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 definitions 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 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 nforum 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.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 26th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexAs a result of a Cafe discussion with Kathryn Hess, we learned and recorded at [[monoidal Dold-Kan correspondence]] that the normalized Moore complex functor from simplicial abelian groups to chain complexes is both lax and colax monoidal (and in fact Frobenius). Since this functor is an equivalence of categories, it is in particular both a left and a right adjoint, so it seems that it should follow by [[doctrinal adjunction]] that its inverse functor, from chain complexes to simplicial abelian groups, is also both lax and colax monoidal. But I don't see that written down anywhere; does it sound right?

   As a result of a Cafe discussion with Kathryn Hess, we learned and recorded at monoidal Dold-Kan correspondence that the normalized Moore complex functor from simplicial abelian groups to chain complexes is both lax and colax monoidal (and in fact Frobenius). Since this functor is an equivalence of categories, it is in particular both a left and a right adjoint, so it seems that it should follow by doctrinal adjunction that its inverse functor, from chain complexes to simplicial abelian groups, is also both lax and colax monoidal. But I don’t see that written down anywhere; does it sound right?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 27th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexIt would be good to eventually improve the nLab entry on these points. It is easy to forget the intricate details of all this stuff after a while, and the entry presently does not live up to fully refreshing memory. Okay, so let me look at <a href="http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math/pdf/0209/0209342v2.pdf">Schwede-Shipley</a> again: That $N$ (Moore chains) is monoidal and lax monoidal is on page 295 (9 of 48). That the co-monoidal structure on $N$ may be turned into a monoidal structure on $\Gamma$ (the functor going the other way) is on the bottom of that page. The explicit construction is the first displayed math on the following page 296. I don't know about doctrinal adjunctions. Is that construction on 296 what you would want to see? P.S. Maybe not relevant for your question, but just for completeness: the issue with the monoidal DK-correspondence is not the failure of both functors to be monoidal, but to form a monoidal adjunction (Remark 2.14, page 13). And what really matters is that we have a _Quillen adjunction_ . It is a lucky and somewhat misleading coincidence that the ordinary DK-correspondence is on top of being a Quillen equivalence also a plain equivalence of categories. In Schwede Shipley, to get the Quillen equivalence between simplicial rings and chain dg-algebras, the DK-functor $\Gamma$ is replaced by something else. In Cortinas et al, to get the Quillen equivalence between co-simplicial rings and co-chain dg-algebras, the Moore functor $N$ is replaced by something else.

   It would be good to eventually improve the nLab entry on these points. It is easy to forget the intricate details of all this stuff after a while, and the entry presently does not live up to fully refreshing memory.

   Okay, so let me look at Schwede-Shipley again:

   That $N$ (Moore chains) is monoidal and lax monoidal is on page 295 (9 of 48).

   That the co-monoidal structure on $N$ may be turned into a monoidal structure on $\Gamma$ (the functor going the other way) is on the bottom of that page.

   The explicit construction is the first displayed math on the following page 296.

   I don’t know about doctrinal adjunctions. Is that construction on 296 what you would want to see?

   P.S. Maybe not relevant for your question, but just for completeness: the issue with the monoidal DK-correspondence is not the failure of both functors to be monoidal, but to form a monoidal adjunction (Remark 2.14, page 13). And what really matters is that we have a Quillen adjunction . It is a lucky and somewhat misleading coincidence that the ordinary DK-correspondence is on top of being a Quillen equivalence also a plain equivalence of categories.

   In Schwede Shipley, to get the Quillen equivalence between simplicial rings and chain dg-algebras, the DK-functor $\Gamma$ is replaced by something else. In Cortinas et al, to get the Quillen equivalence between co-simplicial rings and co-chain dg-algebras, the Moore functor $N$ is replaced by something else.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
   • CommentTimeAug 27th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: FinnLawler
   Format: MarkdownItex> Is that construction on 296 what you would want to see? Yes -- they're taking the mate of $A W$ with respect to the adjunctions $M N \dashv M \Gamma$ and $N \dashv \Gamma$, where $M$ is the monoidal category monad, by pasting $A W$ with $\eta$ and $M \epsilon$.

   Is that construction on 296 what you would want to see?

   Yes – they’re taking the mate of $A W$ with respect to the adjunctions $M N \dashv M \Gamma$ and $N \dashv \Gamma$, where $M$ is the monoidal category monad, by pasting $A W$ with $\eta$ and $M \epsilon$.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 27th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexGreat, thank you; I should have known to look at Schwede-Shipley.

   Great, thank you; I should have known to look at Schwede-Shipley.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeSep 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI found the remarks about symmetry at [[monoidal Dold-Kan correspondence]] to be somewhat opaque, so I clarified them a bit. (I hope I got it right: N is lax symmetric monoidal, but colax non-symmetric monoidal, but colax $E_\infty$ monoidal.) Along the way I felt the need to write [[monoidal adjunction]].

   I found the remarks about symmetry at monoidal Dold-Kan correspondence to be somewhat opaque, so I clarified them a bit. (I hope I got it right: N is lax symmetric monoidal, but colax non-symmetric monoidal, but colax $E_\infty$ monoidal.) Along the way I felt the need to write monoidal adjunction.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 8th 2010
   • (edited Sep 8th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> I found the remarks about symmetry at monoidal Dold-Kan correspondence to be somewhat opaque, My fault. > so I clarified them a bit. Thanks! I am wondering what you are working on related to monoidal Dold-Kan...

   I found the remarks about symmetry at monoidal Dold-Kan correspondence to be somewhat opaque,

   My fault.

   so I clarified them a bit.

   Thanks!

   I am wondering what you are working on related to monoidal Dold-Kan…

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeSep 8th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexNothing; someone just asked me a question about it and I wanted to point them to the nLab page. (-:

   Nothing; someone just asked me a question about it and I wanted to point them to the nLab page. (-: