Not signed in (Sign In)

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

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

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2010

    expanded model structure on functors by adding a long list of properties

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 17th 2012
    • (edited Mar 17th 2012)

    I have edited the Properties-section at model structure on functors to make more explicit that all of the statements about functorial dependen on domain and codomain hold also for the case of S\mathbf{S}-enriched functors on S\mathbf{S}-enriched categories.

    (This was previously mentioned in between the lines, but not made sufficiently explicit.)

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2016
    • (edited Apr 13th 2016)

    I have added pointer to

    • Robert Piacenza, Homotopy theory of diagrams and CW-complexes over a category, Can. J. Math. Vol 43 (4), 1991 (pdf)

      also chapter VI of Peter May et al., Equivariant homotopy and cohomology theory, 1996 (pdf)

    to the entries model structure on functors, Elmendorf’s theorem and Model categories of diagram spectra.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2018

    Why does HTT Proposition A.3.3.2 (existence of injective and projective model structures on enriched diagram categories) require S\mathbf{S} to be excellent? In particular, why does it require the “invertibility hypothesis”? The proof isn’t written out but said to be “identical to that of Proposition A.2.8.2”, the existence of injective and projective model structures on unenriched diagram categories; I glanced at the latter proof but wasn’t able to see where the invertibility hypothesis might be used.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeDec 31st 2018

    Uniformized the notation (D = small category, C = model category), separated the definition of the potential model structures from the theorems about their existence, and included some alternative existence theorems that don’t require cofibrant generation.

    diff, v40, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 17th 2019

    Added Moser’s theorem about existence of both projective and injective model structures for all accessible model categories, which is much more general than Lurie’s (although it doesn’t imply that the injective model structure is cofibrantly generated, only that it is accessible).

    diff, v42, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2019

    Replaced Lurie’s theorem on the existence of injective model structures with one derivable from Makkai-Rosicky that doesn’t need the enriching category to be “excellent”.

    diff, v43, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)