# Start a new discussion

## Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeApr 7th 2010

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeApr 7th 2010
• (edited Apr 7th 2010)

am about to write the section on preservation of limits and colimits, but I am wondering:

in ordinary cat theory, that right(left) adjoints preserve (co)limits follows purely formally from three ingredients:

1. characterization of adjunction by hom-isomorphism;

2. preservation of limits by hom-functors in both variables;

3. the Yoneda lemma.

It would seem that in the (oo,1)-category context we just check these three ingredients and then deduce the statement that left oo-adjoints preserve oo-colimits formally by direct analogy.

Now, instead in HTT, section 5.2.3 a rather tedious simp-set gymnastics is performed to show this.

I am wondering therefore: it seems we essentially do have the three items above in the oo-context:

1. the first is HTT prop. 5.2.2.8,

2. the second is essentially HTT A.3.3.12,

3. and the last one is the combination of statements collected at Yoneda lemma for (infinity,1)-categories .

So one would hope that we can just argue formally on this basis that left adjoints preserves oo-colimits. But there are probably subtleties in the details...

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeApr 7th 2010

Okay, enough (oo,1)-entertainment for today, now I need to focus my thoughts on a talk I will give in Nijmegen tomorrow...

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeNov 17th 2010
• (edited Nov 17th 2010)

added the proposition on how adjoint $(\infty,1)$-functors pass to slices, at adjoint (oo,1)-functor – on over-(oo,1)-categories

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJan 7th 2019

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJun 18th 2019

I seem to recall that recently someone asked a question here on the nForum about characterizing adjoint $(\infty,1)$-functors via universal arrows, or equivalently by pointwise representability (that is, if $D(X, G -)$ is representable for all objects $X$ then these representing objects assemble into a functor left adjoint to $G$), and that a reference was given. But after a few minutes of searching I can’t find it, and it doesn’t seem to have made it onto the page adjoint (infinity,1)-functor. Can anyone find the discussion or re-give the reference?

• CommentRowNumber7.
• CommentAuthorjweinberger
• CommentTimeJun 18th 2019

Possibly this? Having an oo-left adjoint

• CommentRowNumber8.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJun 18th 2019

Yes, that’s it; thanks!

• CommentRowNumber9.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJun 19th 2019

Added characterization in terms of universal arrows.

Dylan

• CommentRowNumber11.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJun 20th 2019

That statement from HTT is not exactly this proposition. I can see how it contains essentially the same information, but it’s hidden in the phrase “representable right fibration”. In particular, I’m pretty sure that I glanced past that statement in HTT while looking for this result and didn’t notice it. So I edited the attribution here in an attempt to reduce confusion in the reader.

• CommentRowNumber12.
• CommentAuthorGuest
• CommentTimeJun 20th 2019
“With some work” feels even more misleading though. ‘representable fibration’ is synonymous with “equivalent to an overcategory” so the work required is “know the definition of representable fibration, or guess it” (and also dualize between right and left adjoints, but that seems harmless). It also seems strange to prioritize credit to Rigel-Verity just because they say over/undercategory instead of “something equivalent to an over/undercategory”, doesn’t it?
• CommentRowNumber13.
• CommentAuthorGuest
• CommentTimeJun 20th 2019
(Sorry the above and this are from Dylan- my phone forgot my login).
• CommentRowNumber14.
• CommentAuthorMike Shulman
• CommentTimeJun 21st 2019

I wasn’t thinking of credit, but of clarity for the reader. You also have to realize that the pullback of a representable fibration is the relevant comma category, and that this being equivalent to an overcategory over its codomain is the same as having a terminal object.

2. Expanded upon a remark about adjunctions on homotopy categories, namely that the existence of a right adjoint can be detected on Ho-enriched homotopy categories.

Anonymous

3. I’m not certain about the caution I gave, so I’ve removed it.

Anonymous

• CommentRowNumber17.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeJul 14th 2020
• (edited Jul 14th 2020)

I have added the definition (here) of adjoint $(\infty,1)$-functors as an adjunction in the homotopy 2-category of (infinity,1)-categories.

