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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories 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 science set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string 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 15th 2021
    • (edited Apr 15th 2021)

    Added a remark amplifying that the 0-simplex really has no horn, and that one must not think it could be defined to be the empty set (saw long and unresolved MO discussion of this point…)

    diff, v24, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorJonasFrey
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2021
    • (edited Apr 15th 2021)

    I agree, but interestingly, Lurie explicitly comments on the 0-0-horn in Kerodon, and clarifies that it’s empty. See 1.1.2.13 in https://kerodon.net/tag/000K.

    … but then he excludes 0 when stating the Kan condition. See 1.1.9.1 here : https://kerodon.net/tag/002G

    I don’t really see the point of introducing the 0-0-horn just to exclude it whenever horns are used, but maybe he has his reasons.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2021

    Thanks for the remark, I hadn’t seen that.

    Looking at 1.1.9.1

    (incidentally: make links here like this: [1.1.2.13](https://kerodon.net/tag/000K))

    … he might just want to stick to that general formula to define horns.

    But I am going to part company on this point with species of South American rock cavies, related to capybaras and guinea pigs, and insist that there is no horn in a 0-simplex – not to mess with the long and widely established and fully reasonable definition that a Kan complex has fillers for all horns.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2021
    • (edited Apr 16th 2021)

    Made more explicit that excluding horns of the 0-simplex is mandatory if the usual definition of Kan complex is not to be broken.

    Then, while I was at it, I restructured some of the entry slightly and then considerably expanded its Idea-section, mentioning also the relation to cylinder boundary inclusions of topological spaces

    diff, v25, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2021
    • (edited Apr 16th 2021)

    The boundary ∂Δ^n is defined for all n≥0. In particular, ∂Δ^0=∅.

    The horn Λ^n_k is obtained by removing the kth face (0≤k≤n) from the boundary ∂Δ^n.

    In particular, Λ^n_k has one less nondegenerate simplex than ∂Δ^n.

    But for n=0 there are no (-1)-dimensional faces to remove, and in any case ∂Δ^0 has no simplices at all.

    Example 1.1.2.13 in Kerodon is just so weird and makes no sense from any practical or theoretical viewpoint.

    Goerss and Jardine require that n≥1 for the horn Λ^n_k (the last paragraph of Section I.1).

    I am really curious what induced Jacob to deviate from Goerss and Jardine.

    Curiously, the most literal reading of Kan’s original 1956 paper on Kan complexes Abstract homotopy. III would seem to indicate that Kan does allow horns to be empty and his definition of a Kan complex seemingly requires Kan complexes to be nonempty!

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)