# 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
• CommentTimeSep 10th 2020

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeSep 10th 2020
• (edited Sep 10th 2020)

On p. 5 of the above article it says that all dgc-algebras are assumed to be equal to the ground field in degree 0.

But is this really what is meant?

I don’t see it being used. On the contrary: Later on the simplicial sets seem to be meant to be just pointed, not reduced, so that the PL-de Rham functor would not take them to dgc-algebras with that property.

The discussion on p. suggests that what is actually used is that the dgc-algebras are unital.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeOct 2nd 2020

• Peter J. Kahn, Rational Moore G-Spaces, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society Vol. 298, No. 1 (1986), pp. 245-271 (jstor:2000619)
• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeDec 27th 2021

I am vaguely wondering:

Might the construction from Scull 2008 of a model category of dg-algebras parameterized over an orbit category generalize to parameterization over any “fundamental category” of a $G$-space (in the sense here)?

I haven’t really thought about it yet, except for noticing that Golasinski 1997a, 1997b amplifies that the existence of injective minimal models in this context depends only on the parameter category being an EI-category – which is still the case for those “fundamental categories”.

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeDec 30th 2021

I have now forwarded this question (#4) to MathOverflow:q/412833.