# 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.
• CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
• CommentTimeAug 26th 2010
• (edited Aug 26th 2010)

I fixed the definition at over quasi-category so it makes the adjointness relationship clearer between overcategories and joins. In particular, Lurie’s notation and definition makes it very hard to see this. It’s much easier to see what’s going on when we look at things as follows: The join with $K$ fixed in the first coordinate, $S\mapsto i_K^{K\star S}: K\to K\star S$, where $i_K^{K\star S}$ is the canonical inclusion, is a functor $SSet\to (K\downarrow SSet)$. Then the undercategory construction gives the adjoint to this functor sending $(K\downarrow SSet) \to SSet$. This makes it substantially clearer to understand what’s going on, since $Hom_{SSet}(S, X_{F/}):= Hom_{K\downarrow SSet}(i_K^{K\star S}, F)$ is the set of those maps $f:K\star S\to X$ such that $f|K=f\circ i_K^{K\star S}=F$.

Lurie’s notation $Hom_{SSet}(S, X_{F/}):= Hom_F(K\star S, X)$ is nonstandard and inferior, since it obscures the obvious adjointness property.

The definition for overcategories is “dual” (by looking at the join of $K$ on the right).

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeAug 26th 2010

Good point.

I have slightly edited the paragraph further, to make it now read

a natural bijection of hom-sets

$Hom_{sSet}(S, C_{F/}) \cong (Hom_{(K\downarrow SSet)})(i_{K,S} , F) \,,$

where $i_{K,S} : K \to K \star S$ is the canonical inclusion of $K$ into its join of simplicial sets with $S$.

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
• CommentTimeAug 26th 2010

Hey Urs, how do you get that little curved i that stands for “canonical inclusion” in LaTeX?

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeAug 26th 2010

Maybe you mean iota $\iota$?

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
• CommentTimeAug 26th 2010

Yes, that’s the one. Thanks!