arXiv:1211.6134v2 [math.DG] 29 Apr 2013

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE
FUNCTIONS
DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Abstract. This is the first in a series of papers laying the foundations for
a differential graded approach to derived differential geometry (and other geometries in characteristic zero). In this paper, we study theories of supercommutative algebras for which infinitely differentiable functions can be evaluated
on elements. Such a theory is called a super Fermat theory. Any category
of superspaces and smooth functions has an associated such theory. This
includes both real and complex supermanifolds, as well as algebraic superschemes. In particular, there is a super Fermat theory of C∞ -superalgebras.
C∞ -superalgebras are the appropriate notion of supercommutative algebras in
the world of C∞ -rings, the latter being of central importance both to synthetic
differential geometry and to all existing models of derived smooth manifolds.
A super Fermat theory is a natural generalization of the concept of a Fermat
theory introduced by E. Dubuc and A. Kock. We show that any Fermat theory
admits a canonical superization, however not every super Fermat theory arises
in this way. For a fixed super Fermat theory, we go on to study a special subcategory of algebras called near-point determined algebras, and derive many
of their algebraic properties.

Contents
1. Introduction.
1.1. Organization and main results
2. Fermat Theories.
2.1. Examples of Lawvere Theories
2.2. Fermat theories
2.3. Nilpotent extensions
3. Super Fermat Theories
3.1. Superalgebras and superizations
3.2. Nilpotent Extensions of Superalgebras
3.3. Some constructions.
4. Near-point Determined Algebras
4.1. Radicals
4.2. Near-point determined superalgebras
4.3. Flatness of near-point determined superalgebras
Appendix A. Algebraic theories
A.1. Sifted Colimits
A.2. Morphisms of Theories
Appendix B. Multisorted Lawvere Theories
B.1. Congruences
Date: April 30, 2013.
1

2
3
5
5
8
15
19
19
26
27
31
31
39
45
48
50
53
56
61

2

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

63

References

1. Introduction.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce super Fermat theories. This theory
will form the basis of our approach to differential graded models for derived manifolds. Super Fermat theories are theories of supercommutative algebras in which,
in addition to evaluating polynomials on elements, one can evaluate infinitely differentiable functions. In particular, they provide a unifying framework to study
the rings of functions of various flavors of smooth superspaces, e.g. regular functions on algebraic superschemes, smooth functions on smooth supermanifolds, and
holomorphic functions on complex supermanifolds. The basic idea is to take seriously the notion that every type of geometry must have its own intrinsic version
of commutative algebra associated to it (with the classical theory of commutative
rings corresponding to algebraic geometry). Of central importance is the example
of C∞ -superalgebras which are the appropriate notion of supercommutative algebras in the world of C∞ -rings, the commutative algebras associated to differential
geometry.
A C∞ -ring is a commutative R-algebra which, in addition to the binary operations of addition and multiplication, has an n-ary operation for each smooth
function
f : Rn → R,
subject to natural compatibility. They were introduced by W. Lawvere in his
Chicago lectures on categorical dynamics, but first appeared in the literature in [24]
and [10]. Their inception lies in the development of models for synthetic differential
geometry [11, 22, 18, 8, 19, 12, 20, 15]; however, recently they have played a pivotal
role in developing models for derived differential geometry [25, 14, 7].
In [13], E. Dubuc and A. Kock introduce Fermat theories, which provide a unifying framework for the algebraic study of polynomials using commutative rings, and
the algebraic study of smooth functions using C∞ -rings. Fermat theories are, in a
precise way, theories of rings of infinitely differentiable functions. Recall that for
a smooth function f (x, z1 , . . . , zn ) on Rn+1 , there exists a unique smooth function
∆f
n+2
– the difference quotient – such that for all x and y,
∆x (x, y, z1 , . . . , zn ) on R
(1.1)
Indeed, for x′ 6= y ′ ,
but for x′ = y ′ ,

f (x, z) − f (y, z) = (x − y) ·

∆f
(x, y, z) .
∆x

∆f ′ ′
f (x′ , z) − f (y ′ , z)
(x , y , z) =
∆x
x′ − y ′

∆f ′ ′
∂f ′
(x , x , z) =
(x ) ,
∆x
∂x
a result known as Hadamard’s Lemma. In fact, if one took (1.2) as a definition of
the partial derivative, all of the classical rules for differentiation could be derived
from (1.1) using only algebra. The key insight of Dubuc and Kock in [13] is that
equation (1.1) makes sense in a more general setting, and one can consider algebraic
theories extending the theory of commutative rings whose operations are labeled
(1.2)

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

3

by functions satisfying a generalization of (1.1) called the Fermat property (since
Fermat was the first to observe that it holds for polynomials). For examples and
non-examples of Fermat theories, see Section 2.2.3. Many important properties of
C∞ -rings hold for any Fermat theory. For example, if E is a Fermat theory, A an
E-algebra, and I ⊂ A an ideal of the underlying ring, then A/I has the canonical
structure of an E-algebra. Moreover, the fact that the theory of C∞ -rings satisfies
the Fermat property is a key ingredient in many well-adapted models of synthetic
differential geometry.
In this paper, we show that the Fermat property is ideally suited to study supergeometry, as any Fermat theory admits a canonical superization. The superization
of a Fermat theory is a 2-sorted algebraic theory extending the theory of supercommutative algebras, and satisfies a modified version of the Fermat property which we
call the super Fermat property. An important example of a super Fermat theory is
the theory of super C ∞ -rings, which is the superization of the theory of C ∞ -rings.
However, super Fermat theories are more general than Fermat theories, as not every
super Fermat theory arises as a superization.
Super Fermat theories are an essential ingredient to our development of a differential graded approach to derived differential geometry. Of particular importance
is the theory of C∞ -superalgebras. Our approach is based upon exploiting the
connection between supercommutativity and differential graded algebras. In [9],
we define the concept of a differential graded E-algebra for a super Fermat theory
E, and develop homological algebra in this setting.
In light of the history of C∞ -rings and their role in synthetic differential geometry, it is natural to believe that super Fermat theories should play a pivotal role
in synthetic supergeometry, but we do not pursue this in this paper. It is worth
mentioning however, that our notion of superization is different from that of Yetter’s [26], as his approach results in a uni-sorted Lawvere theory, and also applies
in a more restrictive context; the superization of the theory of C∞ -rings in Yetter’s
sense embeds diagonally into our 2-sorted superization. Our theory is also quite
different from that of [21] as his theory concerns itself with G∞ -supermanifolds,
whereas our approach is more in tune with supermanifolds in the sense of [17].
1.1. Organization and main results. In Section 2, we begin by reviewing the
concept of a Fermat theory introduced in [13]. We then introduce the concept
of a reduced Fermat theory, which is a Fermat theory that is, in a precise sense, a
“theory of functions.” We go on to show that we can associate to any Fermat theory
a reduced Fermat theory in a functorial way; moreover, for every commutative ring
K there is a maximal reduced Fermat theory with K as the ground ring (for K = R,
we recover the theory C∞ of smooth functions).
Section 3 introduces the main subject of this paper, the concept of a super
Fermat theory. We show that any Fermat theory has associated to it a canonical
super Fermat theory called its superization, and conversely, any super Fermat theory
has an underlying Fermat theory. Moreover, we prove the following:
Theorem 1.1. (Corollary 3.12) The superization functor
S : FTh → SFTh

from Fermat theories to super Fermat theories is left adjoint to the underlying
functor
( )0 : SFTh → FTh.

4

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

We also develop some aspects of supercommutative algebra for algebras over a
super Fermat theory and prove a useful property of morphisms of super Fermat
theories:
Theorem 1.2. 3.32 Let F : S → S′ be a morphism of super Fermat theories. Then
the induced functor
F! : SAlg → S′ Alg
preserves finite products.
In Section 4, we begin the study of near-point determined algebras for a super
Fermat theory. This is a generalization of the notion near-point determined introduced in [20] for finitely generated C ∞ -rings to the setting of not necessarily finitely
generated algebras over any super Fermat theory. We then prove that near-point determined algebras are completely determined by their underlying K-algebra, where
K is the ground ring of the theory:
Theorem 1.3. (Corollary 4.36) If A and B are E-algebras and B is near-point
determined, then any K-algebra morphism ϕ : A → B is a map of E-algebras.
This is a broad generalization of the result proven by Borisov in [6] in the case
of C∞ -rings. Borisov uses topological methods in his proof, tailored specifically
to the case of C∞ -rings. We show that this result holds in a much more general
context, and follows by completely elementary algebraic methods.
We go on to define what it means for a super Fermat theory to be super reduced,
a subtle generalization of the notion of a reduced Fermat theory suitable in the
supergeometric context, and show that any free algebra for a super reduced Fermat
theory is near-point determined. We end this section by investigating to what extent
near-point determined algebras over a super Fermat theory E whose ground ring K
is a field are flat. Near-point determined E-algebras are a reflective subcategory of
E-algebras, and hence have their own tensor product ⊙
◦ (coproduct). In particular,
we prove the following:
Theorem 1.4. (Lemma 4.52 and Lemma 4.54) For any near-point determined
E-algebra A, the endofunctor
A⊙
◦ (

) : EAlgnpd → EAlgnpd

preserves finite products and monomorphisms, where EAlgnpd is the category of
near-point determined E-algebras.
Finally, in the appendices, we give a detailed introduction to algebraic theories
and multi-sorted Lawvere theories, mostly following [3, 5], and introduce many of
the conventions and notations concerning their use in this paper.
Acknowledgement. We would like to thank Mathieu Anel, Christian Blohmann,
Dennis Borisov, Eduardo Dubuc, Wilberd van der Kallen, Anders Kock, Ieke Moerdijk, Justin Noel, Jan Stienstra, and Peter Teichner for useful conversations. The
first author would like to additionally thank the many participants in the “Higher
Differential Geometry” seminar (formerly known as the “Derived Differential Geometry” seminar) at the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics. The second author
was supported by the Dutch Science Foundation “Free Competition” grant. He
would also like to thank the Radboud University of Nijmegen, where part of this
work was carried out, for hospitality.

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

5

2. Fermat Theories.
2.1. Examples of Lawvere Theories. A review of the basics of algebraic theories and multi-sorted Lawvere theories, as well as many notational conventions
concerning them, is given in Appendices A and B.
Before presenting Fermat theories in general, we begin by introducing some
instructive motivating examples:
Example 2.1. Let Com be the opposite category of finitely generated free commutative (unital, associative) rings. Up to isomorphism, its objects are of the form
Z[x1 , · · · , xn ] ∼
= Z[x]⊗n .
Since we are in the opposite category, and the tensor product of commutative rings
is the coproduct, every object of Com is a finite product of the object Z[x]. With
this chosen generator, Com is a Lawvere theory.
It is sometimes useful to take the dual geometric viewpoint. We can consider
the category whose objects are finite dimensional affine spaces AnZ over Z, so their
morphisms are polynomial functions with integer coefficients. This category is
canonically equivalent to Com. Indeed, each affine space AnZ corresponds to the
ring Z[x1 , · · · , xn ], and since Z[x] is the free commutative ring on one generator,
we have the following string of natural isomorphisms:
∼
Hom (AnZ , Am
Z ) =
∼
=
∼
=
∼
=

Z[x1 , · · · , xn ]m

m

Hom (Z[x], Z[x1 , · · · , xn ])


Hom Z[x]⊗m , Z[x1 , · · · , xn ]
Hom (Z[x1 , · · · , xm ], Z[x1 , · · · , xn ]) ,

where Z[x1 , · · · , xn ]m denotes the underlying set of the ring.
Notice that the affine line AZ is a commutative ring object in Com. Indeed, the
polynomial
m (x, y) = x · y ∈ Z[x, y]
is classified by a morphism

which corresponds to a morphism

Z[x] → Z[x, y]
m : A2Z → AZ ,

which is multiplication. Similarly, the polynomial
a (x, y) = x + y
induces a map
a : A2Z → AZ ,

which is addition. Finally, the ring unit

1 ∈ Z[x]
induces a map
u : A0Z → AZ

which is the unit map of this ring object.

6

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Let A be a commutative ring. Then it induces a functor
Ã : Com

→ Set

Z[x1 , · · · , xn ] 7→ Hom (Z[x1 , · · · , xn ], A) ,
which is product preserving, hence a Com-algebra. Moreover, since Z[x] is the free
commutative ring on one generator, the underlying set of Ã is Ã (Z[x]) ∼
= A, the
underlying set of A.
Conversely, suppose that B is a Com-algebra. Then, as it is a finite product
preserving functor, and the diagram expressing that an object in a category is a
ring object only uses finite products, it follows that the data
(B := B (AZ ) , B (m) , B (a) , B (u))
encodes a commutative ring (in Set.) Moreover, it can be checked that if
µ : B ⇒ B′
is a natural transformation between product preserving functors from Com to Set,
that
µ (AZ ) : B → B ′
is a ring homomorphism, and conversely, if
ϕ : A → A′
is a ring homomorphism,
µ (AnZ ) = ϕn : An → A′

n

defines a natural transformation
Ã ⇒ Ã′ .
It follows that the category ComAlg is equivalent to the category of commutative
rings.
Using the notation (B.2), one has that
Com (n) = Z[x1 , · · · , xn ]
and its underlying set is given by
Z[x1 , · · · , xn ] = Com (n, 1) ∼
= Hom (AnZ , AZ ) .
One may succinctly say that Com is the Lawvere theory whose n-ary operations
are labeled by the elements of Z[x1 , . . . , xn ], and its algebras are commutative rings.
Notice that for a given commutative ring A, congruences of A are in bijection
with ideals. Indeed, given an ideal I, it defines a subring R (I) of A × A whose
elements are pairs (a, a′ ) such that
a − a′ ∈ I.
Conversely, given a congruence R ֌ A × A, the subset
I := {a ∈ A | (a, 0) ∈ R.} ,
is an ideal of A.

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

7

Example 2.2. Let K be a commutative ring. Then one may consider ComK to
be the opposite category of finitely generated free K-algebras. Up to isomorphism,
its objects are of the form
∼ K[x]⊗nK .
K[x1 , · · · , xn ] =
Since we are in the opposite category, tensoring over K corresponds to taking the
product, and this category is a Lawvere theory with generator
K[x] ∼
= K ⊗Z Z[x].

We see that this Lawvere theory is a particular instance of Remark B.16. Algebras
for this Lawvere theory are precisely K-algebras, and congruences are again ideals.
One may also view the category ComK as the category of finite dimensional affine
planes AnK over K.
Example 2.3. When K = R, one may view the category ComR as the category
whose objects are manifolds of the form Rn and whose morphisms are polynomial
functions. From the geometric view point, it is natural to ask what happens if one
allows arbitrary smooth functions instead. The resulting category, which is a full
subcategory of the category of smooth manifolds Mfd, is a Lawvere theory with
generator R. We denote this Lawvere theory by C∞ . It is the motivating example
for this paper. It may be described succinctly by saying its n-ary operations are
labeled by elements of
C∞ (n, m) = C ∞ (Rn , Rm ).
Notice that, there is a canonically induced functor
ComR → C∞
sending each manifold to itself, and each polynomial to itself viewed as a smooth
function. This is a map of Lawvere theories, so there is an induced adjunction
ComR Alg

o

(d)
(

)♯

/ C∞ Alg,

where, for a C∞ -algebra A, A♯ is its underlying R-algebra, and if R is an R-algebra,
b is its C ∞ -completion. In particular,
R
R[x1\
, · · · , xn ] ∼
= C∞ (Rn ) .

The functor ( )♯ is faithful and conservative, therefore one may regard a C∞ algebra as an R-algebra with extra structure. This extra structure is encoded by a
whole slew of n-ary operations, one for each smooth function
f : Rn → R,
subject to natural compatibility. For example, if M is a smooth manifold, then it
induces a product preserving functor
C∞ (M ) : C∞
Rn

→ Set

7→ Hom (M, Rn ) .

C∞ (M ) is a C∞ -algebra whose underlying R-algebra is the ordinary ring of smooth
functions C ∞ (M ) . Given a smooth function
f : Rn → R,

8

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

it induces an n-ary operation
n

C∞ (M ) (f ) : C∞ (M ) → C∞ (M ) ,
defined by
C∞ (M ) (f ) (ϕ1 , · · · , ϕn ) (x) = f (ϕ1 (x) , · · · , ϕn (x)) .

C∞ -algebras come with their own notion of tensor product (coproduct), and we
denote the C∞ -tensor product of A and B by A ∞ B. Unlike for the ordinary tensor
product of R-algebras, one has for (Hausdorff, second countable) smooth manifolds
M and N, the equality [20]:
C∞ (M ) ∞ C∞ (N ) ∼
= C∞ (M × N ) .
Hence, they are ideally suited for the theory of manifolds. At the same time, the
theory C∞ -algebras closely resembles the theory of commutative rings, as it enjoys
a very nice property, namely the Fermat property, which is the subject of the next
subsection.
2.2. Fermat theories. A Fermat theory is an extension E of Com that has an
intrinsic notion of derivative obeying the expected rules (the chain rule, the Taylor
formula, etc.). Standard notions of differential calculus, such as derivations and
differentials, can be defined for E-algebras. The notion of Fermat theory was introduced and studied by Dubuc and Kock in [13]. In what follows, we recall some
key definitions and results from that paper.
2.2.1. The Fermat Property. Let E be extension of Com, that is a Lawvere theory
E with a map of Lawvere theories τE : Com → E, i.e. an object of the undercategory Com/LTh. The structure map τE induces an adjunction
ComAlg o

∗
τE

τ!E

/ EAlg .

Observe first that K = E(0), being the free E-algebra on the empty set, has an
underlying ring structure. Categorically, E(0) is a finite product preserving Setvalued functor, and composition with τE induces a Com-algebra
τE

E(0)

Com −−−−−−−→ E −−−−−−−→ Set.

