Not signed in (Sign In)

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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group 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 integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics 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 string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft 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
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2020

    added pointer to the original statement in

    diff, v8, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 26th 2020

    added numbered Proposition-environments

    diff, v8, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2021

    added the remark (here) that every object is fibrant

    diff, v10, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2023
    • (edited May 14th 2023)

    Started (here) a paragraph on the characterization of the cofibrations of simplicial groups. I gather that

    cofibrationretract of almost free map cofibration \;\;\; \Leftrightarrow \;\;\; \text{retract of almost free map}

    but where is this actually proven?

    In Goerss & Jardine (1999) Cor. 1.10 there is (only) proof that

    cofibrationalmost free map cofibration \;\;\; \Leftarrow \;\;\; \text{almost free map}

    which of course implies

    cofibrationretract of almost free map, cofibration \;\;\; \Leftarrow \;\;\; \text{retract of almost free map} \,,

    but where is the proof of the converse implication “\Rightarrow”?

    I understand that Quillen would have said “free” for “almost free”, but even so I haven’t spotten this in either his “Homotopical Algebra” nor “Rational Homotopy Theory”.

    On the other hand, I see people state it as a fact, eg. Baues (1999, p. 27) or the nice review of Speirs (2015, p. 54).

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2023

    Re #4: This is a special instance of the fact that in any cofibrantly generated model category, cofibrations are codomain retracts of cellular maps. Cellular maps in their turn are transfinite compositions of cobase changes of generating cofibrations.

    Cellular maps of simplicial groups are precisely almost free maps.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2023

    Thanks. This must be citable from somewhere?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2023
    • (edited May 14th 2023)

    Re #6: Yes, this is part of the statement of the small object argument.

    For example, see Proposition 10.5.16 in Hirschhorn.

    It is also explained in detail Joyal’s CatLab article Weak factorisation systems (joyalscatlab), Theorem 3.17.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2023

    No, it’s a statement about the cofibrant generation of simplicial groups, where do you take this from?

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2023
    • (edited May 14th 2023)

    Re #8: Transferring a cofibrantly generated model structure along a right adjoint functor produces a cofibrantly generated model structure. This is part of the transfer theorem, see the original version in Crans (Theorem 3.3), or Theorem 11.3.2 in Hirschhorn.

    Quillen’s book Homotopical Algebra already defines the model structure on simplicial groups as the transferred model structure, see Theorem II.2.2.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2023

    I see, thanks, so I guess the claim is that almost free maps are the composites of pushouts of the F(Δ[n])F(Δ n)F(\partial \Delta[n]) \to F(\Delta^n).

    Once that is true, I understand the statement. (Though I don’t see what codomain retracts have to do with it, it seems we need to be talking about plain retracts.)

    Now why is it true that almost free maps are the the relative {F(Δ[n])F(Δ n)} n\big\{F(\partial \Delta[n]) \to F(\Delta^n)\big\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}-cell complexes? That sounds very plausible, as these arise from iteratively amalgamating free group generators — but it’s not immediate (to me) that exactly those compatibility conditions entering the definition of “almost free maps” are satisfied by these cell complexes.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 14th 2023

    (Though I don’t see what codomain retracts have to do with it, it seems we need to be talking about plain retracts.)

    A codomain retract is a special case of a plain retract, in which the map on domains is the identity map. Thus, A→B is a codomain retract of A→C if B is a retract of C, and the retraction C→B makes the corresponding triangle commute.

    What the small object argument gives you is not only a retract, but in fact a codomain retract, which is a stronger (and better) property.

    Now why is it true that almost free maps are the the relative {F(∂Δ[n])→F(Δ n)} n∈ℕ-cell complexes?

    This is precisely the content of Proposition V.1.9 in Goerss–Jardine, which starts with an almost free map and presents it (inductively on the skeleton) as a (countable) transfinite composition of cobase changes of maps of the form {F(∂Δ[n])→F(Δ[n])}.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2023

    This is precisely the content of Proposition V.1.9

    That’s the other direction: Their proposition states that given an almost free map, then it is such a pushout and hence a cofibration. The question in #4 is for proof of the converse.

    It is plausible that what you indicate works, and it should be a matter of carefully going through the combinatorics. On the other hand I wonder why Goerss & Jardine didn’t state the converse if they were so close to proving it, while those authors who I see stating it don’t prove it.

    In any case, I have made a note of what we have so far: here.

    diff, v16, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2023

    That’s the other direction: Their proposition states that given an almost free map, then it is such a pushout and hence a cofibration. The question in #4 is for proof of the converse.

    For the converse, observe that the class of almost free maps is weakly saturated, since colimits of simplicial groups are computed objectwise.

    Thus, to show that cofibrations are contained in almost free maps, it suffices to show that the generating cofibrations F(∂Δ^n)→F(Δ^n) are almost free maps, which is clear.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2023

    Right, thanks, that works! I have edited accordingly, here.

    diff, v17, current