with its associated bar construction. Going from there to DG categories is not a big leap. Thus the idea is that the specifics of the definition are encoding relevant higher homotopies.






                        share|cite|improve this answer










                        $endgroup$
















                          6















                          6











                          6







                          $begingroup$

                          I'll be informal but try to give a topologist's intuitive interpretation, which gives the original source of the idea. Historically, $A_infty$ structures start with Stasheff's work determining what higher coherence homotopies are needed to ensure that an $H$-space X (a space with a product with unit) has a classifying space, given by a bar construction. This was later interpreted as meaning that $X$ has an action by the Stasheff operad in spaces, in fact CW complexes. The chain complex associated to that operad gives an operad in chain complexes and thus a notion of $A_infty$ algebra in chain complexes, with its associated bar construction. Going from there to DG categories is not a big leap. Thus the idea is that the specifics of the definition are encoding relevant higher homotopies.






                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          $endgroup$



                          I'll be informal but try to give a topologist's intuitive interpretation, which gives the original source of the idea. Historically, $A_infty$ structures start with Stasheff's work determining what higher coherence homotopies are needed to ensure that an $H$-space X (a space with a product with unit) has a classifying space, given by a bar construction. This was later interpreted as meaning that $X$ has an action by the Stasheff operad in spaces, in fact CW complexes. The chain complex associated to that operad gives an operad in chain complexes and thus a notion of $A_infty$ algebra in chain complexes, with its associated bar construction. Going from there to DG categories is not a big leap. Thus the idea is that the specifics of the definition are encoding relevant higher homotopies.







                          share|cite|improve this answer













                          share|cite|improve this answer




                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Oct 1 at 15:25









                          Peter MayPeter May

                          26.2k3 gold badges79 silver badges121 bronze badges




                          26.2k3 gold badges79 silver badges121 bronze badges
























                              4

















                              $begingroup$

                              One interpretation I prefer is obtained by defining $A_infty$ structures on graded space $L$ as a degree $-1$ square zero derivation $d$ on (co)free coalgebra on $L[-1]$ aka its bar construction. As it is cofree, derivation is determined by projection on cogenerators, so you have a bunch of maps $L^otimes k to L$ of degree $2-k$. Now all relations become consequences of the fact that $d^2 = 0$ on $T_*(L[-1])$ and can be obtained by collecting elements of same degree. Other way around, beginning with a ($A_infty$-)coalgebra one can construct free algebra with a square zero derivation on it encoding comultiplication (and higher operations). Composing these two together, we obtain a strictly associative dg algebra which is an "unfolded model" of $infty$-algebra.



                              So the way I interpret higher operations is that they are just cramped up ordinary associative multiplication when underlying space is too small.



                              Main upshot is that this kind of algebraic structure can be transferred along vector space retractions, and as every chain complex can be retracted onto its homology, it feels like a "right one" for doing algebra in chain complexes.



                              Good refences are "Algebraic operads" by J.-L. Loday and B. Valette, "Koszul duality for operads" by Ginzburg and Kapranov and "Modules over Operads and Functors" by Fresse.






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              $endgroup$









                              • 2




                                $begingroup$
                                I agree with the general approach of this answer, but one aspect needs to be corrected. Technically, it is not true that the relations of an $A_infty$-algebra are consequences of the fact that $d$ is a (co)derivation of the cofree coalgebra. Any sequence of linear maps $m_kcolon L^otimes kto L$ of degrees $2-k$ defines a coderivation of $T_*(L[1])$ of degree $1$. The $A_infty$-algebra equations on the maps $m_k$ are an expression of the equation $d^2=0$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Leonid Positselski
                                Oct 1 at 15:33











                              • $begingroup$
                                Thanks, that was definitely a slip of a tongue.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 1 at 19:41










                              • $begingroup$
                                I have encountered "bar construction" many times but have not found a time to learn it. I will take a look at the reference. Before that, is there an intuitive explanation of what bar construction is?
                                $endgroup$
                                – Student
                                Oct 2 at 2:48











                              • $begingroup$
                                For any space $X$ chain complex is a coalgebra with Alexander-Whitney comultiplication. Chain complex of loop space $Omega X$ is a bialgebra where multiplication of coming from loop space multiplication. Cobar construction was invented by Adams as a purely algebraic formalisation of such functor, and bar construction is almost a dual of this (if one considers only complete filtered coalgebras, there are no caveats).
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 2 at 21:02