I had wanted to next add pointers to theorems proving the equivalence of this to other definitions, but I am getting a bit lost in the text. Maybe somebody can help:

In Riehl-Verity 16, p. 3 it says that the equivalence to Lurie’s definition is

Now 4.4.5 in Riehl-Verity 15 is a Remark, and it mainly points to the previous Observation 4.4.4. The relevant bit of Observation 4.4.4, in turn, seems to say that another Observation 3.4.4 implies that the homotopy 2-categorical definition of adjunction implies the expected hom-equivalence.

This is all very plausible from a broad-brush perspective, of course, but it remains unclear to me if/where a claim is made concerning the crucial fine-print (of which there is a fair bit, already notation-wise). Observation 4.4.4 speaks of an “equivalence of hom-spaces” which is probably really “natural equivalence”. The next sentence has “This should be thought of as $[$the expected statement$]$” . I can see how it is probably all clear to the authors at this point, but it does make it hard to cite a result here.

Then, Remark 4.4.5 speaks of a definition of Lurie’s “more complicated” than the authors “prefer to recall”. This probably alludes to Lurie’s definition via Cartesian fibrations. But their pointer is actually to Lurie’s Proposition 5.2.2.8, which is just the proposition where Lurie proves that this is equivalent to the expected natural hom-equivalence, hence to what, presumably, the previous Observation 4.4.4 did mean to recall.

Similarly, I am not sure yet where exactly in Riehl-Verity 17 “the converse” is proven, and in which form.

Anyway, that just to explain where I get lost. If anyone here can state with authority a crisp form of the expected statement, such as

An adjunction in the homotopy 2-category of $(\infty,1)Cat$ is equivalently a natural hom-equivalence as in …

then it would be great to add that to our entry here.

• CommentRowNumber18.
• CommentAuthorHurkyl
• CommentTimeFeb 27th 2021

Sketched the proof of uniqueness, and also added a uniqueness statement for the unit/counit with a sketch of argument.

• CommentRowNumber19.
• CommentAuthorHurkyl
• CommentTimeMar 31st 2021

Added a brief section on the category of adjunctions. I haven’t seen this discussed elsewhere (Lurie discusses the restriction to presentable categories in Higher Topos Theory 5.5.3), so I’ve adopted my own terminology.

• CommentRowNumber20.
• CommentAuthorHurkyl
• CommentTimeApr 1st 2021

• CommentRowNumber21.
• CommentAuthorHurkyl
• CommentTimeApr 1st 2021

I’ve included the category of adjunctions (analogous to Lurie’s category of presentable categories) mainly because I found it useful to organize various properties, in particular to properly state the $ladj$ and $radj$ operations taking arrowwise adjoints.

But for the sake of completeness… are there any useful general properties we should expect it to have as an ∞-category? I’ve found very little material on this construction even in the case of ordinary 1-category theory. Is there simply not much that one can say?

• CommentRowNumber22.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeApr 1st 2021

Hi Hurkyl,

I don’t know the answer to your question, but it’s great to see you do all these edits!

Maybe if you could make it a habit to include key technical terms in double square brackets? Such as [[Grothendieck construction]].

It costs essentially no effort, while it considerably increases the general value of edits here on the wiki, in the long run.

(For that’s one big advantage of a wiki over other sources, that the reader is always just one click away from learning about that one Definition/Proposition which they were missing. Imagine yourself like a teacher talking to students. You may take the Grothendieck construction for granted, but they may be grateful to be handed a link where they can remind themselves.)

• CommentRowNumber23.
• CommentAuthorHurkyl
• CommentTimeApr 1st 2021

I (think I) usually do. I confess to being mentally exhausted at the time and glossing over polish, but for some reason I thought the previous link to it in the article was somewhat closer. I’m a little shy about overlinking since I’m used to style guides saying only the first instance should be made into a link. While that’s surely too few, I’m still hesitant about overdoing it.