Model

and Mathematics: from the 19th to the 21st century

(eds. Friedman, Krauthausen)


The dialectics archetypes / types
(universal categorical constructions / concrete models)
in the work of Alexander Grothendieck

Fernando Zalamea(*)

Abstract. We present two basic directions that Grothendieck explores in the transit
between archetypes (universal categorical constructions) and types (concrete
models): (1) projecting archetypes to types in the 1950s (around the Tôhoku and
Riemann-Roch), (2) embedding types into archetypes in the 1980s (around Pursuing
Stacks and Dérivateurs). We also discuss (3) his general remarks about "models" in
Récoltes et semailles.


Along with Hilbert, Alexander Grothendieck (1928-2014) is certainly one of the two greatest
mathematicians of the 20th century. The range (functional analysis, complex variables, algebraic
geometry, category theory, number theory, topological algebra) and the depth (nuclear spaces,
sheaves, schemes, topos, motives, stacks) of his contributions is just outstanding. In his work,
Grothendieck systematically explored the pendulum of the abstract and the concrete, the
universal and the particular, a back-and-forth that we can subsume in a dialectics between
archetypes and types. Archetypes are mathematical constructions which act as universals in
certain categories, and which are projected into the many types living in those categories. On the
other hand, types are often embedded into global archetypes which govern the local behavior of
the types. We will thus understand "archetypes" as universal categorical constructions, and
"types" as concrete models, and study the correlations between them.

The article is divided in three parts: (1) an exploration of the notion of "archetype", and its
projectivity to "types", at the beginning of Grothendieck's algebraic geometry period (the Tôhoku
(1957a)1 and the Rapport (1957b)2), (2) a study of the embedding of types into archetypes, at the
end of Grothendieck's topological algebra period (Pursuing Stacks (1983)3 and Dérivateurs
(1991)4), (3) an account of the appearances of the notion of "modèle" and its variants in Récoltes
et semailles (1986)5.


(*)
Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. https://unal.academia.edu/FernandoZalamea
1
Grothendieck, Alexander (1957a), "Sur quelques points d'algèbre homologique", in: Tôhoku Math. Journal, number 9, pp. 119-
221.
2
Grothendieck, Alexander (1957b), "Classes de faisceaux et théorème de Riemann-Roch", in: Séminaire de Géométrie Algébrique,
number 6, pp. 20-77 (Rapport to Serre, published 1966-67).
3
Grothendieck, Alexander (1983), Pursuing Stacks, c. 600 pp., manuscript distributed, unpublished.
4
Grothendieck, Alexander (1991), Les Dérivateurs, c. 2000 pp., manuscript distributed, unpublished.
5
Grothendieck, Alexander (1986), Récoltes et semailles, c. 1600 pp., manuscript distributed, unpublished.
 1. Archetypes and types in the Tôhoku and the Rapport

The Tôhoku introduced sheaves and category theory into the landscape of "real" mathematics6.
Grothendieck's contributions to category theory are truly impressive on their own (introduction
of subobjects, adjoint functors, equivalences, representable functors, additive and abelian
categories, generators, infinitary axioms), but the central points of the Tôhoku deal with two
kinds of archetypes related to mathematical practice: (1) to prove that in an abelian category
with a generator and a suitable infinitary axiom, any object ("type") can be embedded into an
injective object ("archetype")7, (2) to prove that the cohomology of a space, with coefficients in
a sheaf ("types"), can be reconstructed as a projection of a formalism of derived functors
("archetypes")8. In that way, (co)homology, one of the main themes of mathematical
development in the period 1895-1950, can be seen as a projection of an even more fundamental
theme: a theory of abstract derivators in suitable categories9.

Grothendieck's Tôhoku strategy is very interesting in terms of "models". First, categories abstract
universal properties, holding in the diversity of mathematical regions, through a series of axioms:
associativity and identities (all categories), existence of an abelian group structure in the Hom-
sets (additive categories, e.g. category of holomorphic fibered spaces over a Riemann surface)10,
existence of kernels, cokernels, and adequate factorizations through them (abelian categories,
e.g. category of sheaves with fibers abelian groups)11, etc. In this approach, the axiomatic
abstract definitions have their expected concrete models. Second, in the abstract setting, that is
in general categories which satisfy the axioms, not yet "reified" in concrete models, "archetypes"
occur in a natural way (definitions and properties related to the quantifier "exists only" $!), and
only afterwards they are projected into existential objects of concrete categories. Thus, abstract
categories are "doubly archetyped" (inside the categories free objects appear, outside the
categories free objects incarnate in apparently very different disguises)12, while concrete
categories become just partial modelizations of general categorical transits. Third, in the abstract

6
Along with Corfield (2003, Towards a Philosophy of Real Mathematics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), we understand
by "real" mathematics, the corpus of the hard-working mathematicians: combinatorics, number theory, abstract algebra,
algebraic geometry, topology, complex variables, functional analysis, differential geometry, etc., well beyond sets and classical
logic. Sheaves were invented in 1942 by Leray, and categories were invented in 1945 by Mac Lane and Eilenberg. Nevertheless,
their actual use in "real" mathematics, as signaled by the very Mac Lane (in: Krömer, Ralf (2007), Tool and Object. A History and
Philosophy of Category Theory, Basel: Birkhäuser, p. 158), is due to Grothendieck.
7
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1957a), Chapter 1.
8
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1957a), Chapter 3.
9
We will look below to an even more general setting, which will try to encompass not only homology, but also homotopy, in
Grothendiecks's Dérivateurs (1991). See our Section 2 below, "Types and archetypes in Pursuing Stacks and Dérivateurs".
10
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1957a), p. 127.
11
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1957a), p. 129.
12
For example, an initial object 0 in an abstract category is defined through the property that there exists only one morphism
from 0 to any other object of the category. If the abstract category is modelized in diverse concrete categories, the initial object
"incarnates" in apparently very different constructions: 0 is the empty set in the category of sets, 0 is a group with one element
in the category of groups, 0 is the ring of integers in the category of rings, 0 is the discrete topology in the category of topological
spaces, etc.

2
settings, the general theorems (e.g. (1) and (2) above) occur thanks to a free machinery which
has escaped from the particularity of the concrete models.

In Grothendieck, abstraction is never artificial13, but, on the contrary, has the very precise
purpose of smoothing many of the obstructions that live along the diverse particular regions of
mathematics. Modelizing through axioms and categories allows to integrate many possible
differences. Archetypes (universal categorical constructions) allow to unify smoothly a diversity
of types (concrete models). It is a simple matter of elevation and perspective: while, in the maze
of the concrete, we are surrounded by walls, when we elevate ourselves to the general, we have
the possibility to glance a wider panorama. Orientation is obtained at the top of the mountain, if
we can escape the underlying jungle.

Grothendieck's extension of the Riemann-Roch theorem14 is a good example of the abstract
orientation advantages obtained through categorical modelization. Coherent sheaves may be
understood as the simplest, well behaved sheaves, emerging from ring representations15. For a
variety X with enough smooth conditions, Grothendieck imagined the free group K(X) generated
by all coherent sheaves on X. Coherence, freeness and totality –diverse forms of simplicity– help
to understand why K(X) may behave like an archetype. The main theorem in Grothendieck's K-
theory assures that it is the case. K becomes a functor related to the homology functor H, through
a natural transformation C given by Chern's classes16. Then, an obstruction to commutativity (CK
does not equal HC) occurs, but it can be factored through Todd's classes17, producing an extended
Riemann-Roch-Serre-Hirzebruch formula. The particular case of the Riemann-Roch formula is
obtained from the general case, specifying a variety in one point. Thus, the general archetype
(universal categorical construction K(X)), while projected on a trivial homology, captures the
specific type (concrete equation on the surface X, n – g + 1 = dim(Mer) – dim (Hol)).

13
The repeated prejudice that Grothendieck's work, or category theory in general, can be reduced to some "abstract nonsense",
is a good example of a poor utterance by mathematicians who have never read Grothendieck. Instead, all his work is filled with
examples, and the back-and-forth between the concrete and the abstract always comes back to the "real" mathematics
(functional analysis, complex variables, algebraic geometry, topological algebra) in which he was a Master.
14
Riemann-Roch (1857) unifies two very different approaches to obtain a natural invariant for a complex surface. On one hand,
the genus g of the surface is obtained by counting the number of holes of the surface, or, equivalently, the number of cuts (minus
one) with which the surface becomes disconnected (e.g., the genus of the sphere is 0, the genus of the torus is 1, etc.) On another
hand, one can think about the "good" functions (holomorphic) and the "bad" functions (meromorphic) definable on the surface.
If we fix n points on the surface, consider the (vector) space Hol of holomorphic functions with zeroes on those points, and the
(vector) space Mer of holomorphic functions with poles on those points. The Riemann-Roch theorem says that n – g + 1 =
dim(Mer) – dim (Hol). In this way, an intrinsic geometric invariant (the genus) is related to an extrinsic complex variable invariant
(harmonic difference between Mer and Hol). At the very heart of profound connections between geometry, topology, complex
variables, differential geometry and algebra, Riemann-Roch marks the beginning of modern algebraic geometry.
15
Given a sheaf whose fibers are rings, one can iterate the construction and consider a sheaf over the space of those rings, whose
fibers are now ring modules. If the vertical structural transitions behave well (modules of finite type) and the horizontal
homomorphic transitions also do so (kernels of finite type), we have a coherent sheaf (Serre, Jean-Pierre (1955), "Faisceaux
algébriques cohérents", in: The Annals of Mathematics 61.2, pp. 197-278). The sheaf of germs of holomorphic functions is
coherent.
16
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1957b), pp. 40-41, 63-64.
17
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1957b), p. 72.