This Com-algebra is just τE∗ (E(0)) , and since the underlying set of an algebra for
a Lawvere theory is determined by its value as a functor on the generator, and τE
preserves generators, τE∗ (E(0)) has the same underlying set as E(0). Now that this
is clear, we will abuse notation and denote τE∗ (A) , for an E-algebra A, simply by
A. On one hand, since E(0) is the initial E-algebra, there is a unique E-algebra
map from K to E(n) for each n. In particular, it is a map of rings. On the other
hand, the unit of the adjunction τ!E ⊣ τE∗ is map of rings
Com(n) → E(n).
Hence, we have a map of rings
K[x1 , . . . , xn ] = ComK (n) = K ⊗Z Com(n) → E(n).
Since this is obviously compatible with compositions, we deduce that the structure
map τE : Com → E factors through ComK . So every E-algebra has an underlying

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

9

commutative K-algebra structure. Let us denote the corresponding forgetful functor
by
( )♯ : EAlg −→ ComAlgK

and its left adjoint – the E-algebra completion – by

(d) : ComAlgK −→ EAlg.

We shall refer to K as the ground ring of the theory E.
Remark 2.4. The name completion should be taken with a grain of salt. For example, the theory of C∞ -algebras is an extension of Com with ground ring R.
Consider C as an R-algebra. We can present it as

C = R[x]/ x2 + 1 .
It follows that the C∞ -completion of C is


b = C∞ (R) / x2 + 1 ,
C

b = {0}, the
however the function x2 + 1 is a unit in C∞ (R) , so we have that C
terminal algebra.

Notation. Denote by ⊙ the binary coproduct in EAlg. Denote the free E-algebra on
generators x1 , . . . , xn by K{x1 , . . . , xn } (or KE {x1 , . . . , xn } when there are several
theories around and we need to be clear which one we mean). It is synonymous
with E(n), but with the generators named explicitly. If A ∈ EAlg, let
A{x1 , . . . , xn } = A ⊙ K{x1 , . . . , xn }.
It solves the problem of universally adjoining variables to an E-algebra.
Remark 2.5. The E-algebra completion of K[x1 , . . . , xn ] is K{x1 , . . . , xn }.
Definition 2.6. [13] An extension E of Com is called a Fermat theory if for
every f ∈ K{x, z1 , . . . , zn } there exists a unique ∆f
∆x ∈ K{x, y, z1 , . . . , zn }, called
the difference quotient, such that
∆f
(x, y, z)
∆x
where z = (z1 , . . . , zn ). A Fermat theory over Q is a Fermat theory whose structure
map factors through ComQ .
Let FTh (resp. FTh/Q , FThK ) denote the full subcategory of Com/LTh (resp.
ComQ /LTh, ComK /LTh) consisting of the Fermat theories (resp. Fermat theories
over Q, Fermat theories with ground ring K).
(2.1)

f (x, z) − f (y, z) = (x − y) ·

For the rest of this subsection, let E denote a Fermat theory with ground ring
K.
Note. The ground ring of a Fermat theory over Q always contains Q but is generally different from it, so the categories FThQ and FTh/Q are different.
An immediate consequence of the Fermat property is the following:
Proposition 2.7. [13] For any f ∈ K{x1 , . . . , xn }, there exist
gi ∈ K{x1 , . . . , xn , y1 , . . . , yn },

10

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

i = 1, . . . , n, such that
(2.2)

f (x1 , . . . , xn ) − f (y1 , . . . , yn ) =

n
X
i=1

(xi − yi ) · gi (x1 , . . . , xn , y1 , . . . , yn ) .

The following corollary is the cornerstone of the theory of Fermat theories:
Corollary 2.8. [13] Let A be an E-algebra, I ⊂ A an ideal in the underlying ring.
Then the induced equivalence relation on A (a ∼ b modulo I iff a − b ∈ I) is an
E-congruence. Consequently, there is a unique E-algebra structure on A/I making
the projection A → A/I a map of E-algebras.
Proof. It suffices to show that if I is an ideal of A, and
a1 , . . . , an
and
b1 , . . . , bn
are in A such that for each i,
then for each f ∈ E (n, 1) ,

ai − bi ∈ I,

A (f ) (a1 , . . . , an ) − A (f ) (b1 , . . . , bn ) ∈ I.
There exists a unique morphism
ϕ : K{x1 , . . . , xn , y1 , . . . , yn } → A
sending each xi to ai and each yi to bi . Note that by 2.7 there exists
g1 , . . . , gn ∈ K{x1 , . . . , xn , y1 , . . . , yn }

such that (2.2) holds. Notice for any g ∈ K{x1 , . . . , xn , y1 , . . . , yn },
ϕ (g) = A (g) (ϕ (x1 ) , . . . , ϕ (xn ) , ϕ (y1 ) , . . . , ϕ (yn )) .
It follows that
A (f ) (a1 , . . . , an )−A (f ) (b1 , . . . , bn ) =

n
X
i=1

(ai − bi )·A (gi ) (a1 , . . . , an , b1 , . . . , bn ) ∈ I.


2.2.2. Derivatives. Suppose we are given an f ∈ K{x1 , . . . , xn }. Fix an i ∈ {1, . . . , n},
let x = xi and consider f as an element of R{x} with R = K{x1 , . . . , x̂i , . . . , xn }
(the hat indicates omission). By the Fermat property (2.1), there is a unique
∆f
∆x ∈ R{x, y} such that
∆f
(x, y).
∆x
Define the partial derivative of f with respect to xi to be
f (x) − f (y) = (x − y) ·

∆f
∂f
=
(x, x) ∈ R{x} = K{x1 , . . . , xn }.
i
∂x
∆x
When n = 1, we shall also write f ′ (x) for ∂f /∂x1 .
∂i f =

As expected, the partial derivatives satisfy the chain rule:

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

11

Proposition 2.9. [13] Let ϕ ∈ E(k, 1), f = (f 1 , . . . , f k ) ∈ E(n, k). Then for all
i = 1, . . . , n we have
k
X
(∂i f j )(∂j ϕ ◦ f ).
∂i (ϕ ◦ f ) =
j=1

Here the partial derivatives can be interpreted as operators
∂i : E(n) −→ E(n)
on the E-algebra E(n), satisfying a “derivation rule” for every k-ary E-operation
ϕ on E(n) [13]. In particular, letting ϕ be addition (resp. the multiplication) we
get the familiar K-linearity (resp. Leibniz rule).
Remark 2.10. We have slightly abused notation since the partial derivative operators ∂i are not morphisms of E-algebras.
Proposition 2.11. (Clairaut’s theorem). The partial derivatives commute:
∂i ∂j = ∂j ∂i

∀i, j.

Proof. We shall give the proof in the two-variable case only; the general case is
proven in exactly the same way. Let f = f (x, y) ∈ E(2, 1). We obviously have
(f (x, y) − f (z, y)) − (f (x, w) − f (z, w)) = (f (x, y) − f (x, w)) − (f (z, y) − f (z, w)).
Applying the Fermat property on both sides we get
(x − z)(g(x, z, y) − g(x, z, w)) = (y − w)(h(x, y, w) − h(z, y, w))
for unique difference quotients g and h. Applying the Fermat property again, we
get
(x − z)(y − w)φ(x, z, y, w) = (y − w)(x − z)ψ(x, z, y, w)
for unique difference quotients φ and ψ. By uniqueness, x − z and y − w are not
zero-divisors, hence
φ(x, z, y, w) = ψ(x, z, y, w).

Now, setting x = z and y = w, we obtain the sought after
∂2 ∂1 f (x, y) = ∂1 ∂2 f (x, y).

Corollary 2.12. [13] (The Taylor formula). For any f ∈ K{x1 , . . . , xp , z1 , . . . , zq },
n ≥ 0 and multi-indices α and β, there exist unique hα ∈ K{x1 , . . . , xp , z1 , . . . , zq }
and (not necessarily unique) gβ ∈ K{x1 , . . . , xp , y1 , . . . , yp , z1 , . . . , zq } such that
(2.3)

f (x + y, z) =

n
X

hα (x, z)yα +

|α|=0

Furthermore, if K ⊃ Q, we have
hα (x, z) =
the usual Taylor coefficients.

X

|β|=n+1

∂xα f (x, z)
,
α!

yβ gβ (x, y, z).

12

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

2.2.3. Examples and non-examples.
Example 2.13. The theory Com of commutative algebras is itself a Fermat theory,
with ground ring Z. It is the initial Fermat theory. Similarly, ComK is the initial
Fermat theory over K.
Example 2.14. The theory C∞ of C ∞ -algebras, with C∞ (n, m) = C ∞ (Rn , Rm ),
the set of real smooth functions is a Fermat theory. This is Example 2.3. The
category C ∞ is the full subcategory of smooth manifolds spanned by those of the
form Rn , and the ground ring of this theory is R.
Example 2.15. The theory Cω of real analytic algebras, with
Cω (n, m) = C ω (Rn , Rm ), the set of real analytic functions is a Fermat theory. It
is equivalent to the full subcategory of real analytic manifolds spanned by those of
the form Rn . The ground ring is again R.
Example 2.16. The theory H of complex holomorphic algebras, with H(n, m) =
H(Cn , Cm ), the set of complex holomorphic (entire) functions, is a Fermat theory.
The category is equivalent to the full subcategory of complex manifolds spanned
by those of the form Cn . The ground ring of this theory is C.
Example 2.17. The theory HR of real holomorphic algebras, with HR (n, m) =
H(Rn , Rm ), the set of those entire functions which are invariant under complex
conjugation, is a Fermat theory. The ground ring is R.
Example 2.18. Let K be an integral domain, k its field of fractions. Let the theory
RK consist of global rational functions, i.e. rational functions with coefficients in
K having no poles in k. It is a Fermat theory with ground ring k.
Example 2.19. The theory C∞ C with C∞ C (n, m) = C∞ (Cn , Cm ), the set of
functions which are smooth when viewed as functions from R2n to R2m , is not a
Fermat theory, as the Fermat property for complex-valued functions implies the
Cauchy-Riemann equations. Likewise, the theory Cω C , defined analogously, is not
a Fermat theory.
Example 2.20. The theory Ck of k times continuously differentiable real functions
is not a Fermat theory for any 0 ≤ k < ∞: given an f of class C k , the difference
quotient appearing in (2.1) is only of class C k−1 .
Example 2.21. As shown in [13], if E is a Fermat theory and A is any E-algebra,
the theory EA of E-algebras over A is also Fermat, with A as the ground ring. This
gives many examples of Fermat theories.
We have proper inclusions of Fermat theories
ComR ( HR ( Cω ( C∞ ,

ComR ( ComC ( H

and HR ( H,

making various diagrams commute.
Remark 2.22. As C is neither a C∞ - nor Cω -algebra, and nor is R an H-algebra,
putting superscripts instead of subscripts in our notation for the theories C∞ C ,
Cω C and HR avoids possible confusion. However, notice that C is an HR -algebra,
and HR
C = H.
Example 2.23. Fermat theories have associated geometries. For instance, if X
is a smooth (resp. real analytic, complex) manifold, its structure sheaf OX is

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

13

actually a sheaf of C∞ - (resp. Cω -, H-) algebras. If X is real analytic, XC its
complexification, the Cω -algebra structure on OX does not extend to OXC , but the
underlying HR -structure does extend to an HR
C = H-algebra structure on OXC .
2.2.4. Evaluations at K-points. Let E be an extension of Com. For the initial Ealgebra K, we can think of its E-algebra structure as a collection of evaluation
maps
(2.4)

evn : K{x1 , . . . , xn } −→ Set(Kn , K),

n ≥ 0,

where, for f = f (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ K{x1 , . . . , xn } and p = (p1 , . . . , pn ) ∈ Kn we denote
f (p) = f (p1 , . . . , pn ) = ev(f )(p) = evp (f ) ∈ K.

Notice that ev is in fact a map of E-algebras; in other words,
evp : K{x1 , . . . , xn } → K

is a morphism of E-algebras for each p. Furthermore, Set(Kn , K) has a point-wise
E-algebra structure making evn into a E-algebra map.
The following proposition can be proved in several ways; the short proof below
was suggested by E. Dubuc.
Proposition 2.24. Let E be a Fermat theory, K = E(0). Then, given an arbitrary
E-algebra A, any K-algebra homomorphism φ : A → K is a morphism of E-algebras.
Proof. Let I = Ker φ. On one hand, by Corollary 2.8, there is a unique E-algebra
structure on A/I making the projection π : A → A/I an E-algebra homomorphism.
On the other hand, notice that φ is surjective (since it preserves units), hence it
factors as φ = φ̃◦π, where φ̃ : A/I → K is a K-algebra isomorphism. However, since
K is initial both as a K-algebra and as a E-algebra, the E-algebra structure on K is
uniquely determined by its K-algebra structure; therefore, φ̃ is also an isomorphism
of E-algebras. It follows immediately that φ is an E-algebra homomorphism.

Corollary 2.25. Any K-algebra homomorphism
P : K{x1 , . . . , xn } −→ K

is of the form evp for some p ∈ Kn .

Proof. P is in fact an E-algebra homomorphism by Proposition 2.24. The conclusion follows by observing that K{x1 , . . . , xn } is the free E-algebra on n generators.

2.2.5. Reduced Fermat theories. As the following examples show, the evaluation
maps (2.4) need not be injective.
Example 2.26. Let E = ComK , where K is a finite ring, with elements labeled
k1 , . . . , kN . Then the polynomial
p(x) = (x − k1 ) · · · (x − kN )

evaluates to 0 on every k ∈ K, and yet is itself non-zero (being a monic polynomial
of degree N ).
It is easy to see that this phenomenon cannot occur for ComK with K containing
Q. However, the next example illustrates that it can occur even for theories over
Q.

14

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Example 2.27. Consider the C∞ -algebra K = C ∞ (R)0 of germs of smooth functions of one variable. It can be presented as the quotient of C ∞ (R) by the ideal mg0
consisting of those smooth functions f (x) which vanish on some neighborhood of 0.
Let E = C∞ K . It follows (cf. [20], p. 49) that K{y} is the quotient of C ∞ (R2 ) by
the ideal mtub
x=0 consisting of those functions f (x, y) which vanish on some tubular
neighborhood of the y-axis (i.e. a set of the form (−ǫ, ǫ) × R for some ǫ > 0). If g
is the germ at the origin of some function g(x) and [f ] is the class modulo mtub
x=0 of
some function f (x, y), then evg ([f ]) is the germ of f (x, g(x)) at the origin.
Now, let f (x, y) be a smooth function whose vanishing set contains some neighborhood of the y-axis but does not contain any tubular neighborhood. Then the
class [f ] ∈ K{y} is non-zero, and yet evg ([f ]) = 0 for all g.
Definition 2.28. A Fermat theory E is called reduced if all the evaluation maps
(2.4) are injective.
Thus, reduced theories are “theories of differentiable functions” in the sense that
n-ary operations are labeled by functions from Kn to K. For instance, ComK is
reduced for K ⊃ Q, as are the theories C∞ , Cω , H and HR . Non-reduced theories,
such as the ones in Examples 2.26 and 2.27, can be viewed as pathological in some
sense. We are now going to describe a functorial procedure of turning any Fermat
theory into a reduced one.
Definition 2.29. Given a Fermat theory E, define Ered by setting
Ered (n, 1) = Im evn = E(n, 1)/ Ker(evn ).
Remark 2.30. As a category, one can describe Ered as the opposite category of the
full subcategory of EAlg on algebras of the form E (n) /Ker(evn ). As a consequence, one has that the free Ered -algebra on n-generators is E (n) /Ker(evn ).
Proposition 2.31. If E is a Fermat theory, Ered is a reduced Fermat theory.
Moreover, the assignment E 7→ Ered is functorial and is left adjoint to the inclusion
FThred ֒→ FTh

of the full subcategory of reduced Fermat theories. The same holds with FTh replaced with FTh/Q or FThK
Proof. First, Ered is in fact a theory since ev = {evn }n∈N is a map of algebraic
theories from E to EndK (see Example B.18), and Ered = Im(ev), as in Remark
B.17; obviously, Ered is reduced.
To see that Ered remains a Fermat theory observe that, in the Fermat property
n+2
(2.1) for E, if f ∈ Ker(evn+1 ), then ∆f
), and vice versa.
∆x ∈ Ker(ev
The functoriality and adjointness are clear (the latter follows immediately from
the presentation Ered = E/ Ker(ev)).
Finally, the last statement is simply the observation that reduction does not
change the ground ring.

Example 2.32. If E is as in Example 2.27, its reduction Ered can be described as
follows. Let R{x, y1 , . . . , yn } = C ∞ (Rn+1 ), the free C∞ -algebra on n + 1 generag
tors. Then E(n) = R{x, y1 , . . . , yn }/mtub
x=0 while Ered (n) = R{x, y1 , . . . , yn }/mx=0 ,
tub
where mx=0 is the ideal of functions vanishing in some tubular neighborhood of
the hyperplane x = 0, while mgx=0 consists of functions vanishing in some (not
g
g
necessarily tubular) neighborhood of x = 0. Clearly, mtub
x=0 ( mx=0 ; in fact, mx=0

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

15

∞
is the germ-determined closure of mtub
x=0 , hence, viewed as C -algebras, Ered (n) is
the germ-determined quotient of E(n). Specifically, Ered (n) consists of germs of
smooth functions on Rn+1 at the hyperplane x = 0. In fact, the free Ered -algebras
Ered (n) are formed by adjoining variables to K = C ∞ (R)0 using the coproduct in
the category of germ-determined C∞ -algebras. We refer to [20] for the appropriate
definitions and discussion.

Let us conclude this section by constructing, for any ring K, the maximal reduced
Fermat theory F(K) with K as the ground ring. Indeed, the K-algebra structure
on K amounts to a map of Lawvere theories ComK → EndK , and any reduced
Fermat theory with ground ring K is a subtheory of EndK , as we have seen. F(K)
will be the maximal Fermat subtheory of EndK . More precisely, we have
Definition 2.33. Let f : Kn → K be a function. Given a k = 1, . . . , n, we say that
∆f
n+1
f is differentiable in the kth variable if there is a unique function ∆x
→K
k : K
such that
∆f
f (. . . , x, . . .) − f (. . . , y, . . .) = (x − y) ·
(. . . , x, y, . . .).
∆xk
This gk is then called the difference quotient of f with respect to the kth variable.
Say that f is differentiable if it is differentiable in all the variables. Given N > 1, say
that f is N times differentiable if f is differentiable and all its difference quotients
are N − 1 times differentiable. Finally, say that f is smooth if it is N times
differentiable for all N .
Proposition-Definition 2.34. Let F(K)(n, 1) consist of all smooth functions
f : Kn → K.
Then F is the maximal reduced Fermat theory with ground ring K.
Proof. To see that F(K) is a subtheory of EndK , just observe that the superposition
of smooth functions is again smooth (the chain rule!). By construction, F(K) is
a reduced Fermat theory with ground ring K and for any other Fermat theory E
with ground ring K, the structure map E → EndK for the E-algebra structure on
K factors through F(K).

