Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
have added pointer to
Charles Rezk, A model for the homotopy theory of homotopy theory, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353 (2001), 973-1007 (arXiv:math/9811037, doi:10.1090/S0002-9947-00-02653-2)
Julia Bergner, Three models for the homotopy theory of homotopy theories, Topology Volume 46, Issue 4, September 2007, Pages 397-436 (arXiv:math/0504334, doi:10.1016/j.top.2007.03.002)
The nerve operation is a reflective embedding , where means the -category of -valued presheaves.
I want to add the following claim here: the nerve factors through the reflective embedding ?
The details are subtle so I’m not sure of the result, but I think this is equivalent to every -category being expressible as a colimit of a diagram using only the objects , which I believe is true by expressing an -category as a colimit of categories, and rewrite categories as colimits of in a compatible way to make a single diagram. (using just and is not enough)
Another thing I wanted to add to this entry (is there a better page to talk about this nerve construction?) is a description of as a subcategory of local objects. If the answer to the above is yes, I believe that implies that the -categories are the objects local with respect to , , and , where is the spine of and is the indiscrete simplicial space with the set of two elements. (i.e. take the nerve of the contractible groupoid on two elements, and then embed sets in -groupoids)
I have two questions about trying to simplify that description further:
What you’re suggesting is not correct: you have to consider the spine inclusions for all to describe -categories. Otherwise, for instance, any -groupoid would be local for , which would imply that the -sphere was contractible. (There is a big difference between “every -category is an iterated colimit of copies of and ” (which is true) and “every -category is the colimit of the canonical diagram of shape ” which is what you would need to get a fully faithful embedding in presheaves on - this is false for every finite .)
The answer to your final question is “yes”, though - you can definitely also characterize completeness by looking at morphisms with separate left and right inverses.
Oh right, it’s not enough that an -category be a colimit of a diagram with objects , but it has to be that specific diagram.
I see now how to bridge the gap I was missing in trying to construct a counterexample. Since an -groupoid embeds as a constant presheaf, natural transformations correspond to morphisms , and converts a simplicial discrete space to the homotopy type of the corresponding simplicial set.
1 to 5 of 5