3

Here, the modelization does not occur though axioms, but it uses instead a very soft categorical
environment, where little is specified. Well-behaved coherence, freeness, and universality, are
the only ingredients used in the construction of the K-theory group K(X). Categorical abstraction
provides an archetypal guide, and concrete modeling provides its associated types. The fact that
Riemann-Roch's wonderful connection between magnitude (genus) and number (harmonic
difference) can be seen as a projection from an abstract sheaves behavior shows the deepness
of Grothendieck's approximation. Along sheaves, geometry and algebra become unified,
something which further developments will also underline forcefully18.


2. Types and archetypes in Pursuing Stacks and Dérivateurs

Both in the Tôhoku (1957a) and the Rapport (1957b), precedence is given to archetypes (derived
functors, group of the K-theory) which then become projected into types (homology
constructions). In Grothendieck's work in the 1980s, the method is somewhat inverted: an study
of many types (e.g., moduli spaces, that is, isomorphism classes of Riemann surfaces, and the
absolute Galois group Gal(𝑄,𝑄)) gives rise to an emergence of archetypes (e.g., anabelian
conjectures, stacks, derivators). In this section we will wander through some of these situations
in Pursuing Stacks (1983) and Dérivateurs (1991).

Grothendieck's La longue marche à travers la théorie de Galois (1981)19 sets a new research
program, after his works of the first (1949-1957) and second (1958-1970) decades. His attention
is now turned to "low-level" complexity objects, that is, surfaces in general and Riemann surfaces
in particular, modular curves, complex towers, and combinatorial approximations to the absolute
Galois group Gal(𝑄,𝑄). Given an algebraic extension X of 𝑄, one can ask if his algebraic group
p1alg(X) (profinite completion of the fundamental group p1top(X)) fully characterizes X: if the
answer is positive, Grothendieck says that we have an anabelian variety ("an" stands for "non",
since the homotopy groups involved are strongly non-commutative). One of his main conjectures
(still open) states that the anabelian varieties over 𝑄 are essentially the isomorphism classes of
Riemann surfaces. In this way, an archetypal property (anabelianity) is expected to capture some
of the main types of modern mathematical thought, the Riemann surfaces.

Pursuing stacks (1983) opens the stage for a profound connection between homotopy and
homology. A hierarchy of concepts, objects and techniques is fundamental to be able to delve

18
It is the case with the emergence of schemes (1958) and topos theory (1962) in Grothendieck's famous Séminaire de Géométrie
Algébrique. Some kind of sheaves (schemes) generalize algebraic varieties (discretion), while other kind of collections of sheaves
(topos) generalize topological spaces (continuity). Space and number become unified again through sheaf theory.
19
Grothendieck, Alexander (1981), La longue marche à travers la théorie de Galois, c. 1600 pp., manuscript distributed,
unpublished.

4
into the many levels of the homological and homotopical groups. In that sense, an n-stack can be
understood as an n-truncated homotopy type, which in turn can be imagined as an (n+1)-sheaf.
The iteration of types gives rise to ¥-categories, where all information on n-morphisms
(morphisms, functors, natural transformations, etc.) is piled-up. ¥-categories act as very large
archetypes which cover huge varieties of models. Pursuing stacks, whose first episode is called
"histoire de modèles" (modelizing story)20, studies the many ways in which adequate functors in
Cat (the category of all categories) can model fragments of homotopical and homological
constructions. In particular, the localizers of a category through weak equivalences cover a lot of
concrete realizations. We can observe here the action of both grothendieckian strategies (i)
bottom-up, and (ii) up-bottom. In fact, (i) motivated by the visualization of concrete objects
(Riemann surfaces, homotopy groups), the abstract anabelian conjectures emerge, while, on the
other hand, (ii) motivated by the desire to unify homotopy and homology, the concrete
modelizers in Cat appear.