Example 2.35. F(R) = C∞ , while F(C) = H. We do not know what F(Q) is but
it certainly contains RQ (= RZ ).
2.3. Nilpotent extensions.
Definition 2.36. Let K be a commutative ring, A a K-algebra. An extension of
A (over K) is a surjective K-algebra homomorphism π : A′ → A. A split extension
of A (over K) is an extension π : A′ → A together with a section (splitting) ι of
π which is also a K-algebra homomorphism. Such a split extension is called a split
nilpotent extension if additionally, the kernel Ker (π) is a nilpotent ideal.
Remark 2.37. Warning: This notion of extension should not be confused with the
notion of extension used in Galois theory!
Remark 2.38. Notice that any K-algebra map
A→K

16

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

is automatically surjective and split in a canonical way; a section is provided by
the unique K-algebra homomorphism
K → A.
Definition 2.39. A Weil K-algebra is a nilpotent extension of K (over K) which is
finitely generated as a K-module. A formal Weil K-algebra is a nilpotent extension
of K (over K).
Remark 2.40. When K is a field, any formal Weil K-algebra A′ has an underlying
K-algebra of the form K ⊕ m, with m an nilpotent maximal ideal. Moreover, from
the direct sum decomposition, every element of A′ can be expressed uniquely as
a = k + m with k ∈ K and m nilpotent. If k 6= 0, a is a unit. If k = 0, a is nilpotent.
Hence, A′ is a local K-algebra with the maximal ideal m, and residue field K.
Remark 2.41. By Nakayama’s lemma, if K is a field, it follows that A is a Weil
K-algebra if and only if there exists a surjection
π:A→K

whose kernel is a finitely generated K-module.

Let E be a Fermat theory with ground ring K.
Proposition 2.42. Let A ∈ EAlg, and
A′ e

π
ι

/

A♯

be any split nilpotent extension of A♯ in ComAlgK . Then there is a unique Ealgebra structure on A′ , consistent with its commutative algebra structure and making both the projection
π : A′ → A
and the splitting ι : A → A′ into E-algebra maps. Furthermore, for any E-algebra
B, we have
(1) Any K-algebra map Ψ : A′ → B such that the precomposition
ψ =Ψ◦ι:A→B

is a map of E-algebras, is a map of E-algebras;
(2) Any K-algebra map Φ : B → A′ such that the composition φ = π◦Φ : B → A
is a split map of E-algebras, with splitting σ : A → B such that
is a map of E-algebras.

Φ ◦ σ = ι,

Proof. Any element of A′ can be written uniquely as a sum a′ = ι(a) + ã with
a ∈ A and ã ∈ N = Ker π. Let n be the nilpotence degree of N (so N n+1 = 0).
The Taylor expansion (Corollary 2.12) now provides a unique evaluation of any
operation in E on any tuple of elements of A′ . More precisely, let f ∈ E(k, 1) and
a′1 = ι(a1 ) + ã1 , . . . , a′k = ι(ak ) + ãk ∈ A′ .

Use the Taylor formula (2.3) to write
n
X
hα (x)yα +
f (x + y) =
|α|=0

X

|β|=n+1

yβ gβ (x, y),

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

and define
f (a′1 , . . . , a′k ) = f (a′ ) =

n
X

17

ι(hα (a))ãα .

|α|=0

Since the Taylor expansion is compatible with compositions (the generalized chain
rule), this defines an E-algebra structure on A′ . It is clearly compatible with its
K-algebra structure and makes both ι and π into E-algebra homomorphisms.
Now let us prove the properties (1) and (2) of this structure. For (1), observe
first that the direct image ideal Ψ∗ (N ) is also nilpotent of degree n. Using our
assumptions, we have
n
n
X
X
ψ(hα (a))Ψ(ã)α
ι(hα (a))ãα ) =
Ψ(f (a′1 , . . . , a′k )) = Ψ(
|α|=0

|α|=0

=

n
X

hα (ψ(a))Ψ(ã)α = f (ψ(a) + Ψ(ã))

|α|=0

=

f (Ψ(a′1 ), . . . , Ψ(a′k )).

To prove (2), let b ∈ B and decompose

g = ιφ(b) + Φ(b)
g
Φ(b) = ιπΦ(b) + Φ(b)

with

We can also decompose

g = Φ(b) − ιπΦ(b) ∈ N .
Φ(b)
b = σφ(b) + b̃

with
b̃ = b − σφ(b) ∈ Ker φ.
Since Φ is a K-algebra homomorphism, we have
Φ(b) = Φσφ(b) + Φ(b̃) = ιφ(b) + Φ(b̃).
Hence,
g = Φ(b̃) ∈ N .
Φ(b)
Now let f ∈ E(k, 1), b = (b1 , . . . , bk ) ∈ B k . Using Taylor’s formula and our
assumptions, we have
Φ(f (b))

=
=

Φ(f (σφ(b) + b̃))
n
X
hα (σφ(b))b̃α +
Φ(
|α|=0

=

n
X

=

=

X

] +
ιφ(hα (b))Φ(b)

X

|β|=n+1

]
ι(hα (φ(b)))Φ(b)

α

|α|=0

=

Φ(b̃)β Φ(gβ (σφ(b), b̃))

|β|=n+1
α

|α|=0
n
X

b̃β gβ (σφ(b), b̃))

|β|=n+1

Φσφ(hα (b))Φ(b̃)α +

|α|=0
n
X

X

] = f (Φ(b)).
f (ιφ(b) + Φ(b))

β

] Φ(gβ (σφ(b), b̃))
Φ(b)

18

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG


This has the following important consequences:
Corollary 2.43. Let W be a formal Weil K-algebra. Then there is a unique Ealgebra structure on W consistent with its K-algebra structure. Furthermore, it has
the following properties:
(1) Given an arbitrary E-algebra A, any K-algebra homomorphism A → W or
W → A is an E-algebra homomorphism;
(2) The algebraic tensor product A ⊗ W (over K) coincides with the coproduct
A ⊙ W of E-algebras;
(3) The tensor product of finitely many formal Weil K-algebras is again a
formal Weil K-algebra. Similarly, the tensor product of finitely many Weil
algebras is again a Weil algebra.
Proof. To see that W supports a unique E-algebra structure making any K-algebra
map to or from W a homomorphism of E-algebras, we invoke Propositions 2.42 and
2.24.
To see that A ⊗ W is the coproduct in E, observe first that since A ⊗ ( ) is a
functor, A ⊗ W is a split extension of A. Moreover, its kernel may naturally be
identified with A⊗ N = (iW )∗ (N ) , where N is the kernel of the extension W → K,
and
iW : W → A ⊗ W
is the canonical map. It follows that this kernel has nilpotency degree equal to that
of N , so that
A⊗W →A

is a split nilpotent extension. Hence A ⊗ W supports a unique E-algebra structure
making the canonical inclusions from A and W into E-algebra homomorphisms.
Now, suppose we are given an E-algebra B and maps of E-algebras f : A → B and
g : W → B. Then we get a unique K-algebra map f ⊗ g : A ⊗ W → B extending f
and g. But then f ⊗ g is an E-algebra map by Proposition 2.42.
For (3), notice that if
π /
W∼
K
= K d⊕ m
σ

and
W′ ∼
= K d ⊕ m′

π′

/

K

σ′

are nilpotent extensions, then
W ′ ⊗ Wh

π ′′ :=π ′ ◦(idW ′ ⊗π)

/

K

σ′′ :=(idW ′ ⊗σ)◦σ′

is a split extension of K with
Ker (π ′′ ) ∼
= m ⊕ m′ ⊕ (m ⊗ m′ ) ,

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

19

which is finitely generated as a K-module if both m and m′ are. This implies (3)
holds for Weil algebras. For the case of general nilpotent extensions, note that if
i′W : W ′ ֒→ W ′ ⊗ W
and
iW : W ֒→ W ′ ⊗ W,

are the canonical maps, then Ker (π ′′ ) = (i′W )∗ (m′ ) + (iW )∗ (m) . If m is nilpotent
of degree m and m′ is nilpotent of degree n and, then it follows that Ker (π ′′ ) is
nilpotent of degree m + n − 1.

Corollary 2.44. For any formal Weil K-algebra W, the co-unit
is an isomorphism.

c♯ → W
W

Proof. This follows immediately from (1) of 2.43.



3. Super Fermat Theories
3.1. Superalgebras and superizations.
Definition 3.1. Let K be a commutative ring. A supercommutative superalgebra
over K (or supercommutative algebra) is a Z2 -graded associative unital K-algebra
A = {A0 , A1 }
such that A0 is commutative and for every a ∈ A1 ,
a2 = 0.

We say that a is of (Grassman) parity ǫ if a ∈ Aǫ ; we say it is even (resp. odd )
if ǫ = 0 (resp. ǫ = 1). Supercommutative superalgebras over K form a category,
denoted by SComK Alg, whose morphisms are parity-preserving K-algebra homomorphisms.
Remark 3.2. The definition implies that
a1 a2 = (−1)ǫ1 ǫ2 a2 a1
whenever ai ∈ Aǫi , i = 1, 2, justifying the term “supercommutative”; if
converse also holds.

1
2

∈ K, the

Remark 3.3. In our formulation, there is no such thing as elements of mixed parities
in a super commutative algebra A, as A lacks an underlying set. Instead, it has an
underlying Z2 -graded set, that is a set of two sets {A0 , A1 }. Consequently, if a ∈ A0
and b ∈ A1 , the expression a + b has no meaning. The advantage of this treatment
is that it behaves nicely with respect to the fact that supercommutative algebras
are algebras for a 2-sorted Lawvere theory. This viewpoint is not essential, as the
category of super commutative algebras as defined in Definition 3.1 is canonically
equivalent to the category non-commutative K-algebras A together with a grading
A = A0 ⊕ A1 , making A supercommutative, where the morphisms are algebra
morphisms respecting the grading. If one would like, one may work entirely within
the framework of uni-sorted Lawvere theories as in [26], but this makes things
unnecessarily complicated and yields less flexibility.

20

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

There is a forgetful functor
u∗ : SComK Alg −→ Set{0,1}

to the category of Z2 -graded sets, whose left adjoint u! assigns to a pair of sets
P = (P0 |P1 ) the free supercommutative superalgebra on the set P0 of even and the
set P1 of odd generators.
Definition 3.4. Given a K-algebra R, the Grassmann (or exterior) R-algebra on
n generators is the free supercommutative R-superalgebra on n odd generators. In
other words, it is generated as an R-algebra by odd elements ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n subject to
relations
ξ i ξ j + ξ j ξ i = 0.
Denote this algebra by ΛnR (or simply Λn if R = K).
Remark 3.5. (ΛnR )0 is a Weil R-algebra.
It is easy to see that the free supercommutative K-superalgebra on m even and
n odd generators is nothing but ΛnR with R = K[x1 , . . . , xm ]. Denote this algebra
by
K[x1 , . . . , xm ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n ].
Supercommutative superalgebras over K are algebras over a 2-sorted Lawvere theory SComK , which we now describe. As a category, SComK is equivalent to the
opposite of the category of finitely generated supercommutative K-superalgebras:
SComK (m|n) = K[x1 , . . . , xm ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n ].
It is generated by the set {0, 1} of Grassmann parities; the product of m copies of
0 and n copies of 1 will be denoted by (m|n). The morphisms are
SComK ((m|n), (p|q)) = SComK (m|n)p0 × SComK (m|n)q1 ,
and the composition is defined by substitution. Notice that the ground ring of
SComK is SCom(0|0) = K.
Observe that ComK sits inside SComK as the full subcategory of “purely even”
objects of the form (m|0), m ∈ N. Clearly, the embedding
ι : ComK −→ SComK ,

m 7→ (m|0),

is a morphism of algebraic theories, hence induces an adjunction
ComK Alg o

ι∗
ι!

/ SComK Alg ,

such that ι∗ A = A0 , while ι! A = {A, 0} (the superalgebra with even part equal to
A and trivial odd part).
We now observe that the 2-sorted Lawvere theory SComK satisfies a natural
generalization of the Fermat property:
Suppose that f is an element of K[x, z 1 , . . . , z m ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n ]. Then f can be expressed uniquely in the form
X
f Iξ I ,
f (x, z, ξ) =
I⊂{1,...,n}

where if I = {i1 , . . . ik } ,

ξ I = ξ i1 . . . ξ ik ,

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

21

with each f I in K[x, z 1 , . . . , z m ]. (If f is even, f I = 0 for all I with odd cardinality,
and vice-versa for f odd.) By the Fermat property for ComK , for each

there is a unique

I

∆f
∆x

I ⊂ {1, . . . , n} ,
(x, y, z) ∈ K[x, y, z 1 , . . . , z m ], such that

∆f I
(x, y, z) .
∆x

f I (x, z) − f I (y, z) = (x − y) ·
Let
∆f
(x, y, z, ξ) :=
∆x

X

I⊂{1,...,n}

∆f I
(x, y, z) ξ I ∈ K[x, y, z 1 , . . . , z m ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n ].
∆x

Then we have that
f (x, z, ξ) − f (y, z, ξ) = (x − y) ·

(3.1)

∆f
(x, y, z, ξ) .
∆x

Moreover, it is not hard to see that ∆f
∆x (x, y, z, ξ) is unique with this property.
Suppose now that the role of x and y are played by odd generators. That is,
suppose f ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xm ; η, ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n ]. Then since η 2 = 0, f can be uniquely
expressed in the form


X
X
g Iξ I  ,
hIξ I + η · 
f (x, η, ξ) =
I⊂{1,...,n}

I⊂{1,...,n}

I

I

1

m

with h and g in K[x , . . . , x ]. Let

h (x, ξ) :=

X

hIξ I

X

g Iξ I .

I⊂{1,...,n}

and
g (x, ξ) :=

I⊂{1,...,n}

Then we have

f (x, η, ξ) = h (x, ξ) + η · g (x, ξ) .

Notice that h is the value of f at η = 0 while g is the (left) partial derivative
f with respect to η. Furthermore, we have the following:
(3.2)

∂f
∂η

of

f (x, η, ξ) − f (x, θ, ξ) = (η − θ) · g (x, ξ) .

Regarding g (x, ξ) as g (x, η, θ, ξ) ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xm ; η, θ, ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n ], we have that
(3.3)

f (x, η, ξ) − f (x, θ, ξ) = (η − θ) · g (x, η, θ, ξ) .

Note however that g (x, η, θ, ξ) is not unique with this property; one could also use
g (x, ξ) + (η − θ) · p (x, ξ)

for any p. However, by differentiating (3.3) with respect to η and θ, one sees
immediately that there is a unique such g (x, η, θ, ξ) such that
∂g
∂g
=
= 0,
∂η
∂θ
in other words there exists a unique g which is only a function of x and ξ.
This motivates the following definitions:

22

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Definition 3.6. Let
τS : SCom → S

be an extension of SCom as a 2-sorted Lawvere theory, where implicitly
SCom = SComZ .
Without loss of generality, assume the objects are given by pairs (m|n) with m
and n non-negative integers, such that τS is the identity on objects when SCom is
equipped with the usual sorting. Denote by
S (0|0) =: K
the initial S-algebra. The free S-algebra S (m|n) is called the free S-algebra on m
even and n odd generators, and is denoted by
K{x1 , . . . xm ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n }.
Definition 3.7. An extension S of SCom is called a super Fermat theory if for
every
f ∈ K{x, z1 , . . . , zn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n }
there exists a unique

∆f
∆x

∈ K{x, y, z1 , . . . , zn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n } such that

∆f
(x, y, z, ξ),
∆x
and for every ϕ ∈ K{x1 , . . . , xm ; η, ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n } there exists a unique
(3.4)

f (x, z, ξ) − f (y, z, ξ) = (x − y) ·

∆ϕ
∈ K{x1 , . . . , xm ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n }
∆η

such that
(3.5)

ϕ (x, η, ξ) − ϕ (x, θ, ξ) = (η − θ) ·

∆ϕ
(x, ξ) .
∆η

Denote by SFTh the full subcategory of 2-sorted Lawvere theories under SCom
consisting of those which are super Fermat theories.
Proposition-Definition 3.8. Let E be a Fermat theory with ground ring K. There
exists an algebraic theory SE, the superization of E, with the set {0, 1} of Grassmann parities as sorts, and with operations given by
SE((m|n), (p|q)) = SE(m|n)p0 × SE(m|n)q1 ,
where
SE(m|n) = E(m) ⊗K Λn .

An E-superalgebra is a SE-algebra.

Proof. The only thing to check is that the composition by substitution is welldefined. To this end we observe that, as Λn0 is a Weil algebra,
SE(m|n)0 = E(m) ⊗ Λn0
has a canonical E-algebra structure by Corollary 2.43. Now let
X
f = f (x1 , . . . , xp ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ q ) =
fi1 ...ik (x1 , . . . , xp )ξ i1 · · · ξ ik
k≥0
i1 <···<ik

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

23

be an element of SE(p|q) (with fi1 ...ik ∈ E(p) = K{x1 , . . . , xp }).
Let g 1 , . . . , g p ∈ SE(m|n)0 , and γ 1 , . . . , γ q ∈ SE(m|n)1 . It follows that
X
f (g 1 , . . . , g p ; γ 1 , . . . , γ q ) =
fi1 ...ik (g 1 , . . . , g p )γ i1 · · · γ ik
k≥0
i1 <···<ik

is a well-defined element of SE(m|n), of the same parity as f .

Notation. Let
K{x1 , . . . , xm ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n }
denote the free SE-algebra on m even generators x1 , . . . , xn and n odd generators
ξ1, . . . , ξn.
Proposition 3.9. If E is a Fermat theory, its superization SE is a super Fermat
theory.
Proof. The proof is nearly identical to the proof of the super Fermat property for
SComK , so we leave it to the reader.

