The Goal / An Informal Introduction
Loosely speaking, the definition for sheaf many of us first learn is that it is a presheaf, , which satisfies some glueing condition: for each open subset
of our fixed topological space
, and open covering
, sections of
are precisely tuples of sections
which agree on their restrictions to
.
Formally, the above condition for a presheaf to be a sheaf is often described by saying that is the equalizer (or limit) of the following diagram:

Going one step further, and rewriting this limit using some category theory facts, which will be more carefully described in this post, we see that being a sheaf can be expressed as an isomorphism of hom sets in presheaves:

Once one learns about sheaves, a possible eventual question is “what is the process for obtaining sheaves?” for which the answer is usually called sheafification. It is well documented that if you take the colimit of the right hand side of the previous isomorphism over all possible open covers, you obtain what is often referred to as . This presheaf is not necessarily a sheaf but we can finally obtain a sheaf by applying this construction a second time.
Alternatively, we could consider a similar colimit but over all hypercovers and obtain a sheaf in one iteration. Unpacking the previous sentence is the content of this entire note. Personally, the goal for me to rewrite a known story in this language is so that I can apply similar ideas in order to sheafify simplicial presheaves. This story is also well known but the explicit details seem to be missing from the literature.
The problem
Consider two simplicial complexes and
as pictured below. asdf
Definition: A sieve in a category
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/sieveis a full subcategory of
closed under precomposition by morphisms in
.
In other words, if is a seive with
a morphism in
, and
is any morphism in
then
must also be a morphism in
.
Definition: A sieve on an object
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/sievein a category
is a sieve in the over category
.
So now a sieve on an object has as its objects, morphisms to
, and as its morphisms, commutative triangles closed under precomposition:

Next we look at the definitions of Grothendieck (pre)topology where the prototypical example I have in mind is that which is induced by open subsets of a fixed topological space, . As I will generally have in mind the pretopology, we can start with that definition first.
Definition: A Grothendieck pretopology on a category
is an assignment to each object
in
, a collection of distinguished families of maps
which we call covering families, satisfying the following
(PT0) (Fibered Products) Ifis in
with
a member of some covering family, and
is any map in
then the fibered product
exists in
.
(PT1) (Stable Base Change) For any object
in
, any morphism
in
, and any covering family
, the family of maps
is a covering family.
(PT2) (Local Character) If
is a covering family and for each
, we have a covering family
, then the family of all compositions
is a covering family.
(T3) (Identity) Whenever we have an isomorphism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grothendieck_topologyin
then the singleton collection containing just this isomorphism is a covering family of
.
So for the example where our category is the collection of all subsets of a topological space
where the morphisms are given by inclusion, we can consider objects
as subspaces of
and our covering families
are open coverings of the subspace
coming from the subspace topology. (PT0) Says that we can intersect two subspaces of
and obtain another subspace of
. (PT1) Says that if we have an open covering
of a subspace
, and we consider a subspace
of
, then the collection of intersections
is an open covering of
. (PT2) Says that if we start with an open covering
and cover each component
, then the entire collection ranging over all components is another open covering of
. Finally (PT3) says that the singleton containing
is an open cover of itself.
In many classical and more generalized settings, you might see the use instead of a Grothendieck topology, without referring to these families and instead focused on sieves. We state the definition and then again look at how it applies to our toy example.
Definition: A Grothendieck topology
on a category
consists of, for each object
in
, a collection of distinguished sieves labeled
which we call covering sieves, satisfying the following
(T1) (Base Change) Ifis a covering sieve on
and
is a map in
then
is a covering sieve on
.
(T2) (Local Character) Let
be a covering sieve on
and
be any sieve on
, so that for each
and
,
is a covering sieve on
, then
is a covering sieve on
.
(T3) (Identity) The collection of all maps in
with codomain
is a covering sieve on
.
A category with a chosen Grothendieck topology is often referred to as a site.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grothendieck_topology
Using again the example where we use the category of subsets of a topological space
, we can see that the covering families
of a subspace do not form sieves, and thus can not be covering sieves. To see this just take an open cover
, and then consider a non-open subset
and note that the map
was not in our original covering family, so it was not closed under precomposition and thus can not be a sieve.
Instead, we would like to take a pretopology, and from it generate a topology on a category.
Pretopology ⤳ Topology
Construction: Given a pretopology on a category
define the associated topology by distinguishing any sieve which contains a covering family to be updgraded to a covering sieve.
So now given a pretopology on described by covering families on objects, a sieve
will be considered a covering sieve if every map
factors through some
coming from