Dérivateurs (1991) proposes several axiomatic treatments of the constructions first imagined in
Pursuing stacks. Axioms are first imposed on classes W of morphisms in Cat, to try to model some
properties of weak equivalences in the category Hot of CW-complexes with homotopies between
them. The program consists in trying to elevate types in Hot to archetypes in Cat. Axioms, as we
have mentioned, free the lower level constructions (say, in Hot), in order to get smoothness
properties at higher levels (say, in Cat). Other axioms are afterwards imposed on functors Cat ®
Cat : C ® C W-1, in order to capture the good structural properties of localizations. Such well-
behaved functors are called derivators, since they generalize, in a canonical way, the nice
properties of derived functors (Tôhoku). In this way, in an abstract, free, archetypal environment,
derivators capture some of the main constructions of homotopy (coming from topoi and
homotopy groups) and homology (coming from abelian categories and homology groups).


3. Models in Récoltes et semailles

Récoltes et semailles (1986) may be considered without doubt as the deepest text ever written21
on the emergence of mathematical creativity. Beyond unnecessary (but comprehensible)
quarrels with the mathematical community, Récoltes et semailles provides, through the lenses of
a mathematician of the highest caliber, an extremely detailed analysis of his mathematical
career. The result illuminates the many polarities, forces and layers which govern mathematical
thought. If we follow in Récoltes et semailles the term "modèle" and some related concepts

20
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1983), p. 4 (table of contents).
21
Poincaré (1908), "L'invention mathématique" (Paris: Institut Général Psychologique) is certainly another of the profound texts
written around mathematical creativity. Nevertheless, the range and depth of Grothendieck's Récoltes et semailles exceeds by
far Poincaré's wonderful short remarks.

5
("unité", "universel"), we obtain another complementary perspective on the archetypes/types
dialectics that we have quickly perused in Grothendieck's mathematical work.

The term "modèle" appears in approximately 60 pages of the manuscript. Four sorts of uses of
"modèle" are in display: (i) "modèle" as a concrete mathematical model, that is, a structure with
some well determined properties (e.g., modelizers, homotopical constructions, motivic Galois
groups, étale topos, set-theoretic models, Chern classes)22, (ii) "modèle" as an abstract
mathematical framework of ideas (e.g., algebraic geometry, Euclidean geometry, Newtonian
mechanics, Einsteinian relativity, coherent duality)23, (iii) "modèle" as a philosophical trend of
thought (e.g., mixturing continuity/discreteness, foundations, yin/yang)24, (iv) "modèle" as a
human model of conduct (e.g., simplicity, perfection, Guru and Krishnamurti behavior,
maternity)25. One can see how Grothendieck explores, as usual, many layers and many different
perspectives, which, afterwards, become unified. In fact, unity and universality (circa 50
appearances each in Récoltes et semailles) become closely connected with modelization, since
any of the four reference "modèle" categories (i)-(iv) provides a common ground, in order to
understand, in correlative, reticular ways, either mathematical structures, mathematical
thought, philosophy, or ethics.

Conclusion.

The archetype/type dialectics between categorical constructions and structured models enriches
considerably the panorama of mathematical practice. Both levels –the abstract and the concrete,
the universal and the particular– are necessary to nurture mathematical imagination.
Mathematics has to explore all possible worlds, beyond mere actuality, but, on the other hand,
many of her greatest achievements occur when a general architecture illuminates an actual
conjecture26. The back-and-forth between types and archetypes, elevated to a method in
Grothendieck's work, helps to understand the importance of a hierarchy of models in
mathematical thought.

Acknowledgements. Many thanks to Michael Friedman, whose inspiring A History of Folding in
Mathematics (2018, Springer) is, conceptually, closely related to Grothendieck's folding
(projections) and unfolding (sections) in sheaf theory. I also thank Michael for suggesting me to
track the term "modèle" in Pursuing Stacks and Récoltes et semailles.

22
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1986), pp. 1.V, 1.VIII, 1.117, 2.177, 2.200, 2.211, 2.304, 2.326, 2.411, 4.941, 4.947, 4.1205, for
example (Récoltes et semailles is divided in a preface (P), four parts (1-4), and an appendix (A)).
23
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1986), pp. P.29, P.56-P58, P.60, 4.976, 4.992, for example.
24
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1986), pp. P.58, 2.392, 3.694-696, for example.
25
See: Grothendieck, Alexander (1986), pp. 1.III, 2.383, 3.538-541, 3.654, for example.
26
It is the case of Fermat's theorem illuminated by Taniyama-Shimura's identification of modularity and ellipticity, the Weil
conjectures illuminated by Grothendieck's étale topos of a scheme, or, perhaps (time will tell), the Riemann Hypothesis
illuminated by Connes' arithmetic topos.