Example 3.10. Let E = C∞ (Example 2.14). Its superization is the theory SC∞
of C∞ -superalgebras. The free C∞ -superalgebra R{x1 , . . . , xm ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ n } on m
even and n odd generators is known as the Berezin algebra. It is often denoted by
C ∞ (Rm|n ) and thought of as the superalgebra of smooth functions on the (m|n)dimensional Euclidean supermanifold Rm|n . Thus, SC∞ is the category of real
finite-dimensional Euclidean supermanifolds and parity-preserving smooth maps
between them.
Suppose that M is a smooth supermanifold. It induces a functor
C ∞ (M) : SC∞

Rm|n

→

7→

Set



Hom M, Rm|n ,

which preserves finite products. This SC∞ -algebra is the C∞ -superalgebra of
smooth functions on M. By construction, its even elements correspond to smooth
functions into R in the traditional sense:
M → R = R1|0 ,

whereas its odd elements correspond to smooth functions into the odd line:
M → R0|1 .

The underlying supercommutative R-algebra of C ∞ (M) is the global sections of its
structure sheaf. More generally, the structure sheaf of any smooth supermanifold
M is in fact canonically a sheaf of C∞ -superalgebras.
We will now give a more categorical description of superization. Let S be any
2-sorted Lawvere theory. Denote by S0 the full subcategory on the objects of the
form (n|0) . Notice that S0 is generated under finite products by (1|0) , so S0 is a
Lawvere theory. As the notation suggests, the free S0 -algebra on n generators has
underlying set
HomS0 (n, 1) =
∼
=

HomS ((n|0) , (1|0))
S ((n|0))0 .

24

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

This produces a functor
( )0 : LTh{0,1} → LTh
from 2-sorted Lawvere theories to Lawvere theories. By abuse of notation there is
an induced functor
( )0 : SCom/LTh{0,1} → Com/LTh.
Notice that if S is a super Fermat theory, then (3.4) implies that S0 is a Fermat
theory. Hence there is furthermore an induced functor
(

)0 : SFTh → FTh

from super Fermat theories to Fermat theories.
On one hand, the superization of ComK is obviously SComK so we have a map
of theories SComK → SE induced by the structure map ComK → E. On the
other hand, we also have a fully faithful embedding E → SE sending m to (m|0).
The diagram
/E
(3.6)
ComK

/ SE


SComK

commutes. Therefore, we have a map of theories
a
φ : C = SComK
E −→ SE
ComK

Proposition 3.11. The map φ is an isomorphism.
Proof. Suppose that T is an algebraic theory fitting into a commutative diagram
of morphisms of theories
/E
ComK
θ


SComK

ϕ


/ T.

Denote by (N |M ) the image ϕ (n|m) in T. (Since θ and ϕ do not necessarily preserve
generators, these need not be unique objects.) The functor θ induces a map of Ealgebras
E (n) → θ∗ T (N |0) ,
∗
where θ T (N |0) denotes the underlying E-algebra corresponding to (N |0) under
the identification of Top with finitely generated T-algebras. With similar notational
conventions, ϕ induces a map of supercommutative algebras
SComK (0|m) = Λm → ϕ∗ T (0|M ) .

Since there are canonical T-algebra maps from T (N |0) and T (0|M ) to T (N |M ) ,
there is an induced map of supercommutative algebras
E (n) ⊗ Λm → T (N |M )♯ .

These algebra maps assemble into a finite product preserving functor SE → T
making the diagram commute. It is easy to see that this functor is unique with this
property.

As a corollary, we get a categorical description of superization:

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

25

Corollary 3.12. The functor
S : FTh → SFTh

is left adjoint to

)0 : SFTh → FTh.

(

Remark 3.13. For any super Fermat theory F, the obvious diagram
/ F0
ComK

SComK


/F

commutes, and the induced map SF0 → F is the co-unit of the adjunction. The unit
of S ⊣ ( )0 is always an isomorphism. Hence FTh is a coreflective subcategory of
SFTh. In particular, S is full and faithful.
Corollary 3.14. An E-superalgebra is a superalgebra with an additional E-algebra
structure on its even part; a morphism of E-superalgebras is a morphism of superalgebras whose even component is a morphism of E-algebras.
Remark 3.15. For any extension E of Com (not necessarily Fermat), we could
simply define SE to be the pushout C (3.6). However, this notion would not be
very useful since one would generally have too few interesting examples of SEalgebras unless E was Fermat. For instance, if E = Ck for some k < ∞ (Example
2.20), even the Grassmann algebras Λn are not E-superalgebras for n sufficiently
larger than k.
One can draw the same conclusions from this “super” Fermat property as we
did from the Fermat property (2.1). For instance, we have
Theorem 3.16. Let S be a super Fermat theory, A ∈ SAlg, I = {I0 , I1 } a homogeneous ideal. Then I induces an S-congruence on A, so that the superalgebra A/I
is canonically an S-algebra and the projection A → A/I is an S-algebra map.
Remark 3.17. The ground ring K = S(0|0) of a super Fermat theory S is generally
a superalgebra, whereas for S = SE it is an algebra (i.e. has trivial odd part).
This indicates that not all super Fermat theories arise as superizations of Fermat
theories.
Example 3.18. Let A ∈ SEAlg. Then the theory SEA of A-algebras enjoys the
super Fermat property. If A has trivial odd part, SEA = S(EA ); otherwise, SEA
is not the superization of any Fermat theory.
Lastly, we comment on two ways of turning a superalgebra into an algebra. We
already mentioned the inclusion of theories
ι : E −→ SE,

inducing the adjunction (ι∗ ⊢ ι! ):

EAlg o

ι∗
ι!

m 7→ (m|0)
/ SEAlg ,

with ι∗ taking an E-superalgebra A to its even part A0 , while ι! takes an E-algebra
B to the E-superalgebra {B, 0}.

26

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Now, observe that the inclusion ι has a right adjoint
π : SE → E,

defined on objects by π(m|n) = m for all n, and on morphisms by setting all the odd
generators to 0. Since π is a right adjoint, it preserves products and is, therefore,
a morphism of algebraic theories (though not of Lawvere theories, as it fails to
preserve generators). Hence it induces an adjunction π ∗ ⊢ π! :
SEAlg o

π∗
π!

/ EAlg

Moreover, π ∗ and ι! are naturally isomorphic (Remark A.38), so the inclusion ι! of
algebras into superalgebras has also a left adjoint, π! , sending a superalgebra A to
the algebra Ard = A/(A1 ) = A0 /(A1 )2 . Here, (A1 ) denotes the homogeneous ideal
generated by A1 , namely, (A1 )1 = A1 , (A1 )0 = A21 .
Observe that Ard is generally different from Ared obtained by setting all the
nilpotents to 0, since A0 may contain nilpotent elements which are not products
of odd elements. Moreover, although each element in A1 is nilpotent, the ideal A1
is not, unless A is finitely generated as an A0 -algebra: otherwise, one can have
non-vanishing products of arbitrarily many different odd elements.
3.2. Nilpotent Extensions of Superalgebras. The concepts of split nilpotent
extensions, and of Weil algebras, generalize readily to the setting of supercommutative algebras:
Definition 3.19. Let K be a supercommutative ring, A a K-algebra. A split
nilpotent extension of A is a K-algebra A′ together with a surjective K-algebra
homomorphism π : A′ → A such that N = Ker π is a nilpotent ideal, and a section
(splitting) σ of π which is also a K-algebra homomorphism.
A (super) Weil K-algebra is an extension of K which is finitely generated as a
K-module.
Remark 3.20. When K is a purely even algebra (for instance, a field), the phrase
“Weil K-algebra” is ambiguous as it could either mean a Weil algebra when viewing
K as a commutative algebra, a Weil algebra viewing K as a supercommutative
algebra. We shall always mean the latter, and if we need to distinguish, we will call
the former a purely even Weil K-algebra. In this context, by Nakayama’s lemma,
any Weil algebra is a split nilpotent extension, but the converse is false.
Remark 3.21. When K is a field, any nilpotent extension A′ of K has an underlying
K-algebra of the form K ⊕ m, with m an nilpotent maximal ideal, and A′ is a local
K-algebra with unique maximal ideal m, and residue field K. Moreover, m must
contain A1 , since K is purely even.
Let E be a super Fermat theory with ground ring K. Proposition 2.42, and its
proof readily generalizes to the supercommutative case:

Proposition 3.22. Let A ∈ EAlg, π : A′ → A♯ any split nilpotent extension of
A♯ in SComAlgK . Then there is a unique E-algebra structure on A′ , consistent
with its supercommutative algebra structure and making both the projection
π : A′ → A

and the splitting σ : A → A′ into E-algebra maps. Furthermore, for any E-algebra
B, we have

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

27

(1) Any K-algebra map Ψ : A′ → B such that the precomposition
ψ =Ψ◦ι:A→B

is a map of E-algebras, is a map of E-algebras;
(2) Any K-algebra map Φ : B → A′ such that the composition φ = π◦Φ : B → A
is a split map of E-algebras, with splitting σ : A → B such that
is a map of E-algebras.

Φ ◦ σ = ι,

Corollary 3.23. Let W be a split nilpotent extension of K in SComAlgK . Then
there is a unique E-algebra structure on W consistent with its super K-algebra
structure. Furthermore, it has the following properties:
(1) Given an arbitrary E-algebra A, any super K-algebra homomorphism A →
W or W → A is an E-algebra homomorphism;
(2) The algebraic tensor product A ⊗ W (over K) coincides with the coproduct
A ⊙ W of E-algebras;
(3) The tensor product of finitely many (super) Weil algebras is again a Weil
algebra.
Corollary 3.24. For any formal Weil K-algebra W, the co-unit
c♯ → W
W

is an isomorphism.

Remark 3.25. Proposition 3.22, Corollary 3.23, and Corollary 3.24 (as well as
Proposition 2.42, Corollary 2.43, and Corollary 2.44) remain valid for a larger class
of examples. One can define a locally nilpotent extension in the same way as a
nilpotent extension, with the role of nilpotent ideals generalized to locally nilpotent ideals. Recall that an ideal I is locally nilpotent if every finitely generated
subideal of I is nilpotent. This is equivalent to asking for each element of the ideal
I to be nilpotent. The reason for this is that the operations of E are finitary;
therefore, to evaluate an operation on a finite tuple of elements, we need only use
the Taylor expansion up to the nilpotence order of the subideal generated by their
nilpotent parts, rather than of the whole ideal, which may be infinite.
An important example of a locally nilpotent but not globally nilpotent extension
is an infinitely generated Grassmann algebra.
3.3. Some constructions.
3.3.1. Ideals. Recall that, given a supercommutative superalgebra A and
Q homogeneous ideals
I
,
.
.
.
,
I
of
A,
we
can
form
their
sum
Σ
I
,
product
1
r
k
k
k Ik and
T
intersection k Ik , which are again ideals of A. Two ideals I, J ⊂ A are called
coprime if I + J = (1).
The following is a standard fact from commutative algebra (see [4], the proof
given there carries over verbatim to the super case).
Proposition 3.26. Let Ak = A/Ik , k = 1, . . . , r, let φk : A → Ak be the canonical
projections and let
Y
φ = (φ1 , . . . , φr ) : A −→
Ak .
k

(1) If the ideals I1 , . . . , Ir are mutually coprime, then

Q

k Ik

=

T

k Ik ;

28

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

(2) The homomorphism φTis surjective iff the Ik ’s are mutually coprime;
(3) In any case, Ker φ = k Ik .

Let φ : A → B is a homomorphism of superalgebras and I ⊂ A is a (homogeneous) ideal, we can form its direct image φ∗ I ⊂ B as the ideal (φ(I)) generated by
the image of I under φ. It consists of finite sums of homogeneous elements of the
form bφ(a) with b ∈ B, a ∈ I (in other words,
φ∗ I = B ⊗A I
as a B-module).
Proposition 3.27.
(1) φ∗ preserves arbitrary sums and finite products of ideals;
(2) if I, J ⊂ A are coprime, so are φ∗ I and φ∗ J.
Proof. Left to the reader.



Now let S be a super Fermat theory with ground ring K. Recall that Scongruences on S-algebras are the same thing as homogeneous ideals in the underlying superalgebras. Let A ∈ SAlg and let P = (P0 |P1 ), where P0 ⊂ A0 , P1 ⊂ A1
are subsets; let (P ) denote the homogeneous ideal generated by P . Observe that
the quotient A/(P ) is the coequalizer of the pair of maps
S(P ) ⇒ A,
where the top map sends each generator xp to the corresponding element p ∈ A,
while the bottom one sends each xp to 0. The following is then immediate:
Proposition 3.28. Let F : S → S′ be a map of super Fermat theories,
SAlg o

F∗
F!

/ S′ Alg

the corresponding adjunction, A ∈ SAlg, I ⊂ A a homogeneous ideal. Then
F! (A/I) = F! A/u∗ I,
where
u : A −→ F ∗ F! A

is the unit of the adjunction.

3.3.2. Completions, coproducts and change of base. Applying the above proposition
to the special case of the structure map SComK → S we get:
Corollary 3.29. Let A ∈ SComK Alg, I ⊂ A a homogeneous ideal, Â ∈ SAlg
the S-algebra completion of A. Then
d = Â/I,
ˆ
A/I

where Iˆ = u∗ I for u : A → (Â)♯ the unit of the adjunction.
Let now B ∈ SAlg. The map u : K → B induces a map of theories S → SB ; the
corresponding adjunction takes the form
SAlg

o

(

)◦u

B⊙K (

)

/ SB Alg = B/SAlg

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

29

where the right adjoint is simply precomposition with u, i.e. it is the functor
assigning the underlying S-algebra, while the left adjoint is the change of base.
Notice that the unit of the adjunction is the canonical inclusion into the coproduct:
ι : A −→ B ⊙ A.
Corollary 3.30. If A ∈ SAlg, I ⊂ A a homogeneous ideal, then
B ⊙ (A/I) = (B ⊙ A)/ι∗ I

Corollary 3.31. Let Ai ∈ SAlg, Ii ⊂ Ai homogeneous ideals, i = 1, 2. Then
(A1 /I1 ) ⊙ (A2 /I2 ) = (A1 ⊙ A2 )/(ι1,∗ I1 + ι2,∗ I2 ),

where ιi : Ai → A1 ⊙ A2 are the canonical inclusions. In particular, if
Ai = S(Pi )/Ii ,

are presentations, then
A1 ⊙ A2 = S(P1 ∐ P2 )/(ι1,∗ I1 + ι2,∗ I2 ).
3.3.3. Products. As is the case for all algebraic theories, products of S-algebras are
computed “pointwise”, i.e. on underlying sets. What is quite remarkable is that,
in sharp contrast with general algebraic theories, finite products are preserved by
the left adjoints of algebraic morphisms between categories of algebras over (super)
Fermat theories.
Theorem 3.32. Let F : S → S′ be a morphism of super Fermat theories. Then
F! : SAlg → S′ Alg preserves finite products.
Proof. Let A1 , . . . , Ar be S-algebras, and
Y
A=
Ak
k

their product. Pick any presentation of A, i.e. a pair of sets P = (P0 , P1 ) and a
surjective homomorphism
φ : S(P ) −→ A.
Composing with the canonical projections, we get surjective homomorphisms
φk : S(P ) −→ Ak ,

so that

k = 1, . . . , r,

φ = (φ1 , . . . , φr ).
Let Ik = Ker φk for each k, and I = Ker φ, so that
Ak = S(P )/Ik

and A = S(P )/I.

Since φ is surjective, the Ik ’s are mutually coprime by Proposition 3.26. Therefore,
\
Y
I=
Ik =
Ik .
k

k

Now apply F! . We have

F! Ak = S′ (P )/u∗ Ik
by Proposition 3.28, and the ideals u∗ Ik are mutually coprime by Proposition 3.27.
Therefore, the map
Y
ψ = (F! φ1 , . . . , F! φr ) : S′ (P ) −→
F! Ak
k

30

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

is surjective by Proposition 3.26 and its kernel is
\
Y
Y
Ker ψ =
u∗ Ik =
u∗ Ik = u∗ ( Ik ) = u∗ I
k

k

k

by Propositions 3.26 and 3.27. Therefore,
Y
Y
F! Ak = S′ (P )/u∗ I = F! A = F! ( Ak )
k

k

and ψ = F! φ.



Corollary 3.33.
(1) For any super Fermat theory S with ground ring K, the
completion functor
(d) : SComK Alg −→ SAlg
preserves finite products;
(2) for any S-algebra B, the change of base functor
B⊙(

preserves finite products.

) : SAlg −→ SB Alg

Remark 3.34. One can easily see by repeating the above arguments (or by restriction) that the results of this subsection remain valid for morphisms of Fermat
theories (not super), and more generally, for morphisms of algebraic theories (over
Com) between Fermat theories and super Fermat theories.
Remark 3.35. In general, for a morphism F : T → T′ of algebraic theories, the
left adjoint F! seldom preserves products. For instance, the free T-algebra functor
Set → TAlg almost never does.
Remark 3.36. Although they preserve finite products, left adjoints of algebraic
morphisms of categories of algebras over (super) Fermat theories generally fail to
preserve other finite limits. For instance, consider the structure map ComR → C∞
and the corresponding C∞ -completion functor
(d) : ComR Alg −→ C∞ Alg.
The equalizer of the shift by 1 map

φ : R[x] −→ R[x],

and the identity is R, while the equalizer of

x 7→ x + 1

φ̂ : R{x} −→ R{x}

and the identity is isomorphic to C ∞ (S 1 ): there are no non-constant periodic
polynomials, but lots of periodic smooth functions.
3.3.4. Localizations. We end this section by giving a brief account of localization
in the context of super Fermat theories. If Σ ⊂ A is any subset of a E-algebra A,
with E
 a (super) Fermat theory, one can form the localization of A with respect to
Σ, A Σ−1 . There is a canonical E-algebra map

l : A → A Σ−1
which satisfies the following universal property:
Given any E-algebra B, any E-algebra map
ϕ:A→B

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

31

which send every element of Σ to a unit extends uniquely to a E-algebra map

A Σ−1 → B.

Even in the case where Σ is multiplicatively closed, the localization of A with respect
to Σ can not usually be computed by the methods
 customary to commutative
algebra. However, the universal properties of A Σ−1 give rise to a canonical
presentation. Let

A {Σ} = A ⊙ K {Σ} = A (xs )s∈Σ ,
where K {Σ} is the free E-algebra on |Σ|-generators (or the free E-algebra on |Σ0 |even generators and |Σ1 |-odd generators, in the super case). Then


A Σ−1 = A (xs )s∈Σ / ((1 − s · xs )) ,
where ((1 − s · xs )) is the ideal generated by all elements of the form 1 − s · xs , for
some s ∈ Σ.

