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 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 topological topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeAug 28th 2010
   • (edited Aug 28th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexLet $p: C\to D$ be a functor, and let $f:y\to x$ be a morphism of $C$. Then applying the following (perhaps incorrect) specialization of the definition for quasicategories, we want to show that the canonical map $(C\downarrow f) \to (C\downarrow x)\times_{(D\downarrow p(x)} (D\downarrow p(f))$ is a trivial fibration in the natural model structure. However, if we write out what the (strict 2-) pullback means, the objects are precisely the pairs of morphisms $g: z\to x$ and $h:p(z)\to p(y)$ such that $p(g)=p(f) \circ h$. Now, if we look at the definition of the natural model structure on $Cat$, the trivial fibrations are the surjective (on objects) equivalences of categories. This means that if we require that $(C\downarrow f) \to (C\downarrow x)\times_{(D\downarrow p(x)} (D\downarrow p(f))$ to only be a trivial fibration and not an honest isomorphism, we only have that the filler is unique up to a contractible groupoid of choices. That is, the arrow is not cartesian in the sense of Grothendieck, but it is _homotopy cartesian_. Then the question: should we require that the map $(C\downarrow f) \to (C\downarrow x)\times_{(D\downarrow p(x)} (D\downarrow p(f))$ is an isomorphism of categories? Have I somewhere missed that uniqueness can actually be derived?

   Let be a functor, and let be a morphism of . Then applying the following (perhaps incorrect) specialization of the definition for quasicategories, we want to show that the canonical map is a trivial fibration in the natural model structure. However, if we write out what the (strict 2-) pullback means, the objects are precisely the pairs of morphisms and such that . Now, if we look at the definition of the natural model structure on , the trivial fibrations are the surjective (on objects) equivalences of categories. This means that if we require that to only be a trivial fibration and not an honest isomorphism, we only have that the filler is unique up to a contractible groupoid of choices. That is, the arrow is not cartesian in the sense of Grothendieck, but it is homotopy cartesian.

   Then the question: should we require that the map is an isomorphism of categories? Have I somewhere missed that uniqueness can actually be derived?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 29th 2010
   • (edited Aug 29th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex...

   …

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeAug 29th 2010
   • (edited Aug 29th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexBy the way, the nLab page [[cartesian morphism]] has the same definition (that it should be a surjective equivalence), but when I [asked on MO](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/37006/equivalence-of-definitions-of-cartesian-morphisms/37020#37020), Anton said that it should be an isomorphism of categories.

   By the way, the nLab page cartesian morphism has the same definition (that it should be a surjective equivalence), but when I asked on MO, Anton said that it should be an isomorphism of categories.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 29th 2010
   • (edited Aug 29th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI had posted a reply but removed it when I saw I needed to improve something but had to go offline. What Anton says in his MO-reply is effectively that requiring a surjective equivalence in this case implies that this is actually an isomorphism. Here is what I wrote in the above reply: using the notation at [[Cartesian morphism]] for $p : X \to Y$ the map and $f : x_1 \to x_2$ a morphism in $X$, an object in the pullback category $X/{x_2} \times_{Y/p(x_2)} Y/p(f)$ is a compatible pair $$ \left( \array{ && a \\ &&& \searrow \\ x_1 &&\stackrel{f}{\to}&& x_2 } \;\;\;\;\;\;\,,\;\;\;\;\;\; \array{ && b \\ & \swarrow && \searrow \\ p(x_1) &&\stackrel{p(f)}{\to}&& p(x_2) } \right) $$ Can there be two different objects of $X/f$ over this? I.e. can there be a non-identity morphism $$ \array{ && a \\ &\swarrow & \downarrow^{\mathrlap{h}} & \searrow \\ && a' \\ \downarrow & \swarrow && \searrow & \downarrow \\ x_1 &&\stackrel{f}{\to}&& x_2 } $$ in $X/f$ for $h : a \to a'$ a non-identity morphism in $X$ mapping to the identity morphism on the above object in the pullback category? It cannot, because a non-identity $h$ would map to a non-identity morphism $$ \array{ && a \\ && \downarrow^{\mathrlap{h}} & \searrow \\ && a' \\ & && \searrow & \downarrow \\ &&&& x_2 } $$ in $X/{x_2}$, hence to a non-identity morphism in the pullback category.

   I had posted a reply but removed it when I saw I needed to improve something but had to go offline.

   What Anton says in his MO-reply is effectively that requiring a surjective equivalence in this case implies that this is actually an isomorphism.

   Here is what I wrote in the above reply:

   using the notation at Cartesian morphism for the map and a morphism in , an object in the pullback category is a compatible pair

   Can there be two different objects of over this? I.e. can there be a non-identity morphism

   in for a non-identity morphism in mapping to the identity morphism on the above object in the pullback category?

   It cannot, because a non-identity would map to a non-identity morphism

   in , hence to a non-identity morphism in the pullback category.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 29th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI turned this discussion into a formal proof at <a href="http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Cartesian+morphism#CartInOrdCatReformulation">Cartesian morphism -- Definition -- In categories -- Reformulations</a>. Have a look.

   I turned this discussion into a formal proof at Cartesian morphism – Definition – In categories – Reformulations. Have a look.