Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 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 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 internal-categories k-theory 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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2010
   • (edited Jun 24th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexWhen Lurie says in HTT that an ∞-category is "weakly contractible", does he mean "categorically equivalent to a point" or "weakly equivalent to a point" (in the sense of the Quillen model structure on SSet)? Also, in a general model category, what qualifies as contractible? Obviously "homotopy equivalent to the terminal object" works fine, but is there a nicer condition we can give? Obviously if $f:X\to *$ where $X$ is cofibrant and $f$ is a trivial fibration, it is a homotopy equivalence by the Whitehead theorem, since in that case, X is fibrant-cofibrant, (and hence why in SSet we can simply require that $f$ be a trivial fibration) (since all objects are cofibrant), but does the converse hold (that is, if X is contractible, then it is fibrant-cofibrant and weakly equivalent to the terminal object)? Edit: Nevermind on the first question. Every oo-category is fibrant-cofibrant in the Joyal model structure, so it doesn't mean categorically equivalent, since then it would follow immediately if that were the definition that every weakly-contractible oo-category is contractible.

   When Lurie says in HTT that an ∞-category is “weakly contractible”, does he mean “categorically equivalent to a point” or “weakly equivalent to a point” (in the sense of the Quillen model structure on SSet)?

   Also, in a general model category, what qualifies as contractible? Obviously “homotopy equivalent to the terminal object” works fine, but is there a nicer condition we can give? Obviously if $f:X\to *$ where $X$ is cofibrant and $f$ is a trivial fibration, it is a homotopy equivalence by the Whitehead theorem, since in that case, X is fibrant-cofibrant, (and hence why in SSet we can simply require that $f$ be a trivial fibration) (since all objects are cofibrant), but does the converse hold (that is, if X is contractible, then it is fibrant-cofibrant and weakly equivalent to the terminal object)?

   Edit: Nevermind on the first question. Every oo-category is fibrant-cofibrant in the Joyal model structure, so it doesn’t mean categorically equivalent, since then it would follow immediately if that were the definition that every weakly-contractible oo-category is contractible.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexre the second question: a morphism between cofibrant-fibrant objects that is a weak equivalence is also a homotopy equivalence.

   re the second question: a morphism between cofibrant-fibrant objects that is a weak equivalence is also a homotopy equivalence.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2010
   • (edited Jun 24th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, of course, this is why I mentioned the Whitehead theorem (this is what it is called in Hirschhorn). I was asking about a converse to that statement in the special case that the target is the terminal object (so we can say X is contractible _if and only if_ it is fibrant-cofibrant, and the unique map $X\to *$ is a weak equivalence). It doesn't seem to be obviously true (and if I had to guess, I would probably guess that it's not). There's probably a counterexample, but I can't think of one offhand.

   Yes, of course, this is why I mentioned the Whitehead theorem (this is what it is called in Hirschhorn). I was asking about a converse to that statement in the special case that the target is the terminal object (so we can say X is contractible if and only if it is fibrant-cofibrant, and the unique map $X\to *$ is a weak equivalence). It doesn’t seem to be obviously true (and if I had to guess, I would probably guess that it’s not). There’s probably a counterexample, but I can’t think of one offhand.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2010
   • (edited Jun 24th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThe terminal object is necessarily fibrant. Therefore whether it is cofibrant or not, we have for cofibrant $X$ a weak equivalence of [[derived hom-space]] $\infty$-groupoids $$ C(X,*) \stackrel{\simeq}{\to} \mathbb{R}Hom(X,*) \,. $$ On the right all objects that are equivalences are homotopy equivalences.

   The terminal object is necessarily fibrant. Therefore whether it is cofibrant or not, we have for cofibrant $X$ a weak equivalence of derived hom-space $\infty$-groupoids

   $$C(X,*) \stackrel{\simeq}{\to} \mathbb{R}Hom(X,*) \,.$$

   On the right all objects that are equivalences are homotopy equivalences.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 24th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHm, I guess what I just said doesn't answer your question...

   Hm, I guess what I just said doesn’t answer your question…