Remark 3.37. Of course, if Σ1 is non-empty, A Σ−1 = {0}.

For certain Fermat theories (besides those of the form ComK ), e.g. the theory
of C∞ -algebras, other descriptions of localizations are possible. For example, if
f ∈ C∞ (Rn ) , and Σ = {f } , then

C∞ (Rn ) f −1 ∼
= C∞ (U ) ,
where

(c.f. [20]).

U = f −1 (R/ {0})

4. Near-point Determined Algebras
In this section, we introduce for a (super) Fermat theory E its subcategory of
near-point determined algebras. We then go on to prove many of their pleasant
properties.
4.1. Radicals. In this subsection, let E be either a Fermat theory or a super
Fermat theory, and let Q be a full subcategory of EAlg.
Definition 4.1. Given an A ∈ EAlg and Q ∈ Q, a Q-point of A is a homomorphism p : A → Q; a Q-point of A is a Q-point for some Q ∈ Q.
Definition 4.2. An ideal P of a E-algebra A is said to be a Q-ideal if P is the
kernel of some Q-point p. Denote the set of Q-ideals by SpecQ (A) . Let I be an
arbitrary ideal of A. Define the Q-radical of I to be the ideal
\
RadQ (I) =
P.
P ⊇I
P ∈SpecQ (A)

We call RadQ (0) the Q-radical of A, and will denote it by RQ (A) .
Remark 4.3. Assume that E = Com. If Q is the subcategory of integral domains,
then a Q-ideal is the same as a prime ideal, so SpecQ (A) is the prime spectrum and
the Q-radical of A is the same thing as the nilradical. When Q is the subcategory
of fields, a Q-ideal is the same thing as a maximal ideal, SpecQ (A) is the maximal
spectrum, and the Q-radical of A is the same thing as the Jacobson radical. Another
example is the W-radical considered in [15], Section III.9, and is closely related to

32

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

the concept of near-point determined algebras discussed in Section 4.2.1 of this
paper.
Proposition 4.4. For any ideal I of a E-algebra A, we have
1) RadQ (I) = πI−1 (RQ (A/I)) , where
πI : A → A/I
is the canonical projection.
2) RadQ (RadQ (I)) = RadQ (I) .
Proof. Condition 1) follows immediately from the lattice theory of ideals. For 2),
observe that for any Q-point p of A, such that Ker (p) ⊇ I, p (a) = 0 for all
a ∈ RadQ (I) , by definition.

Corollary 4.5. For every E-algebra A, RadQ (RQ (A)) = RQ (A) .
Proposition 4.6. For a E-algebra A, the following conditions are equivalent:
1) RQ (A) = 0.
2) There is an embedding
Y
A ֒→
Qα
α

of A into a product of algebras in Q.
3) For any pair of maps f, g : B → A we have

∀Q ∈ Q, ∀ p : A → Q, p ◦ f = p ◦ g =⇒ f = g.

4) For any element a ∈ A, if p (a) = 0 for all Q-points p, then a = 0.
Proof. Suppose 1) holds. Choose for each Q-ideal P a homomorphism A → QP
with QP ∈ Q whose kernel is P, and denote the associated embedding
A/P ֒→ QP

by ϕP . Denote
ϕ :=

Y

Y

ϕP :

P ∈SpecQ (A)

P ∈SpecQ (A)

A/P ֒→

and consider the canonical composite
Y
ϕ
θ
A/P −→
A −→
P ∈SpecQ (A)

Y

P ∈SpecQ (A)

Y

P ∈SpecQ (A)

QP ,

QP .

The kernel of θ is RadQ (A) = 0, hence the composite is an embedding of A into a
product of algebras in Q. 2) =⇒ 3) is obvious. Now, suppose that 3) holds. For
simplicity, we will assume that E is Fermat as opposed to super Fermat, however
the proof for the super case is nearly identical. Suppose that a ∈ A has p (a) = 0
for every Q-point of A. Consider the free E-algebra on one generator, K{x}. There
is a natural bijection
Hom (K{x}, A) ∼
= A,

where A is the underlying set of A. Each object t of A corresponds to a unique
A
A
morphism λA
t : K{x} → A sending x to t. Now, p ◦ λa = p ◦ λ0 , for all p : A → Q,
Q
with Q ∈ Q, since both expressions are equal to λ0 , the morphism
K{x} → S

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

33

A
classifying the element 0 ∈ Q. Assuming 3), it follows that λA
a = λ0 , hence a = 0.
4) =⇒ 1) is obvious.


Definition 4.7. If an E-algebra A satisfies either of the equivalent conditions of
Proposition 4.6, it is said to be Q-point determined. Denote the full subcategory
of Q-point determined algebras by EAlgQdet . An ideal I is said to be Q-point
determined (or Q-radical ) if RadQ (I) = I.
Remark 4.8. If A is Q-point determined, then any sub-E-algebra B of A is also
Q-point determined.
Remark 4.9. Assume that E = Com. If Q is the subcategory of integral domains,
then a commutative ring is Q-point determined if and only if it is reduced. When
Q is the subcategory of fields, a commutative ring is Q-point determined if and
only if it is Jacobson semisimple (a.k.a semiprimitive).
Proposition 4.10. Let A be any E-algebra, and I an ideal. Then A/I is Q-point
determined if and only if I is.
Proof. For any ideal J of A such that J ⊇ I, πI (J) = 0 if and only if J = I, where
πI : A → A/I
is the canonical projection. Hence
RQ (A/I) = πI (RadQ (I)) = 0
if and only if RadQ (I) = I.



Corollary 4.11. For any A, A/RQ (A) is Q-point determined.
Proposition 4.12. Let I be an ideal of A. Then I is Q-point determined if and
only if I is the kernel of a homomorphism f : A → B, with B a Q-point determined
algebra.
Proof. Suppose that I is Q-point determined. Then by Proposition 4.10, A/I is
Q-point determined, and I is the kernel of
A → A/I.
Conversely, suppose that f : A → B and B is Q-point determined. Then A/ Ker (f )
is a sub-E-algebra of B, so is Q-point determined. So by Proposition 4.10, Ker (f )
is Q-point determined.

Proposition 4.13. The assignment A 7→ A/RQ (A) extends to a functor
LQ : EAlg → EAlgQdet
which is left adjoint to the inclusion, with the unit ηA : A → A/RQ (A) given by
the canonical projection.
Proof. If φ : A → B is a map and a ∈ RQ (A), then for every Q ∈ Q and every
g : B → Q we have g(φ(a)) = (g ◦ φ)(a) = 0, so φ(a) ∈ RQ (B), and thus LQ is
indeed a functor. It is left adjoint to the inclusion with the described unit since
any map from an arbitrary A to a Q-point determined B must send the elements
of RQ (A) to 0, hence factors uniquely through ηA .


34

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Remark 4.14. Given a subcategory Q of EAlg, we may consider its saturation Q
with respect to arbitrary products and subobjects, i.e. the smallest subcategory
of EAlg which is closed under arbitrary products and subobjects, which contains
Q. On one hand, by Proposition 4.6, the category of Q-point determined algebras
is contained in Q. On the other hand, by Proposition 4.13 the full subcategory
EAlgQdet is reflective, hence closed under arbitrary limits. In particular, it is
closed under arbitrary products. Moreover, by Remark 4.8, EAlgQdet is closed
under subobjects. Hence, Q is contained in EAlgQdet . Therefore the subcategory
EAlgQdet of EAlg may be identified with the saturation Q. Notice that this notion
of saturation makes sense in a much more general context, even where many of the
various equivalent conditions in Proposition 4.6 do not make sense.
Recall that the radical of an ideal I in a commutative ring A is given by
√
I = {a ∈ A | an ∈ I for some n ∈ Z+ }.

This is the same as RadQ (I) , when Q is the subcategory of ComAlg consisting of
integral domains. An important property of the radical is that for any two ideals I
and J of A,
√
√
√
(4.1)
I ∩ J = I ∩ J.

An analogous equation holds for the Jacobson radical of ideals. A natural question
is, for Q any subcategory of EAlg, when does (4.1) hold? The following proposition
offers a partial answer:
Proposition 4.15. If each Q in Q is an integral domain, then the following equation is satisfied
(4.2)

RadQ (I ∩ J) = RadQ (I) ∩ RadQ (J)

for all A ∈ EAlg and all I and J ideals of A.

Proof. Suppose that each Q in Q is an integral domain. Notice that the inclusion
RadQ (I ∩ J) ⊆ RadQ (I) ∩ RadQ (J)

is always true. It suffices to show the reverse inclusion. Let
p:A→Q

be a Q-point of A, such that p (I ∩ J) = 0. Notice that IJ ⊆ I ∩ J, so

(4.3)

p (ij) = p (i) p (j) = 0

for all i ∈ I and j ∈ J. Suppose that p (I) 6= 0. Then there exists i ∈ I such that
p (i) 6= 0. In this case, equation (4.3) holds in Q, which is an integral domain. It
follows that p (j) = 0, for all j ∈ J, i.e. p (J) = 0. So, for every Q-point p whose
kernel contains I ∩ J, either Ker (p) contains I or it contains J. It follows that
RadQ (I) ∩ RadQ (J) ⊆ RadQ (I ∩ J) .



This last proposition explains why (4.2) is satisfied in the case of prime and
Jacobson radicals. If Q does not consist entirely of integral domains, equation
(4.2) may still be satisfied for coprime ideals, as the following proposition shows:
Proposition 4.16. If every algebra Q in Q is a local E-algebra, then for all Ealgebras A and all coprime ideals I and J of A, equation (4.2) holds.

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

35

Proof. It suffices to show that if p : A → Q is a Q-point of A such that
p (I ∩ J) = 0,
then either p (I) = 0 or p (J) = 0. Since I and J are coprime, there exists ζ ∈ I
and ω ∈ J such that
ζ + ω = 1.

Hence
p (ζ) + p (ω) = 1.
Since Q is local, either p (ζ) or p (ω) is a unit, otherwise they would both be in the
unique maximal ideal m of Q, but this would imply that 1 ∈ m, which is absurd.
Assume without loss of generality that p (ζ) is a unit. Then, for all j ∈ J,
p (ζj) = p (ζ) p (j) = 0,
and since p (ζ) is a unit, this implies p (j) = 0, for all j ∈ J.



Corollary 4.17. If every algebra Q in Q is a local E-algebra, then the reflector
LQ : EAlg → EAlgQdet
preserves finite products.
Proof. The reflector LQ always preserves the terminal algebra. Let A and B be
E-algebras. Consider the composite of surjections
pr1

ηA

A × B −−−−−−−→ A −−−−−−−→ A/RQ (A) ,
and similarly with the role of A and B exchanged. Their kernels are RadQ ({0} × B)
and RadQ (A × {0}) respectively. Notice that these two ideals are coprime since
the former contains (0, 1) and the latter contains (1, 0) . Hence, by Proposition 3.26,
it follows that the induced map
A × B → A/RQ (A) × B/RQ (B)
is surjective, with kernel RadQ ({0} × B) ∩ RadQ (A × {0}) . Since every algebra Q
in Q is a local E-algebra, by Proposition 4.16, this kernel is equal to
RadQ (({0} × B) ∩ (A × {0})) = RadQ (0) = RQ (A × B) .
By the first isomorphism theorem, it follows that
LQ (A × B) = (A × B) /RQ (A × B)
∼
= A/RQ (A) × B/RQ (B)
= LQ (A) × LQ (B) .


Remark 4.18. By the same proof, LQ also preserves finite products if every algebra
Q in Q is an integral domain.

36

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

4.1.1. Relative Reduction. Let E be a super Fermat theory, and let Q be a full
subcategory of EAlg. Denote by
jQ : Q ֒→ EAlg
the full and faithful inclusion. Consider the forgetful functor
UE : EAlg → Set{0,1} .
Denote the composite by
n

The Z2 -graded object KQ , KQ
0

KQ := UE ◦ jQ .
o
of SetQ , may be regarded as a E-algebra in the

1

topos SetQ . For each Q ∈ Q, there is universal map of 2-sorted Lawvere theories
χQ : E → EndUE (Q)

classifying Q. (See Example B.18.) Hence, for all (n|m) and (p|q) , the functor χQ
provides natural maps


p
q
E ((n|m) , (p|q)) → Set Qn0 × Qm
,
Q
×
Q
1
0
1 .

Pick f ∈ E ((n|m) , (p|q)) , then the maps (χQ (f ))Q∈Q assemble into a natural
transformation (i.e. a map in SetQ )
ev (f ) : KQ n × KQ m → KQ p × KQ q .
0

1

0

1

This yields functions
(4.4)



ev(n|m),(p|q) : E ((n|m) , (p|q)) → SetQ KQ n × KQ m , KQ p × KQ q .
0

Note that
and

1


E ((n|m) , (1|0)) ∼
= K x1 , · · · , xn , ξ 1 , · · · , ξ m


E ((n|m) , (0|1)) ∼
= K x1 , · · · , xn , ξ 1 , · · · , ξ m

0

1

0

1

.

Hence, we get even and odd evaluation maps:



(n|m)
: K x1 , · · · , xn , ξ 1 , · · · , ξ m 0 → SetQ KQ n × KQ m , KQ
ev0
0

and

(n|m)

ev1


: K x1 , · · · , xn , ξ 1 , · · · , ξ m

1

1

0



→ SetQ KQ n × KQ m , KQ .
0

1

1

Remark 4.19. If E is a non-super Fermat theory, all of this construction carries
through; however, one only needs to use one sort.
Definition 4.20. The super Fermat theory E is Q-reduced if for all (n|m) the
(n|m)
(n|m)
evaluation maps ev0
and ev1
are injective.
Proposition 4.21. A super Fermat theory E is Q-reduced if and only if each
finitely generated free E-algebra is Q-point determined.

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

37


Proof. Suppose that for some n and m, K x1 , 
· · · , xn , ξ 1 , · · · , ξ m is not Q-point
determined. Then there is a non-zero f ∈ K x1 , · · · , xn , ξ 1 , · · · , ξ m such that
ϕ (f ) = 0 for all

ϕ : K x1 , · · · , xn , ξ 1 , · · · , ξ m → Q,
with Q ∈ Q. So, for all Q-points ϕ, we have




(4.5)
ϕ (f ) = Q (f ) ϕ x1 , · · · , ϕ (xn ) , ϕ ξ 1 , · · · , ϕ (ξ m ) = 0.

Since K x1 , · · · , xn , ξ 1 , · · · , ξ m is free, this implies for all Q and any collection
of even elements of Q and
odd elements,
Hence, for all Q,

a1 , · · · , an

b1 , · · · , bm

Q (f ) ((a1 , · · · , an ) , (b1 , · · · , bm )) = 0.
χQ (f ) = χQ (0) .

In particular, this implies that the evaluation map ev(n|m) of the same parity as f
is not injective.
Conversely, suppose that each finitely generated free E-algebra is Q-point determined. Suppose that f and g are in K x1 , · · · , xn , ξ 1 , · · · , ξ m , have the same
parity, and
ev(n|m) (f ) = ev(n|m) (g) .
By equation (4.5), this implies that for all Q-points ϕ, ϕ (f − g) = 0. By Proposition
4.6, this implies that f = g, so that each evaluation map is injective.

Corollary 4.22. A super Fermat theory E is Q-reduced if and only if each free
E-algebra is Q-point determined.
Proof. If every free E-algebra is Q-point determined, then E is Q-reduced by Proposition 4.21. Suppose that E is Q-reduced. By the same proposition, every finitely
generated E-algebra is Q-point determined. Let T be some Z2 -graded set and let
E (T) be the free E-algebra on T. Suppose that f and g are two elements thereof
and that for every Q-point
p : E (T) → Q,

p (f ) = p (g) . Since E (T) is a filtered colimit of finitely generated free algebras,
there exists a finite Z2 -graded subset T0 of T such that f and g are in the image
of
i : E (T0 ) → E (T) .
 
Say i f˜ = f and i (g̃) = g. Let
q : E (T0 ) → Q

be any Q-point. Then q can be extended along i to a Q-point p, for example, by
setting
p (t) = q (t)
for all t ∈ T0 , and by letting p be zero on all other generators. This implies that
 
 
q f˜ = pi f˜ = p (f ) .

38

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

 
Hence q f˜ = q (g̃) for every Q-point q, and hence f˜ = g̃, since E (T0 ) is finitely
generated, and hence Q-point determined. Therefore, f = g, and E (T) is also
Q-point determined.

Remark 4.23. A non-super Fermat theory E is reduced if and only if it is K-reduced,
where K is the full subcategory of E spanned by the initial E-algebra K.
Definition 4.24. Let E be a super Fermat theory, and let Λ denote the subcategory
of E consisting of the Grassman algebras (Definition 3.4.) The super Fermat theory
E is super reduced if it is Λ-reduced.
Proposition 4.25. If E is a reduced Fermat theory, SE is a super reduced super
Fermat theory.
Proof. By Proposition 3.9, SE is a super Fermat theory. It suffices to show that
it is super reduced. By Proposition 4.21, it suffices to show that for all n and m,
E (n) ⊗ Λm is Λ-point determined. Since E is reduced, by Proposition 4.21, each
E (n) is K-point determined, hence by Proposition 4.6, there is an embedding
Y
ψ : E (n) ֒→
K.
α

Consider now the composite

E (n) ⊗ Λ

m

→

Y

K

α

!

⊗ Λm →

Y

Λm .

α

The first morphism is injective since Λm is free, hence flat as a K-module. The
second is always injective. Hence, we have an embedding of E (n) ⊗ Λm into a copy

of algebras in Λ, so by Proposition 4.6, we are done.
Define a 2-sorted Lawvere theory EndKQ by setting


EndKQ ((n|m) , (p|q)) = SetQ KQ n × KQ m , KQ p × KQ q .
0

1

0

1

Notice that (4.4) yields a canonical map of theories evQ : E → EndKQ . It is easy to
see that E is Q-reduced if and only if this map is faithful. Moreover, the Z2 -graded
set



n

o

SetQ KQ n × KQ m , KQ := SetQ KQ n × KQ m , KQ , SetQ KQ n × KQ m , KQ
0

1

0

1

0

0

(n|m)
ev0

has the point-wise structure of an E-algebra, and the morphisms
and
define an E-algebra map



(n|m)
: K x1 , · · · , xn , ξ 1 , · · · , ξ m → SetQ KQ n × KQ m , KQ .
evQ
0

1

(n|m)
ev1

1

Definition 4.26. Given a super Fermat theory E, we define its Q-reduction EQred
to be the image of evQ . Explicitly, the finitely generated EQred -algebra on the sort
(n|m) is given by




(n|m)
(n|m)
.
= E (n|m) / Ker evQ
EQred (n|m) = Im evQ
Remark 4.27. By the proof of Proposition 4.21 one sees that


(n|m)
Ker evQ
= RQ (E (n|m)) ,

so that EQred (n|m) = LQ (E (n|m)) .

