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.
1 to 2 of 2
Before asking this question, we must recall some notions:
Fix an excellent (therefore symmetric monoidal closed, combinatorial, and all monomorphisms are cofibrations (there’s more, but we don’t need it now)) model category (note: behaves in almost every way like the category of simplicial sets with the cartesian monoidal structure. If you’re not familiar with the definition of excellent, pretend that is the category of simplicial sets).
We say that an -enriched category is -filtered, or equipped with an -filtration, for a fixed poset if there exists a function such that if , where is the initial object of .
Any -filtered -category gives rise to a functor as follows: Let be the full subcategory of spanned by the set of objects such that . This gives a filtered diagram of subcategories of , given by the assignment (considered as a functor ).
Recall that the model structure on is combinatorial (and therefore cofibrantly generated and given as follows:
Recall that there exists a small set of generators for Cof(S). Fix such a set of generators and call it .
Define for any object as the category with two objects such that , , , and . Define to be the -category with one object such that .
Define the set to be the set containing the unique map , and all of the induced maps induced by generating cofibrations
Then we define:
Cof(Cat_S)=llp(rlp(Q))
We define the class of weak equivalences as follows:
A weak equivalence of -categories is an -enriched functor such that:
is a weak equivalence in
For every , there exists an object such that is -equivalent to (homotopy essential surjectivity)
It’s well-known that these two classes define a model structure on .
(Recall that a morphism of an -enriched category is called an equivalence if the corresponding map in the Ho(S)-enriched category is an isomorphism.)
Let be a model category. Recall that a natural transformation in a diagram category is called a weak equivalence (resp. projective fibration) if it is a weak-equivalence object-by-object (resp. a fibration object-by-object). The projective cofibrations are precisely those natural transformations with the left lifting property with respect to all natural transformations that are both fibrations and weak equivalences. If is left-proper combinatorial and is small, then with the projective model structure is likewise.
HTT Lemma A.3.5.9 states:
For a poset and S an excellent model category, any -filtered -enriched category admits an -enriched functor such that:
This is given without proof, but there is a hint that one should use the small object argument. First of all, to show this, do we need to use the -enriched version of the small object argument? If so, could someone give me a reference that states and proves this form of the small object argument (see the nLab page for an informal description, but no actual statement or proof)?
If not, could someone break down exactly how to prove this?
Nevermind, I got a response from Lurie by e-mail. I guess I’ll expand it out and write this up on an nLab page, since I went to the trouble of writing all of the background up! =)
1 to 2 of 2