                              • $begingroup$
                                Any of aforementioned books are good references. Original Adams paper "On the cobar construction" is clear and concise, and worth taking a look at.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 2 at 21:05















                              4

















                              $begingroup$

                              One interpretation I prefer is obtained by defining $A_infty$ structures on graded space $L$ as a degree $-1$ square zero derivation $d$ on (co)free coalgebra on $L[-1]$ aka its bar construction. As it is cofree, derivation is determined by projection on cogenerators, so you have a bunch of maps $L^otimes k to L$ of degree $2-k$. Now all relations become consequences of the fact that $d^2 = 0$ on $T_*(L[-1])$ and can be obtained by collecting elements of same degree. Other way around, beginning with a ($A_infty$-)coalgebra one can construct free algebra with a square zero derivation on it encoding comultiplication (and higher operations). Composing these two together, we obtain a strictly associative dg algebra which is an "unfolded model" of $infty$-algebra.



                              So the way I interpret higher operations is that they are just cramped up ordinary associative multiplication when underlying space is too small.



                              Main upshot is that this kind of algebraic structure can be transferred along vector space retractions, and as every chain complex can be retracted onto its homology, it feels like a "right one" for doing algebra in chain complexes.



                              Good refences are "Algebraic operads" by J.-L. Loday and B. Valette, "Koszul duality for operads" by Ginzburg and Kapranov and "Modules over Operads and Functors" by Fresse.






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              $endgroup$









                              • 2




                                $begingroup$
                                I agree with the general approach of this answer, but one aspect needs to be corrected. Technically, it is not true that the relations of an $A_infty$-algebra are consequences of the fact that $d$ is a (co)derivation of the cofree coalgebra. Any sequence of linear maps $m_kcolon L^otimes kto L$ of degrees $2-k$ defines a coderivation of $T_*(L[1])$ of degree $1$. The $A_infty$-algebra equations on the maps $m_k$ are an expression of the equation $d^2=0$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Leonid Positselski
                                Oct 1 at 15:33











                              • $begingroup$
                                Thanks, that was definitely a slip of a tongue.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 1 at 19:41










                              • $begingroup$
                                I have encountered "bar construction" many times but have not found a time to learn it. I will take a look at the reference. Before that, is there an intuitive explanation of what bar construction is?
                                $endgroup$
                                – Student
                                Oct 2 at 2:48











                              • $begingroup$
                                For any space $X$ chain complex is a coalgebra with Alexander-Whitney comultiplication. Chain complex of loop space $Omega X$ is a bialgebra where multiplication of coming from loop space multiplication. Cobar construction was invented by Adams as a purely algebraic formalisation of such functor, and bar construction is almost a dual of this (if one considers only complete filtered coalgebras, there are no caveats).
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 2 at 21:02










                              • $begingroup$
                                Any of aforementioned books are good references. Original Adams paper "On the cobar construction" is clear and concise, and worth taking a look at.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 2 at 21:05













                              4















                              4











                              4







                              $begingroup$

                              One interpretation I prefer is obtained by defining $A_infty$ structures on graded space $L$ as a degree $-1$ square zero derivation $d$ on (co)free coalgebra on $L[-1]$ aka its bar construction. As it is cofree, derivation is determined by projection on cogenerators, so you have a bunch of maps $L^otimes k to L$ of degree $2-k$. Now all relations become consequences of the fact that $d^2 = 0$ on $T_*(L[-1])$ and can be obtained by collecting elements of same degree. Other way around, beginning with a ($A_infty$-)coalgebra one can construct free algebra with a square zero derivation on it encoding comultiplication (and higher operations). Composing these two together, we obtain a strictly associative dg algebra which is an "unfolded model" of $infty$-algebra.



                              So the way I interpret higher operations is that they are just cramped up ordinary associative multiplication when underlying space is too small.



                              Main upshot is that this kind of algebraic structure can be transferred along vector space retractions, and as every chain complex can be retracted onto its homology, it feels like a "right one" for doing algebra in chain complexes.