1

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

39

The proof of Proposition 2.31 readily generalizes:
Proposition 4.28. If E is a super Fermat theory, EQred is a Q-reduced super
Fermat theory. Moreover, the assignment E 7→ EQred is functorial and is left
adjoint to the inclusion
SFThQred ֒→ SFTh
of the full subcategory of Q-reduced super Fermat theories. In particular, super
reduced super Fermat theories are a reflective subcategory of super Fermat theories.
4.2. Near-point determined superalgebras.
4.2.1. Near-point determined superalgebras.
Definition 4.29. Let N denote the class of formal Weil K-algebras. An E-algebra
which is N-point determined is said to be near-point determined. Denote the associated subcategory by EAlgnpd .
Remark 4.30. If one replaces the role of nilpotent extensions with that of locally
nilpotent extensions, (as in Remark 3.25), one arrives at an equivalent definition of
near-point determined. The reason is that if
A→K

is a locally nilpotent extension with kernel N, the natural map
∞
Y
A→
A/N n+1
n=0

is an embedding into a product of formal Weil algebras, hence A is near-point
determined.

Remark 4.31. In light of Remark 2.40, from Corollary 4.17 it follows that, if K is
a field, each formal Weil K-algebra is local, so the reflector
preserves finite products.

LN : EAlg → EAlgnpd

Proposition 4.32. If E is a super reduced super Fermat theory, then each free
E-algebra is near-point determined.
Proof. Since Λ ⊂ N, the result follows from Corollary 4.22.



We will now give an alternate characterization of what it means to be near-point
determined. First, we will make some basic observations. Suppose that
p:A→K

is a K-point of an E-algebra A, where K is the ground ring. Let M denote the
kernel of p. For any k ≥ 0, there is a canonical factorization
A ◆◆
◆◆◆
◆
π ◆◆&

p

/8 K
qqq
q
q
qqq p̃

A/Mpk+1 .

If π (a1 ) , . . . π (ak+1 ) are arbitrary elements of Ker (p̃) , then each ai ∈ Mp , so
π (a1 ) π (a2 ) · · · π (ak+1 ) = π (a1 a2 · · · ak+1 ) = 0.

40

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

So, Ker (p̃) is nilpotent of degree k and therefore A/Mpk+1 is a formal Weil K-algebra.
We introduce the notation
k+1
A(k)
.
p := A/Mp
(k)

We note that Ap is universal among formal Weil K-algebras of nilpotency degree
k covering the K-point p. I.e., if
ρ:W →K
is a formal Weil K-algebra with Ker (ρ)

k+1

= 0, and

ϕ:A→W
is such that
ρ ◦ ϕ = p,

then there is a unique factorization

ϕ

A

ϕ̃

π



(k)

Ap

④

④
p̃

④

/W
④=
ρ


/ K.

Proposition 4.33. An E-algebra A is near-point determined if and only if the
canonical map
A→

(4.6)

∞
Y Y

p:A→K k=0

A(k)
p

is injective.
(k)

Proof. Since each Ap is a formal Weil K-algebra, if (4.6) is injective, it is an
embedding of A into a product of formal Weil K-algebras, so A is near-point determined. Conversely, suppose that A is near-point determined. Notice that the
kernel of (4.6) is the intersection over all K-points p of A and all k ≥ 1, of Ker(p)k .
Let a be a non-zero element of A. Then there exists a morphism φ : A → W to a
formal Weil K-algebra such that φ (a) 6= 0. The algebra W comes equipped with a
surjection
ρ : W → K.
Let p := ρ ◦ φ and let Mp denote the kernel of p. Notice that
φ (Mp ) ⊂ Ker (ρ) .
Let n be the nilpotency degree of Ker (ρ) . Then there is a unique factorization of
φ of the form
λ

φ̃

A −→ A/Mpn+1 = A(n)
p −→ W.

Since φ (a) 6= 0, λ (a) 6= 0, so a is not in Mpn+1 . Hence, a is not in the kernel of

(4.6). It follows that (4.6) is injective.
Remark 4.34. It follows that a C ∞ -algebra is near-point determined in the sense
of Definition 4.29 if and only if it is near-point determined in the sense of [6].

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

41

Lemma 4.35. Suppose that F : T′ → T is a morphism of S-sorted Lawvere theories. Let D be the full subcategory of T-algebras on those algebras A with the
property that for any T-algebra B, any T′ -algebra morphism
f : F ∗ (B) → F ∗ (A)

is of the form F ∗ (g) for a unique T-algebra morphism
g : B → A.
Then D is closed under subobjects and arbitrary limits in TAlg.
Proof. The fact that D is closed under arbitrary limits is clear by universal properties, since F ∗ is a right adjoint. Suppose that
j : C ֒→ A
is a sub-T-algebra of A, with A ∈ D. We wish to show that C is in D. Let
ϕ : F ∗ (B) → F ∗ (A)

be a T′ -algebra morphism. We wish to show that for all
f ∈ T ((ns ) , (ms )) ,
the following diagram commutes
Q

(4.7)

s

Q

Bsns

B(f )

/

s

s
ϕn
s

s

Q

Bsms
Q
s

Q  ns
Cs

C(f )

s

/

s
ϕm
s

Q  ms
Cs .
s

Notice, however, that the following two diagrams commute since j and F ∗ (j) ◦ f
are T-algebra maps:
Q ns C(f ) / Q ms
Cs
Cs
s

s

Q
s

Q

jsns

s

Q  ns
As


/ Q Ams
s

A(f )

s

Q
s

Q
s

Bsns

s

/ Q Bsms

B(f )

s

Q

s
ϕn
s

s

Q  ns
Cs

s

s

Q

jsns

Q  ns
As
s

s
ϕm
s

Q  ms
Cs

s

Q

jsms

s

A(f )

/

jsms

Q  ms
As .
s

Since j is a monomorphism, this implies that diagram (4.7) commutes, so we are
done.


42

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Corollary 4.36. If A and B are E-algebras and B is near-point determined, then
any K-algebra morphism ϕ : A♯ → B♯ is a map of E-algebras.

Proof. This is true when B is a formal Weil algebra by Corollary 3.23. The result
now follows from Lemma 4.35, since by definition, any near-point determined Ealgebra is a subalgebra of a product of formal Weil algebras.

Remark 4.37. In case that E = C∞ , Corollary 4.36 gives a completely algebraic
proof of [6], Proposition 8. (The proof in [6] uses a topological methods.)
Remark 4.38. The near point determined condition in Corollary 4.36 is necessary.
It was shown in [23], that there is a counterexample in the case of C∞ -algebras. In
slightly more detail, by Borel’s theorem (c.f. [20]), the canonical R-algebra map
T : C∞ (R)0 → R[[x]],

from the algebra of germs of smooth functions at the origin, to the algebra of formal
power series, assigning the germ of a function f its Taylor polynomial, is surjective.
By Corollary 2.8, this endows R[[x]] with the canonical structure of a C∞ -algebra,
making T a C∞ -map. Reichard proves (assuming the axiom of choice) in [23] that
there exists an R-algebra map
φ : R[[x]] → C∞ (R)0

splitting T , which sends x to the germ of the identity function. If φ were a C∞ algebra map, φ ◦ T would be too, and since the latter sends the generator x to
itself, one would have to have that φ ◦ T = idC∞ (R)0 . This is not possible, since the
existence of non-zero flat functions imply T is clearly not an isomorphism.
Suppose that E is super Fermat. Consider the composite of adjunctions
(4.8)

EAlgnpd

o

LN
iN

/ EAlg

o

(d)
(

)♯

/ SComAlgK .

By Corollary 4.36, the composite ( )♯ ◦ iN is full and faithful. Similarly for E
Fermat. Hence we have the following corollary:
Corollary 4.39. Suppose that E is super Fermat. The category EAlgnpd of nearpoint determined E algebras is a reflective subcategory of SComAlgK . In particular,
c♯ .
for each near-point determined E-algebra A, A is isomorphic to LN applied to A
Similarly for E Fermat.
4.2.2. Finitely generated near-point determined superalgebras.

Definition 4.40. Suppose that E is super Fermat. For each k ≥ 0, m, n ≥ 0 the
(n|m)-dimensional k th jet algebra is defined to be the supercommutative K-algebra
k
Jn|m
= K[x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m ]/mk+1
, where m0 = (x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m ). Simi0
larly for E Fermat, one has jet algebras Jnk .
k
Remark 4.41. Clearly, each Jn|m
is a Weil algebra.

Proposition 4.42. Each


k
∼
Jn|m
= K x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m /mk+1
0

as an E-algebra for any super Fermat theory with ground ring K. (And similarly
for Jnk when E is not super.)

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

43


can be
Proof. Notice that by Proposition 3.28, K x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m /mk+1
0
identified with the E-completion of the Weil algebra K[x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m ]/mk+1
,
0

so we are done by Corollary 2.44.
k
Proposition 4.43. Every Weil algebra is a quotient of some Jn|m
.

Proof. Let π : W → K be a Weil K-algebra. As a K-module,
∼ K ⊕ N,
W=

with N finitely generated. Let a1 , . . . , an be generators of N0 and b1 , . . . , bm be
generators of N1 . Then there exists a surjective K-algebra map
φ : K[x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m ] → W

sending each xi to ai and each ξ j to bj . Let k be the nilpotency degree of N =
k
Ker (π). Then I := Ker (φ) ⊇ mk+1
, hence W is a quotient of Jn|m
.

0
Remark 4.44. Both Proposition 4.42 and Proposition 4.43 have non-finitely generated analogues; one may introduce jet algebras with infinitely many generators, and
then Proposition 4.42 holds and Proposition 4.43 holds for formal Weil K-algebras.
The proofs are the same.
Proposition 4.45. If A is a finitely generated E-algebra and p : A → K is a
(k)
K-point of A, then each Ap , is a Weil algebra.
Proof. Since A is finitely generated, there exists a surjection

ϕ : K x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m → A.

If p : A → K is a K-point of A, then by composition there is an induced K-point q
of K x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m . Denote by

u : K x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m → K

the unique K-point sending each of the generators to zero. For every K-point t of
K x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m , consider the automorphism


→ K x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m
θt : K x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m

xi 7→ xi − t xi

ξ j 7→ ξ j − t ξ j ,

with inverse θ−t . Let Mp denote the kernel of p. Notice that the following diagram
commutes

ϕθq
/
K x1 , . . . , xn ; ξ 1 , . . . , ξ m
❧❧ A
❧❧❧
❧
❧
p ❧❧
π
❧❧
u
❧❧❧
❧
❧

 u❧❧❧❧❧
Ko
A/Mpk+1 .
p̃

Hence, the image of each generator under πϕθq is in Ker (p̃) , which has nilpotency
degree k. It follows from Proposition 4.42 that there is a commutative diagram
k
Jn|m
❀❀
❀❀
ũ ❀❀


ϕ̃

K

/ A/Mpk+1
⑥⑥
⑥⑥
⑥
⑥
~ ⑥ p̃
⑥

44

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

k
such that ϕ̃ is surjective. Since Jn|m
is a Weil algebra, Ker (ũ) is finitely generated
as a K-module. Notice that we have a canonical isomorphism of K-modules

Ker (p̃) ∼
= Ker (ũ) / Ker (ϕ̃) ,
(k)

so hence Ker (p̃) is also finitely generated and Ap

is a Weil algebra.



Notation. Let W denote the full subcategory of EAlg spanned by Weil K-algebras
and their homomorphisms.
Corollary 4.46. If A is a finitely generated E-algebra which is near-point determined, it is W-point determined.
Proof. This follows immediately from Proposition 4.33 and Proposition 4.45.



Remark 4.47. From Corollary 4.46, it follows that if A is a finitely generated C ∞ algebra, then it is near-point determined in the sense of Definition 4.29 if and only
if it is near-point determined in the sense of [20].
Remark 4.48. Since W ⊂ N, if A is a W-point determined E-algebra, then it is
also near-point determined. By Corollary 4.46, the converse is true provided that A
is finitely generated. However, the converse is not true in general, as the following
example shows. It was suggested to us by Pierre Lairez:
Let E = ComK , K a field. Let

A := K [u, x1 , x2 , · · · ] / u2 , (xi xj − δij u) |i,j .
Let ū and x̄i denote the images of u and each xi in A, respectively. Consider the
canonical projection to K with kernel
m = (ū, x̄1 , x̄2 , · · · ) .
Notice that m4 = 0, so that A is a nilpotent extension of K.
Suppose that ϕ : A → W is a morphism to a Weil algebra which does not
annihilate ū. The image of ϕ is a subalgebra of a Weil algebra. By [20], Corollary
3.21 b), the image of ϕ is also a Weil algebra. Hence, we may assume without loss
of generality that ϕ is surjective. Hence
A→W →K
(where the latter map is the one defining W as an extension of K) is also surjective,
and its kernel must be m. This means, that A → W → K and π : A → K can only
differ by an automorphism of K- but this automorphism must be an automorphism
of K-algebras, so must be the identity. Hence, we have that the natural diagram
commutes. This implies that Ker(ϕ) = I must be a subideal of m which does not
contain ū, and such that m/I is a finitely generated K-module.
If no finite K-linear combination of x̄1 , x̄2 , . . . is in I, then the images of all the
x̄i in m/I would be linearly independent, so m/I would be infinite dimensional.
Hence, there exists some
∞
X
y=
ai x̄i ∈ I,
i=1

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

45

with all but finitely many ai zero, and at least one ai non-zero. Without loss of
generality, assume that a1 is nonzero. Then
∞
X
ai x̄1 x̄i
x1 y =
i=1

∞
X

=

ai δi1 ū

i=1

a1 ū ∈ I,

=

and hence ū ∈ I, which is a contradiction.

Finally, we note that Weil (super) algebras enjoy the following useful property
([13], remark directly preceding Section 2.)
Proposition 4.49. For any W ∈ W, the functor W ⊙ − : EAlg → EAlg has a
left adjoint, ( )W : EAlg → EAlg. The same holds in ComAlgK . In particular,
W-points of an algebra A are in bijection with K-points of AW . Moreover ([16],
Theorem 9.3.1) if A is free (respectively finitely generated) so is AW .

Remark 4.50. This property corresponds to exponentiability in EAlgop : if A cor-

responds to A, W to W, then AW = A

W

in EAlgop .

4.3. Flatness of near-point determined superalgebras. In this subsection, E
will be a fixed (possibly super) Fermat theory whose ground ring K is a field. We will
investigate the properties of the intrinsic tensor product of near-point determined
E-algebras and derive some important properties of it. These properties seem
to suggest that every near-point determined E-algebra is flat with respect to this
intrinsic tensor product, which we state as a conjecture at the end of this subsection.
Recall that the inclusion
EAlgnpd ֒→ EAlg
admits a left-adjoint LN (Proposition 4.13). In particular, since EAlg is both
complete and cocomplete, EAlgnpd also enjoys both of these properties. However,
as with all reflective subcategories, colimits are computed by first computing the
colimit in the larger category, in this case EAlg, and then applying the reflector LN .
In particular, from this observation, there is an intrinsic notion of tensor product
(i.e. coproduct) of near-point determined E-algebras, which we shall denote by the
binary operation ⊙
◦ , and may not agree a priori with ⊙.
Definition 4.51. A near-point determined E-algebra is flat if the endofunctor
A⊙
◦ (

) : EAlgnpd → EAlgnpd

preserves finite limits (i.e. is left exact.)
Lemma 4.52. For any near-point determined E-algebra A, the endofunctor
A⊙
◦ (

) : EAlgnpd → EAlgnpd

preserves finite products.
Proof. The endofunctor in question factors as
A⊙(

)

(

)◦u

LN

EAlgnpd ֒→ EAlg −−−−−−−→ EA Alg −−−−−−−→ EAlg −−−−−−−→ EAlgnpd .

46

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

By Corollary 3.33, A⊙ ( ) preserves finite products, and by Remark 4.31, LN does
as well. The rest of the functors are right adjoints, so it follows that the composite
preserves finite products.

We have the following generalization of Corollary 2.43:
Proposition 4.53. Let W be a formal Weil K-algebra. Then W viewed as an
E-algebra (as in Corollary 2.43) is near-point determined. Moreover, if A is any
other near-point determined E-algebra, the natural map A♯ ⊗ W → (A ⊙
◦ W)♯ is an
isomorphism. In particular, A ⊗ W is near-point determined as an E-algebra.
Proof. By Proposition 4.6, W is clearly near-point determined. It suffices to show
that A♯ ⊗ W with its canonical structure of an E-algebra is near-point determined.
Let
Y
j : A ֒→
Wα
α

be an embedding into a product of formal Weil algebras, whose existence is ensured
by Proposition 4.6. Then, since K is a field, the tensor product of K-algebras is left
exact (and hence also preserves monomorphisms), and we have an embedding
Y
j ⊗ idW : A ⊗ W ֒→ ( Wα ) ⊗ W.
α

The canonical map

Y
Y
(Wα ⊗ W)
( Wα ) ⊗ W →
α

α

is also a monomorphism, as this is a property of vector spaces over K. By Corollary
2.43, each Wα ⊗ W is a formal Weil algebra. So, A ⊗ W embeds into a product
of formal Weil algebras, and hence is near-point determined, again by Proposition
4.6.

Lemma 4.54. Let A be a near-point determined E-algebra. Then the endofunctor
A⊙
◦ (

preserves monomorphisms.

