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.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeSep 15th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexFollowing sections 34 and 35 in Dwyer-Hirschhorn-Kan-Smith (DHKS), I have begun to write up a page on hammock localization and simplicial Grothendieck construction localization. [[simplicial localization of a homotopical category]].

   Following sections 34 and 35 in Dwyer-Hirschhorn-Kan-Smith (DHKS), I have begun to write up a page on hammock localization and simplicial Grothendieck construction localization. simplicial localization of a homotopical category.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeSep 15th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexI should also add that I'm a bit unhappy with the way that DHKS define the morphisms induced by maps in $\mathbf{T}$. For some reason, the functors they want us to use, $f_*$ don't seem like they're the "right" ones categorically. It seems much more natural for us to use the pullback $f^*$, since that is just precomposition, but for some reason, the maps $f_*$ are used instead. Are they at least adjoint to the $f^*$, or are they as arbitrary as they seem?

   I should also add that I’m a bit unhappy with the way that DHKS define the morphisms induced by maps in $\mathbf{T}$. For some reason, the functors they want us to use, $f_*$ don’t seem like they’re the “right” ones categorically. It seems much more natural for us to use the pullback $f^*$, since that is just precomposition, but for some reason, the maps $f_*$ are used instead. Are they at least adjoint to the $f^*$, or are they as arbitrary as they seem?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 16th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHi Harry, that's great that you are doing this, thanks! Eventually it would be good if you added hyperlinks back and forth between the entry you are writing and the relavant existing nLab entries. I'd actually tend to think it deserves to be merged with [[simplicial localization]].

   Hi Harry,

   that’s great that you are doing this, thanks!

   Eventually it would be good if you added hyperlinks back and forth between the entry you are writing and the relavant existing nLab entries. I’d actually tend to think it deserves to be merged with simplicial localization.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeSep 16th 2010
   • (edited Sep 16th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItex@Urs: Thanks! It's nice to feel appreciated =)! Also, the induced functors $f_*$ impose the relations that we want for localization, but I'd still like to know why that's a natural choice (is it actually adjoint to the pullback?) if anyone could tell me that.

   @Urs: Thanks! It’s nice to feel appreciated =)!

   Also, the induced functors $f_*$ impose the relations that we want for localization, but I’d still like to know why that’s a natural choice (is it actually adjoint to the pullback?) if anyone could tell me that.