                              Good refences are "Algebraic operads" by J.-L. Loday and B. Valette, "Koszul duality for operads" by Ginzburg and Kapranov and "Modules over Operads and Functors" by Fresse.






                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              $endgroup$



                              One interpretation I prefer is obtained by defining $A_infty$ structures on graded space $L$ as a degree $-1$ square zero derivation $d$ on (co)free coalgebra on $L[-1]$ aka its bar construction. As it is cofree, derivation is determined by projection on cogenerators, so you have a bunch of maps $L^otimes k to L$ of degree $2-k$. Now all relations become consequences of the fact that $d^2 = 0$ on $T_*(L[-1])$ and can be obtained by collecting elements of same degree. Other way around, beginning with a ($A_infty$-)coalgebra one can construct free algebra with a square zero derivation on it encoding comultiplication (and higher operations). Composing these two together, we obtain a strictly associative dg algebra which is an "unfolded model" of $infty$-algebra.



                              So the way I interpret higher operations is that they are just cramped up ordinary associative multiplication when underlying space is too small.



                              Main upshot is that this kind of algebraic structure can be transferred along vector space retractions, and as every chain complex can be retracted onto its homology, it feels like a "right one" for doing algebra in chain complexes.



                              Good refences are "Algebraic operads" by J.-L. Loday and B. Valette, "Koszul duality for operads" by Ginzburg and Kapranov and "Modules over Operads and Functors" by Fresse.







                              share|cite|improve this answer















                              share|cite|improve this answer




                              share|cite|improve this answer








                              edited Oct 1 at 19:44

























                              answered Oct 1 at 15:06









                              Denis T.Denis T.

                              2,0069 silver badges16 bronze badges




                              2,0069 silver badges16 bronze badges










                              • 2




                                $begingroup$
                                I agree with the general approach of this answer, but one aspect needs to be corrected. Technically, it is not true that the relations of an $A_infty$-algebra are consequences of the fact that $d$ is a (co)derivation of the cofree coalgebra. Any sequence of linear maps $m_kcolon L^otimes kto L$ of degrees $2-k$ defines a coderivation of $T_*(L[1])$ of degree $1$. The $A_infty$-algebra equations on the maps $m_k$ are an expression of the equation $d^2=0$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Leonid Positselski
                                Oct 1 at 15:33











                              • $begingroup$
                                Thanks, that was definitely a slip of a tongue.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 1 at 19:41










                              • $begingroup$
                                I have encountered "bar construction" many times but have not found a time to learn it. I will take a look at the reference. Before that, is there an intuitive explanation of what bar construction is?
                                $endgroup$
                                – Student
                                Oct 2 at 2:48











                              • $begingroup$
                                For any space $X$ chain complex is a coalgebra with Alexander-Whitney comultiplication. Chain complex of loop space $Omega X$ is a bialgebra where multiplication of coming from loop space multiplication. Cobar construction was invented by Adams as a purely algebraic formalisation of such functor, and bar construction is almost a dual of this (if one considers only complete filtered coalgebras, there are no caveats).
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 2 at 21:02










                              • $begingroup$
                                Any of aforementioned books are good references. Original Adams paper "On the cobar construction" is clear and concise, and worth taking a look at.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 2 at 21:05












                              • 2




                                $begingroup$
                                I agree with the general approach of this answer, but one aspect needs to be corrected. Technically, it is not true that the relations of an $A_infty$-algebra are consequences of the fact that $d$ is a (co)derivation of the cofree coalgebra. Any sequence of linear maps $m_kcolon L^otimes kto L$ of degrees $2-k$ defines a coderivation of $T_*(L[1])$ of degree $1$. The $A_infty$-algebra equations on the maps $m_k$ are an expression of the equation $d^2=0$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Leonid Positselski
                                Oct 1 at 15:33











                              • $begingroup$
                                Thanks, that was definitely a slip of a tongue.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 1 at 19:41










                              • $begingroup$
                                I have encountered "bar construction" many times but have not found a time to learn it. I will take a look at the reference. Before that, is there an intuitive explanation of what bar construction is?
                                $endgroup$
                                – Student
                                Oct 2 at 2:48











                              • $begingroup$
                                For any space $X$ chain complex is a coalgebra with Alexander-Whitney comultiplication. Chain complex of loop space $Omega X$ is a bialgebra where multiplication of coming from loop space multiplication. Cobar construction was invented by Adams as a purely algebraic formalisation of such functor, and bar construction is almost a dual of this (if one considers only complete filtered coalgebras, there are no caveats).
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 2 at 21:02










                              • $begingroup$
                                Any of aforementioned books are good references. Original Adams paper "On the cobar construction" is clear and concise, and worth taking a look at.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Denis T.
                                Oct 2 at 21:05







                              2




                              2




                              $begingroup$
                              I agree with the general approach of this answer, but one aspect needs to be corrected. Technically, it is not true that the relations of an $A_infty$-algebra are consequences of the fact that $d$ is a (co)derivation of the cofree coalgebra. Any sequence of linear maps $m_kcolon L^otimes kto L$ of degrees $2-k$ defines a coderivation of $T_*(L[1])$ of degree $1$. The $A_infty$-algebra equations on the maps $m_k$ are an expression of the equation $d^2=0$.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Leonid Positselski
                              Oct 1 at 15:33





                              $begingroup$
                              I agree with the general approach of this answer, but one aspect needs to be corrected. Technically, it is not true that the relations of an $A_infty$-algebra are consequences of the fact that $d$ is a (co)derivation of the cofree coalgebra. Any sequence of linear maps $m_kcolon L^otimes kto L$ of degrees $2-k$ defines a coderivation of $T_*(L[1])$ of degree $1$. The $A_infty$-algebra equations on the maps $m_k$ are an expression of the equation $d^2=0$.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Leonid Positselski
                              Oct 1 at 15:33













                              $begingroup$
                              Thanks, that was definitely a slip of a tongue.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Denis T.
                              Oct 1 at 19:41




                              $begingroup$
                              Thanks, that was definitely a slip of a tongue.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Denis T.
                              Oct 1 at 19:41












                              $begingroup$
                              I have encountered "bar construction" many times but have not found a time to learn it. I will take a look at the reference. Before that, is there an intuitive explanation of what bar construction is?
                              $endgroup$
                              – Student
                              Oct 2 at 2:48





                              $begingroup$
                              I have encountered "bar construction" many times but have not found a time to learn it. I will take a look at the reference. Before that, is there an intuitive explanation of what bar construction is?
                              $endgroup$
                              – Student
                              Oct 2 at 2:48













                              $begingroup$
                              For any space $X$ chain complex is a coalgebra with Alexander-Whitney comultiplication. Chain complex of loop space $Omega X$ is a bialgebra where multiplication of coming from loop space multiplication. Cobar construction was invented by Adams as a purely algebraic formalisation of such functor, and bar construction is almost a dual of this (if one considers only complete filtered coalgebras, there are no caveats).
                              $endgroup$
                              – Denis T.
                              Oct 2 at 21:02




                              $begingroup$
                              For any space $X$ chain complex is a coalgebra with Alexander-Whitney comultiplication. Chain complex of loop space $Omega X$ is a bialgebra where multiplication of coming from loop space multiplication. Cobar construction was invented by Adams as a purely algebraic formalisation of such functor, and bar construction is almost a dual of this (if one considers only complete filtered coalgebras, there are no caveats).
                              $endgroup$
                              – Denis T.
                              Oct 2 at 21:02












                              $begingroup$
                              Any of aforementioned books are good references. Original Adams paper "On the cobar construction" is clear and concise, and worth taking a look at.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Denis T.
                              Oct 2 at 21:05




                              $begingroup$
                              Any of aforementioned books are good references. Original Adams paper "On the cobar construction" is clear and concise, and worth taking a look at.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Denis T.
                              Oct 2 at 21:05


















                              draft saved

                              draft discarded















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f342855%2fmeaning-of-a-infinity-relations%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown









                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

                              Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

                              Where does the image of a data connector as a sharp metal spike originate from?Where does the concept of infected people turning into zombies only after death originate from?Where does the motif of a reanimated human head originate?Where did the notion that Dragons could speak originate?Where does the archetypal image of the 'Grey' alien come from?Where did the suffix '-Man' originate?Where does the notion of being injured or killed by an illusion originate?Where did the term “sophont” originate?Where does the trope of magic spells being driven by advanced technology originate from?Where did the term “the living impaired” originate?