) : EAlgnpd → EAlgnpd

Proof. Let i : B ֒→ C be a monomorphism of near-point determined E-algebras.
Suppose that
idA ⊙
◦ i:A⊙
◦ B→A⊙
◦C
is not a monomorphism. Then there exists non-zero element k ∈ A ⊙
◦ B in its
kernel. So, there exists a homomorphism φ : A ⊙
◦ B → W to a formal Weil algebra,
such that φ (k) 6= 0. Denote by
iA : A → A ⊙
◦B

the canonical morphism, and similarly for B. Notice that the following diagram
commutes:
φiA ⊙
◦ idB /
=
/ W ⊗B
A⊙
◦B
W⊙
◦B
idA ⊙
◦i


A⊙
◦C

idW
φiA ⊙
◦ idC

⊙
◦i


/W⊙
◦C

idW ⊗i
=


/ W ⊗ C.

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

47

The homomorphism
idW ⊗ i : W ⊗ B → W ⊗ C
is a monomorphism since tensoring with K-algebras preserves monomorphisms,
since K is a field. Notice that φ factors as
idW ⊙
◦ φiA
φiA ⊙
◦ idB
∇
◦ W −−−−−−−→ W,
◦ B −−−−−−−→ W ⊙
A⊙
◦ B −−−−−−−→ W ⊙
hence

(φiA ⊙
◦ idB ) (k) 6= 0.

It follows that
whereas

(idW ⊗ i) (φiA ⊙
◦ idB ) (k) 6= 0,

(φiA ⊙
◦ idC ) (idA ⊙
◦ i) (k) = 0
since k is in the kernel. This is a contradiction.



Note that any left exact functor preserves monomorphisms. In particular, in order for taking the ⊙
◦ -tensor product with a near-point determined E-algebra to be
left exact, it is necessary that it preserve monomorphisms. In fact, for commutative
rings, the converse is true. That is, for R a commutative ring and A an R-algebra,
one has the following result:
A is flat if and only if the endofunctor A ⊗R (
monomorphisms.

) ComR → ComR preserves

(This can be proven by using square-zero extensions to show that if tensoring with
A preserves monomorphisms of R-algebras, it also preserves monomorphisms of
R-modules.) In light of Lemma 4.54, the following conjecture seems plausible:
Conjecture 4.55. Every near-point determined E-algebra is flat.
In light of Lemma 4.52, to show that Conjecture 4.55 is true, it suffices to show
that for any near-point determined E-algebra A, the endofunctor
A⊙
◦ (

) : EAlgnpd → EAlgnpd

preserves pullbacks, or equalizers; either would suffice1. We offer the following
partial result:
Lemma 4.56. Let
P

/C
g



f
/D
B
be a pullback diagram of near-point determined E-algebras, and consider the pullback
diagram
/A⊙
P′
◦C

A⊙
◦B

idA ⊙
◦f

idA ⊙
◦g


/A⊙
◦ D.

1In fact, one would only need to show it preserves coreflexive equalizers.

48

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

The canonical map
A⊙
◦ P → P′

is a monomorphism.

Proof. Consider the canonical monomorphism
P → B × C.
By Lemma 4.54 and Lemma 4.52, the induced morphism
A⊙
◦ P → (A ⊙
◦ B) × (A ⊙
◦ C)
is a monomorphism, and this map factors through A ⊙
◦ P → P ′.



Appendix A. Algebraic theories
In this appendix, we give a rapid introduction to the formalism of abstract
algebraic theories. Nearly all the material may be found in [3] and we claim no
originality for it. This appendix is included merely as a convenience to the reader.
Definition A.1. [5, 3] An (abstract) algebraic theory is a small category T with
finite products.
Remark A.2. Any algebraic theory T has a terminal object; it is the empty product.
We adjoined the parenthetical adjective abstract since we have not provided the
data of a chosen set of generators. Much of the theory of algebraic theories works
well at this level of generality, but for many applications, it is important to consider
the generators as part of the data. This is precisely what one needs to consider
algebras as a (family of) sets with extra structure. We discuss this in Section B.
For now, we will simply give the following definition:
Definition A.3. A set
S ⊂ Ob(T)

of objects of T is said to generate T as an algebraic theory if very object of T is
isomorphic to the product of finitely many objects from S.
Remark A.4. Since any algebraic theory T is small, the set of all objects of T is in
particular (a very redundant) set of generators.
Definition A.5. [5, 3] Given an algebraic theory T, a T-algebra (in Set) is defined
to be a finite product preserving functor
A : T → Set.
T-algebras form a category TAlg, with natural transformations as morphisms;
they span a full subcategory of the functor category SetT . A category C is said to
be algebraic if it is equivalent to TAlg for some algebraic theory.
Remark A.6. A T-algebra
A : T → Set

must send the terminal object in T to the singleton set.

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

49

Remark A.7. Suppose that T has a chosen generating set S. This enables us to
describe an algebra A by a collection of sets
A = {As = A(s)|s ∈ S}
together with finitary operations
A(f ) :

N
Y

i=1

Ansii −→ As ,

s1 , . . . , sN , s ∈ S, ni ∈ N

for each morphism f of T, satisfying coherence conditions following from functoriality and preservation of products. Indeed, since S generates T, then every object
t is of the form
Y
t∼
sns
=
s∈S

for some integers ns ≥ 0, with only finitely many non-zero. It follows that
Y
A (s)ns .
A (t) ∼
=
s∈S

When the set S is a singleton, up to equivalence, we can assume that T has the
non-negative integers as objects, with product given by addition, 0 as the terminal
object, and with 1 as the generator. In this case a T-algebra is the same thing as
a set A = A(1) together with finitary operations A(f ) : An → A corresponding
to the morphisms f ∈ T(n, 1) and satisfying structure equations coming from the
composition of morphisms. In general, we may replace T, up to equivalence, by
a category whose objects are S-indexed families of non-negative integers. We will
discuss this in detail in Section B.
Remark A.8. The Yoneda embedding
YTop : Top −→ SetT
actually factors through TAlg (since representable functors preserve all limits,
hence in particular, finite products) and identifies Top with the full subcategory of
finitely-generated free T-algebras (see Remark B.14).
Remark A.9. Let Z be any set, and let A : T → Set be an algebra for an algebraic
theory T. Notice that the functor
Z

( ) : Set → Set
X

7→ X Z = Hom (Z, X)

is right adjoint to the functor X 7→ X × Z, so preserves all limits. In particular,
the functor
AZ := ( )Z ◦ A : T → Set
is a T-algebra. If k is a generator of T, we have
Z
Z
AZ
k = A (k) = Ak = Hom(Z, Ak ),

with the operations applied “pointwise”.

50

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

A.1. Sifted Colimits.
Definition A.10. A category D is said to be sifted if for every finite set X,
(regarded as a discrete category) and every functor
F : D × X → Set,
the canonical morphism
lim
−→

Y

x∈X

F (d, x)

!

−→

Y

x∈X

limF (d, x)
−→

is an isomorphism. A sifted colimit in C is a colimit of a diagram
F : D → C,
with D a sifted category.
Remark A.11. Sifted colimits commute with finite products in Set (by definition).
Notice the similarity between sifted colimits, and filtered colimits, which commute
with all finite limits in Set. In particular, filtered colimits are a special case of sifted
colimits.
Definition A.12. Let lim (R ⇒ A) be a coequalizer in a category C. It is a
−→
reflexive coequalizer if for all objects C, the induced map
HomC (C, R) → HomC (C, A) × HomC (C, A)
is injective, and hence determines a relation on the set HomC (C, A) , and moreover,
this relation is reflexive.
In Set, one can easily check that reflexive coequalizers commute with finite
products. The following proposition follows:
Proposition A.13. Reflexive coequalizers are sifted colimits.
Proposition A.14. [3] A category C is cocomplete if and only if it has all sifted
colimits, and binary coproducts. Similarly, a functor preserves all small colimits if
and only if it preserves all sifted colimits and binary coproducts.
Proof. The standard proof that all colimits can be constructed out of arbitrary
coproducts and coequalizers only uses reflexive coequalizers. The result now follows
since any coproduct is a filtered colimit of finite coproducts.

The following proposition is standard:
Proposition A.15. [2] A category D is sifted if and only if its diagonal functor is
final.
Corollary A.16. [2] Any category D with finite coproducts is sifted.
Recall that for a small category C, one can construct a category Ind (C) of
Ind-objects of C, that is formal filtered colimits of objects of C. Formally, Ind (C)
is the free cocompletion of C with respect to filtered colimits. One can also do the
analogous thing for sifted colimits:

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

51

Definition A.17. Let C be a small category. We define Sind (C) to be the free
cocompletion of C with respect to sifted colimits. It is a category under C,
YSind : C → Sind (C)
determined uniquely up to equivalence by the property that the functor YSind
satisfies the following universal property:
For all categories B with sifted colimits, composition with YSind induces an
equivalence of categories
∼

Funsift (Sind (C) , B) −−−−−−−→ Fun (C, B) ,
where Funsift (Sind (C) , B) is the full subcategory of the functor category
Fun (Sind (C) , B) spanned by those functors which preserve sifted colimits.
Proposition A.18. [3] For a small category C, Sind (C) may be constructed as
op
the full subcategory of the presheaf category SetC - the free cocompletion of Cspanned by those presheaves which are sifted colimits of representables, and YSind
may be taken as the codomain-restricted Yoneda embedding.
Proposition A.19. The functor
YSind : C → Sind (C)
preserves any finite coproducts that exist in C.
`
Proof. Let C and D be objects of C for which C D exists. By Proposition A.18,
op
we can identify Sind (C) with a subcategory of SetC and YSind with the Yoneda
embedding. Let
X = lim Y (Eγ )
−→
be a sifted colimit. This represents an arbitrary object of Sind (C) . We have the
following chain of natural isomorphisms:
  a 


 a 
∼
Hom Y C
D , lim Y (Eγ )
lim Y (Eγ ) C
D
=
−→
−→
 a

∼
Hom C
D, Eγ
= lim
−→
∼
lim
= −→ (Hom (C, Eγ ) × Hom (D, Eγ ))

 

∼
lim Hom (C, Eγ ) × lim Hom (D, Eγ )
=
−→
−→
∼
Y (Eγ ) (C) × lim Y (Eγ ) (D)
= lim
−→ 
−→


∼
Y (Eγ ) × Hom D, lim Y (Eγ ) .
= Hom C, lim
−→
−→

Corollary A.20. If C has binary coproducts, then Sind (C) is cocomplete.
Proof. By Proposition A.14, it suffices to show that Sind (C) has binary coproducts. However, by Proposition A.19, coproducts of objects in the essential image
of YSind exist in Sind (C). Since every object of Sind (C) is a sifted colimit of
representables, the result follows.


52

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Corollary A.21. If C has binary coproducts, then for any cocomplete category B,
composition with YSind induces an equivalence of categories
∼

Funcocont. (Sind (C) , B) −−−−−−−→ Fun` (C, B) ,
where Funcocont. (Sind (C) , B) is the full subcategory of the functor category
Fun (Sind (C) , B) spanned by those functors which preserve all colimits, and
Fun` (C, B) is the full subcategory of Fun (C, B) spanned by those functor which
preserve binary coproducts.
op

Corollary A.22. If C has binary coproducts, Sind (C) is reflective in SetC .
Proof. It is easily checked that the left Kan extension LanY (YSind ) of YSind along
the Yoneda embedding, which exists by virtue of the cocompleteness of Sind (C),
is a left adjoint to the inclusion
op

Sind (C) ֒→ SetC .

Corollary A.23. If C has binary coproducts, Sind (C) is locally finitely presentable, so in particular is complete and cocomplete. Moreover, limits and sifted
(and hence filtered) colimits are computed pointwise.
Proof. The inclusion
op

Sind (C) ֒→ SetC

preserves sifted colimits by construction, hence in particular, filtered colimits, so is
op
accessible. Since Sind (C) is fully reflective in SetC , it follows from [1], Proposition 1.46, that Sind (C) is locally finitely presentable. The final statement is true
by construction, from Proposition A.18.

Theorem A.24. [3] Let T be an algebraic theory. Then its category of algebras,
TAlg, is equivalent to Sind (Top ) .
Proof. Any representable presheaf is clearly an algebra, and therefore so is any
sifted colimit of representables. Hence every functor
F : T = (Top )

op

→ Set

in
Sind (Top ) ⊆ SetT

is a T-algebra. It suffices to show that if A is a T-algebra, then it is a sifted colimit
of representable presheaves. The functor
A : (Top )
is canonically the colimit of
Z

Top



op

→ Set

op op

A → Set(T

)

= SetT ,


R
where
A is Grothendieck construction of the presheaf A. It therefore sufTop


R
fices to show that
A is sifted. By Corollary A.16, it suffices to show that
Top

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS



R

Top

53

op

op
R
A
has binary products. The objects of
A
can be described as
Top

pairs (t, α) such that t ∈ T and α ∈ A (t) . Arrows
(t, α) → (t′ , α′ )

are morphisms
g : t′ → t

such that

A (g) (α′ ) = α.

It follows that

(t, α) × (t′ , α′ ) = (t × t′ , (α, α′ ) ∈ A (t) × A (t′ ) = A (t × t′ )) .

Corollary A.25. For an algebraic theory T, its category of algebras TAlg is locally
finitely presentable, so in particular is complete and cocomplete. Moreover, limits
and sifted (and hence filtered) colimits are computed pointwise.
A.2. Morphisms of Theories.
Definition A.26. Algebraic theories naturally form a 2-category AT h. A morphism of algebraic theories
T → T′

is a finite product preserving functor. A 2-morphism is simply a natural transformation of functors. We will mostly be concerned only with truncation AT h to a
1-category in this paper, and denote it by ATh.
Remark A.27. Any morphism of algebraic theories must preserve the terminal object, since it is the empty product.
We will now show that any morphism F : T → T′ of algebraic theories induces
an adjunction F! ⊣ F ∗ between the corresponding categories of algebras:
(A.1)

TAlg o

F∗
F!

/ T′ Alg ,

To construct these, observe that the functor F op : Top → T′op induces three adjoint
functors F! ⊣ F ∗ ⊣ F∗
/
T′
SetT o
/ Set .
The adjunction with which we will be concerned is
F! ⊣ F ∗ .

Indeed, F! is given as the left Kan extension LanYTop (YT′op ◦ F op )
(A.2)

′
SetO T ❴ ❴ ❴/ SetO T
F!

YT′op

YTop

?
Top

F

op

?
/ T′op

54

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

of YT′op ◦ F op along the Yoneda embedding YTop : Top ֒→ SetT , so that F! is the
unique colimit preserving functor which agrees with F op along representables. By
′
the Yoneda Lemma, it follows that if X ∈ SetT ,
F ∗ (X) (t) ∼
= Hom (YTop (t) , F ∗ (X))
∼ Hom (F! (YTop (t)) , X)
=
∼
= Hom (YT′op (F (t)) , X)
∼
= (X ◦ F ) (t) ,

so that F ∗ is given simply by precomposition with F. It follows that if X preserves
finite products, so does F ∗ (X). So there is an induced functor
F ∗ : T′ Alg → TAlg.
The functor

′

F ∗ : SetT → SetT

has a right adjoint F∗ , which by the Yoneda Lemma is given by the formula
F∗ (X) (t′ ) = Hom (F ∗ YT′op (t′ ) , X) .
If X happened to be a T-algebra, there is no guarantee that F∗ (X) is a T′ -algebra,
so there is in general no right adjoint to F ∗ at the level of algebras.
Remark A.28. Indeed,
′

F ∗ : SetT → SetT ,

since it is a left adjoint, preserves all colimits, and these colimits are computed
pointwise. It follows that
F ∗ : T′ Alg → TAlg

at least preserves sifted colimits, as these are also computed pointwise. In fact, since
both TAlg and T′ Alg are locally presentable, it follows by the Adjoint Functor
Theorem ([1] Theorem 1.66), that F ∗ has a right adjoint at the level of algebras,
if and only if it preserves all small colimits. Since F ∗ preserves sifted colimits, by
Proposition A.14, it follows that F ∗ has a right adjoint if and only if it preserves
finite coproducts.
Since F! ⊢ F ∗ , by the universal property of left Kan extensions, another characterization of F! is that F! (Z) is itself the left Kan extension of Z along F , that
is
F! = LanF ( ) : Z 7→ LanF (Z) .

Notice that if Z is in fact a T-algebra, then Z is a sifted colimit of representables,
Z∼
Y op (tα ) .
= lim
−→ T
It follows that,


F! (Z) = LanF lim YTop (tα ) ∼
Y ′op (F (tα ))
= lim
−→
−→ T

is a sifted colimit of representables, hence a T′ -algebra. Therefore, F! restricts to
a functor
F! : TAlg → T′ Alg.
In summary:

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

55

From a morphism of theories F : T → T′ ones gets an adjunction
TAlg o

F∗
F!

/ T′ Alg ,

such that F ∗ preserves sifted colimits.
This suggests the following notion of a morphism of algebraic categories:
Definition A.29. An algebraic morphism from one algebraic category C to another
D, is an adjunction
Co

f∗
f!

/D,

such that the right adjoint f ∗ preserves sifted colimits. With this notion of morphism, algebraic categories naturally form a 2-category AlgCat , whose 2-morphisms
between (f ∗ , f! ) and (g ∗ , g! ) are given by natural transformations
α : f ∗ ⇒ g∗.
We similarly denote its 1-truncation by the 1-category AlgCat.
Remark A.30. This definition of morphism is dual to that of [3].
Remark A.31. By [3], Theorem 8.19, a limit preserving functor f : C → D between
algebraic categories preserves sifted colimits if and only if it preserves filtered colimits and regular epimorphisms. Hence, one may equivalently say a morphism of
algebraic theories
F : T → T′

induces an adjunction

TAlg o

F∗
F!

/ T′ Alg ,

such that F ∗ preserves filtered colimits and regular epimorphisms.
Remark A.32. There are some size issues with 2-category AlgCat in Definition
A.29; morphisms may form a proper class. However, there is no cause for concern
as AlgCat is at least essentially small, as guaranteed by the duality theorem [3],
Theorem 8.14. Indeed, AlgCat is equivalent to a full subcategory of AT h.
Remark A.33. The morphisms in AlgCat op may be described as limit preserving
functors which preserve sifted colimits. The existence (and uniqueness) of a left
adjoint follow from the Adjoint Functor Theorem ([1] Theorem 1.66).
Remark A.34. If F : C → D is an essentially surjective functor, then
op

F ∗ : SetD

op

→ SetC

is faithful and conservative. In particular, if
F : T → T′
is an essentially surjective morphism of algebraic theories, then
F ∗ : T′ Alg → TAlg
is faithful and conservative. Moreover, it preserves and reflects all limits and sifted
colimits.

56

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Remark A.35. The construction outlined in the subsection naturally extends to a
2-functor
AT h → AlgCat
which sends a morphism

F : T → T′

to the algebraic morphism (F ∗ , F! ) .

Definition A.36. When F is faithful, one calls T as a sub-theory of T′ ; in this case,
F ∗ (A′ ) can be thought of as the underlying T-algebra of a T′ -algebra A′ , while
F! (A) is the free T′ -algebra generated by a T-algebra A, or its T′ -completion.
Notation. When T is a sub-theory of T′ , we shall often neglect to mention the
inclusion functor and denote the underlying T-algebra functor by ( )♯ and its left
adjoint, the T′ -completion, by (d).

Remark A.37. By general considerations, it follows that if F is full and faithful, so
is F! .
Remark A.38. It may happen that F : T → T′ has a right adjoint G : T′ → T (so
Gop is left adjoint to F op ). Since G is a right adjoint, it automatically preserves
products. Hence G induces an adjunction
(G! ⊣ G∗ )

between the categories of algebras. Notice that for t′ ∈ T′ and t ∈ T,
Hom (t, G∗ YT′op (t′ )) ∼
=
∼
=

∼
=
∼
=

∼
=
∼
=

Hom (G! YTop (t) , YT′op (t′ ))
Hom (YT′op (G (t)) , YT′op (t′ ))
HomT′op (G (t) , t′ )
HomT′ (t′ , G (t))
HomT (F (t′ ) , t)
HomTop (t, F (t′ )) .

Hence
′

G∗ : SetT → SetT

is colimit preserving (since it has a right adjoint G∗ ) and for all t′ ,
G∗ ◦ YT′op (t′ ) = YTop (F (t′ )) .

It follows that G∗ = F! , hence F! acquires a further left adjoint, namely G! . These
then restrict to a triple of adjunctions G! ⊣ F! ⊣ F ∗ :
o
/ T′ Alg .
TAlg o
Appendix B. Multisorted Lawvere Theories
We now go on to describe the extra data needed to attach to an abstract algebraic
theory in order to give a good sense of underlying set (or family of sets) to its
algebras. Again, most of this material can be found in [3], however this appendix
also contains some examples and notation important in this paper.

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

57

Definition B.1. An S-sorted Lawvere theory is an algebraic theory T together
with a injection
ϕT : S ֒→ T0
whose image generates T in the sense of definition A.3. A morphism of S-sorted
Lawvere theories
(T, ϕT ) → (T′ , ϕT′ )
is a (natural equivalence class of a) morphism of algebraic theories
such that for all s ∈ S,

F : T → T′

F (ϕT (s)) = ϕ′T (s) .
We denote the associated category SLTh. When S is a singleton set, we call an
S-sorted Lawvere theory simply a Lawvere theory, and denote the corresponding
category by LTh.
Remark B.2. Up to equivalence, one can regard an S-sorted Lawvere theory as a
category whose objects are S-indexed families of non-negative integers. This allows
us to refer to a theory T without reference to its structural map ϕT .
Remark B.3. One can expand this definition by removing the injectivity of the map
ϕT and nothing is lost. We will refer to such a pair (T, ϕ) with ϕ not necessarily
injective as an S-indexed Lawvere theory.
Remark B.4. Let f : T → T′ be a morphism of S-sorted Lawvere theories. Then,
up to equivalence, f is a bijection on objects.
Remark B.5. If F : T → T′ is a full and faithful morphism of S-sorted Lawvere
theories, then it is an equivalence.
Definition B.6. An algebra for an S-sorted Lawvere theory T is simply an algebra
for its underlying algebraic theory.
Proposition B.7. A morphism F : T → T′ of Lawvere theories induces an adjunction
F∗
/ T′ Alg ,
TAlg o
F!

∗

such that F preserves and reflects all limits and sifted colimits (equivalently all
limits, filtered colimits, and regular epimorphisms).
Proof. This follows from Remark A.34 and Remark B.4. The parenthetical remark
follows from Remark A.31.

Example B.8. [3] Let S be any set viewed as a discrete category. Let TS be the
free completion of S with respect to finite products. Concretely, the objects of TS
are finite families
(si ∈ S)i∈I
and morphisms
(si ∈ S)i∈I → (tj ∈ S)j∈J
are functions of finite sets
f :J →I
such that
sf (j) = tj

58

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

for all j ∈ J. There is a canonical functor

YQ : S → TS ,

sending each element s ∈ S to (s) viewed as a finite family with one element. The
universal property of this functor is that for any category D with finite products,
composition with YQ induces an equivalence of categories
(B.1)

∼

χ : FunQ (TS , D) −→ Fun (S, D) = DS ,

where FunQ (TS , D) is the full subcategory of the functor category on those functors which preserve finite products. It follows that T is an algebraic theory whose
category of algebras is equivalent to SetS . Moreover, the functor YQ gives TS the
canonical structure of an S-sorted Lawvere theory.
Remark B.9. When S is a singleton, TS is equivalent to FinSetop , the opposite
category of finite sets.
By construction, we have the following proposition:
Proposition B.10. The S-sorted Lawvere theory TS is an initial object.
Let (T, ϕT ) be an S-sorted Lawvere theory. From Proposition B.10, we know
that there is a unique morphism of S-sorted Lawvere theories
σT : TS → T.
From Proposition B.7, we have the following Corollary:
Corollary B.11. [3] With
σT : TS → T

as above, the functor

∗

UT := (σT ) : TAlg → SetS

is faithful and conservative. In particular, it preserves and reflects limits, sifted
colimits, monomorphisms, and regular epimorphisms.
Remark B.12. The above Corollary only needs that σT is essentially surjective, so
it holds true for S-indexed Lawvere theories too.
Remark B.13. In particular, for an S-sorted Lawvere theory
σT : TS → T,
the adjunction
SetS
o

(σT )∗
(σT )!

/ TAlg

is monadic.
Remark B.14. The left adjoint
(σT )! : SetS → TAlg

is the functor assigning an S-indexed family of sets G = (Gs )s∈S the free T-algebra
on G, whereas the right adjoint (σT )∗ assigns a T-algebra its underlying S-indexed
set. Explicitly, if
A : T → Set

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

59

is a T-algebra, then the underlying S-indexed set is
(As = A (σT (s))){s∈S} .
The diagram (A.2) becomes in this case
❴ ❴ ❴/ SetT
Set
O
O
u!
YTop

?
TS

op
σT


/ T? op .

It follows that YTop establishes an equivalence of categories between Top and the
full subcategory of TAlg consisting of finitely generated free T-algebras.
Remark B.15. Since every algebra is a sifted colimit of representables, which by
the previous remark are precisely the finitely generated free algebras, by Remark
A.28, it follows that for a map of Lawvere theories
F : T → T′ ,
the functor
F ∗ : T′ Alg → TAlg

has a right a adjoint if and only if for each pair A, B of finitely generated free
T′ -algebras,
 a 
a
B = F ∗ (A)
F ∗ (B) .
F∗ A

Notation. For a Lawvere theory T, denote the free T-algebra on n generators by
T(n). As discussed above, T(n) can be identified with the representable functor
YTop (n) . Since the underlying set is given by evaluation at the generator, 1, it
follows that the underlying set is
(B.2)

YTop (n) (1) = HomTop (1, n) = HomT (n, 1) .

We will use the notation T(n, 1) for this set of morphisms to emphasize that it
encodes the n-ary operations of the theory T. In the S-sorted case, we adopt the
notation T({ns }s∈S ) for the free algebra with ns generators of sort s, for each s ∈ S.
The underlying S-indexed set of such a free algebra is then
(T (ϕT (s)ns , ϕT (s)))s∈S .
Remark B.16. Let T be an S-sorted Lawvere theory. Given an A ∈ TAlg, an
A-algebra is, by definition, an object of the undercategory A/TAlg. Given a
morphism of theories F : T → T′ , for each A ∈ T′ Alg we have an induced
adjunction of undercategories
′

A/T Alg o

F!A
∗
FA

/ F ∗ A/TAlg.

To see this, observe that A-algebras are algebras over the theory TA whose operations are labeled by elements of free finitely generated A-algebras, i.e.
TA ({ns }s∈S ) = A ∐ T({ns }s∈S ).

The above adjunction is induced by the morphism of theories
FA : TF ∗ A −→ T′A .

60

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Notice that there is also canonical morphisms of theories
and

uA : T′ → T′A

uF ∗ A : T → TF ∗ A ,
such that the following diagram commutes:
T

F

/ T′
uA

uF ∗ A


TF ∗ A



FA

/ T′ .
A

It follows that FA∗ maps A → A′ to F ∗ A → F ∗ A′ and that F!A takes any F ∗ Aalgebra of the form
a
F ∗A → F ∗A
B,

for a T-algebra B, to

A→A

a

F! B.

Remark B.17. Let f : T → T′ be a morphism of S-sorted Lawvere theories. The
category Cat of small categories carries a factorization system. Faithful functors
are right orthogonal to functors which are both essentially surjective and full. It
turns out that if f is a morphism of S-sorted Lawvere theories, if
T → C → T′

is the unique factorization by an essentially surjective and full functor, followed by
a faithful one, then C is an S-sorted Lawvere theory, and all the functors are maps
of S-sorted Lawvere theories. In this case, we denote C by Im (f ) , and call it the
image of f.2
We now proceed to construct Im (f ) . We may assume without loss of generality
that f is a bijection on objects. Consider for each pair of objects (x, y) ∈ T0 the
induced function
fx,y : HomT (x, y) → Hom′T (x, y) .
Then one can define a new category Im (f ) with the same objects as T′ but whose
morphisms are given by
Hom (x, y) := Im (fx,y ) ,
the image of the function fx,y . Since f preserves limit diagrams for finite products,
it follows that T′ has finite products and the induced functor
Im (f ) → T′

preserves them. One hence gets a factorization of f
(B.3)

T → Im (f ) → T′

by algebraic functors, each of which is a bijection on objects. In particular, the
structure map for T, σT , gives Im (f ) the canonical structure of a S-sorted Lawvere
theory in such a way that the factorization (B.3) consists of morphisms of S-sorted
2The more traditional notion of image of a functor, uses the factorization system determined
by essentially surjective functors, and full and faithful functors. This factorization is ill suited for
Lawvere theories due to Remark B.5.

ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

61

Lawvere theories. We refer to the theory Im (f ) as the image of f . It is clear that
the induced map
Im (f ) → T′
is faithful. We conclude, that the factorization system determined by essentially
surjective and full functors and faithful ones descends to a factorization system on
SLTh.
Example B.18. Let A be any set. Define the Lawvere theory EndA to be the full
subcategory of Set generated by the finite Cartesian powers of A, i.e.
EndA (n, 1) = Set(An , A).
Picking out A as the generator makes EndA into a Lawvere theory. Notice that
the full and faithful inclusion
EndA ֒→ Set
preserves finite products, so that given a morphism of Lawvere theories
F : T → EndA ,

by composition, one gets an T-algebra in Set. Since F preserves the generator, this
induced T-algebra will have underlying set A. It follows that a T-algebra structure
on A for a Lawvere theory T is the same thing as a morphism of Lawvere theories
F : T → EndA .

In the same way, given an S-indexed family of sets A = (As )s∈S ∈ SetS , one obtains
a S-sorted Lawvere theory EndA , such that for all S-sorted Lawvere theories T,
morphisms of S-sorted Lawvere theories
T → EndA

are in bijection with T-algebras whose underlying S-indexed set is A. Explicitly
EndA is the full subcategory of Set generated by the collection of sets (As ) for
each s; these are also the sorts.
B.1. Congruences.
Definition B.19. Let C be a category with finite products. An equivalence relation
on an object A ∈ C is a subobject
such that for all objects C,

R֌A×A

HomC (C, R) ֌ HomC (C, A) × HomC (C, A)

is an equivalence relation on the set HomC (C, A) .
Definition B.20. Given an equivalence relation
R ֌ A × A,

one may consider the induced pair of maps
(B.4)

R ⇒ A.

If the coequalizer of this diagram exists, it is called the quotient object A/R of A
by the equivalence relation R.
Remark B.21. In the case that C = Set, one recovers the usual notion of the
quotient of a set by an equivalence relation.

62

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

Remark B.22. A coequalizer of the form (B.4) is a reflexive coequalizer, hence in
particular, a sifted colimit.
Definition B.23. Let T be an S-sorted Lawvere theory. An equivalence relation
in TAlg is called a congruence.
Definition B.24. A quotient A 7→ A/R by an equivalence relation is called an
effective quotient if the canonical map
is an effective epimorphism, i.e.

A → A/R


A/R ∼
A ×A/R A ⇒ A .
= lim
−→
Proposition B.25. Suppose that T is an S-sorted Lawvere theory, then every
quotient in TAlg is effective.
Proof. For any equivalence relation with a quotient, by definition, the map
A → A/R

is a regular epimorphism. However, since TAlg has pullbacks, every regular epimorphism is an effective epimorphism, so we are done.

Corollary B.26. Suppose that T is an S-sorted Lawvere theory, then every regular
epimorphism is of the form
A → A/R
for some congruence R on A.
Proof. Maps of the form A → A/R are regular by definition. Conversely, suppose
that
A→B
is a regular epimorphism. Then, since TAlg has pullbacks, it is an effective epimorphism, and hence the map is induced by a colimiting cocone witnessing B as
the colimit of
A ×B A ⇒ B.
This coequalizer is the quotient for the equivalence relation
hence is of the form

R := A ×B A ֌ A × A,
A → A/R.



Proposition B.27. Suppose that T is an S-sorted Lawvere theory, and R is a
congruence on a T-algebra A. Then the quotient A/R exists. In particular, the
underlying S-indexed set of A/R is the quotient of the underlying S-indexed set of
A by the equivalence relation induced by R.
Proof. From Corollary B.11, the functor
UT : TAlg → SetS

assigning an algebra its underlying S-indexed set, preserves and reflects reflexive
coequalizers. In particular, it preserves and reflects quotients by equivalence relations. Since SetS is a topos, it has quotients by equivalence relations, so we are
done.


ON THEORIES OF SUPERALGEBRAS OF DIFFERENTIABLE FUNCTIONS

63

References
[1] Jiřı́ Adámek and Jiřı́ Rosický. Locally presentable and accessible categories, volume 189 of
London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1994.
[2] Jiřı́ Adámek, Jiřı́ Rosický, and Enrico M. Vitale. What are sifted colimits? Theory Appl.
Categ., 23:No. 13, 251–260, 2010.
[3] Jiřı́ Adámek, Jiřı́ Rosický, and Enrico M. Vitale. Algebraic theories, volume 184 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2011. A categorical
introduction to general algebra, With a foreword by F. W. Lawvere.
[4] Michael F. Atiyah and Ian G. Macdonald. Introduction to commutative algebra. AddisonWesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Don Mills, Ont., 1969.
[5] Francis Borceux. Handbook of categorical algebra. 2, volume 51 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994. Categories and
structures.
[6] Dennis Borisov. Topological characterization of various types of rings of smooth functions.
arXiv:1108.5885, 2011.
[7] Dennis Borisov and Justin Noel. Simplicial approach to derived differential manifolds.
arXiv:1112.003, 2011.
[8] Marta Bunge and Eduardo J. Dubuc. Archimedian local C ∞ -rings and models of synthetic
differential geometry. Cahiers Topologie Géom. Différentielle Catég., 27(3):3–22, 1986.
[9] David Carchedi and Dmitry Roytenberg. Homological algebra of superalgebras of differentiable functions. 2012. (In Preparation).
[10] Eduardo J. Dubuc. Sur les modèles de la géométrie différentielle synthétique. Cahiers Topologie Géom. Différentielle, 20(3):231–279, 1979.
[11] Eduardo J. Dubuc. C ∞ -schemes. Amer. J. Math., 103(4):683–690, 1981.
[12] Eduardo J. Dubuc. Germ representability and local integration of vector fields in a well
adapted model of SDG. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 64(2):131–144, 1990.
[13] Eduardo J. Dubuc and Anders Kock. On 1-form classifiers. Comm. Algebra, 12(11-12):1471–
1531, 1984.
[14] Dominic Joyce. An introduction to d-manifolds and derived differential geometry.
arXiv:1206.4207, 2012.
[15] Anders Kock. Synthetic differential geometry, volume 333 of London Mathematical Society
Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2006.
[16] Anders Kock. Synthetic geometry of manifolds, volume 180 of Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010.
[17] Yuri I. Manin. Gauge field theory and complex geometry, volume 289 of Grundlehren
der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences].
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 1997. Translated from the 1984 Russian original by
N. Koblitz and J. R. King, With an appendix by Sergei Merkulov.
[18] Ieke Moerdijk and Gonzalo E. Reyes. Rings of smooth functions and their localizations. I. J.
Algebra, 99(2):324–336, 1986.
[19] Ieke Moerdijk and Gonzalo E. Reyes. A smooth version of the Zariski topos. Adv. in Math.,
65(3):229–253, 1987.
[20] Ieke Moerdijk and Gonzalo E. Reyes. Models for smooth infinitesimal analysis. SpringerVerlag, New York, 1991.
[21] Hirokazu Nishimura. Supersmooth topoi. Internat. J. Theoret. Phys., 39(5):1221–1231, 2000.
[22] Ngô Van Quê and Gonzalo E. Reyes. Smooth functors and synthetic calculus. In The L. E. J.
Brouwer Centenary Symposium (Noordwijkerhout, 1981), volume 110 of Stud. Logic Found.
Math., pages 377–395. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982.
[23] K. Reichard. Nichtdifferenzierbare Morphismen differenzierbarer Räume. Manuscripta Math.,
15:243–250, 1975.
[24] Gonzalo E. Reyes and Gavin C. Wraith. A note on tangent bundles in a category with a ring
object. Math. Scand., 42(1):53–63, 1978.
[25] David I. Spivak. Derived smooth manifolds. Duke Math. J., 153(1):55–128, 2010.
[26] David N. Yetter. Models for synthetic supergeometry. Cahiers Topologie Géom. Différentielle
Catég., 29(2):87–108, 1988.

64

DAVID CARCHEDI AND DMITRY ROYTENBERG

D. Carchedi

Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, Bonn, Germany.

D. Roytenberg Department of Mathematics, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

