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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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 topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 12th 2010
   • (edited Oct 12th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexcreated -- for <a href="http://ncatlab.org/schreiber/show/Seminar+on+derived+differential+geometry">our derived seminar</a> -- the entry [[homotopy T-algebra]] with the main result by Badzioch and interlinked it with [[model structure on simplicial T-algebras]] and [[(infinity,1)-algebraic theory]]

   created – for our derived seminar – the entry homotopy T-algebra with the main result by Badzioch and interlinked it with model structure on simplicial T-algebras and (infinity,1)-algebraic theory

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeOct 12th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownHow do the definitions under [[homotopy T-algebra]] fit with the definitions from Leinster <http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0002180> ?

   How do the definitions under homotopy T-algebra fit with the definitions from Leinster http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0002180 ?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 12th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexDoes Tom check how his notion compares with the ordinary notion (by cofibrant resolution of operads)?

   Does Tom check how his notion compares with the ordinary notion (by cofibrant resolution of operads)?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeOct 12th 2010
   • (edited Oct 12th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownIn my memory (I travel to Wien the day after tomorrow so I can not now reread details), Tom was not doing comparison with any model theoretic nonsense. He is considering something like colax monoidal functors from free monoidal category on the original operad to what he calls "cartesian monoidal category with equivalences". So the colaxness does all the homotopy thing if I understood the idea right. In any case, Leinster's approach covers the standard examples like A infinity, L infinity and Gerstenhaber infinity algebras; the domain of his functors (representing infinity algebras) is in rather algebraic setup, and all the information about weak equivalences is in the domain monoidal category. Added: The question if the homotopy algebras over original operad are the usual algebras about some kind of some resolution is a question of representability which is not needed for his general concept, I think.

   In my memory (I travel to Wien the day after tomorrow so I can not now reread details), Tom was not doing comparison with any model theoretic nonsense. He is considering something like colax monoidal functors from free monoidal category on the original operad to what he calls "cartesian monoidal category with equivalences". So the colaxness does all the homotopy thing if I understood the idea right. In any case, Leinster's approach covers the standard examples like A infinity, L infinity and Gerstenhaber infinity algebras; the domain of his functors (representing infinity algebras) is in rather algebraic setup, and all the information about weak equivalences is in the domain monoidal category.

   Added: The question if the homotopy algebras over original operad are the usual algebras about some kind of some resolution is a question of representability which is not needed for his general concept, I think.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 12th 2010
   • (edited Oct 12th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexZoran, I think the relation of homotopy T-algebras to algebras over $(\infty,1)$-operads is clear: by Bandzioch, Bergner and Lurie we have homotopy T-algebras model the algebras over $T$ regarded as an $\infty$-algebraic theory. These $\infty$-algebraic theories must have the same kind of relation to $\infty$-operads as ordinary algebraic theories have to ordinary operads. So in as far as an $\infty$-operad corresponds to an $\infty$-algebraic theory, its $\infty$-category of algebras should be equivalent to that of the $\infty$-algebraic theory. So Tom's notion should be equivalent to this to the extent that it is equivalent to algebras over $\infty$-operads. Which we know are modeled by ordinary algbras over cofibrant topological/simplicial operads.

   Zoran,

   I think the relation of homotopy T-algebras to algebras over $(\infty,1)$-operads is clear:

   by Bandzioch, Bergner and Lurie we have homotopy T-algebras model the algebras over $T$ regarded as an $\infty$-algebraic theory. These $\infty$-algebraic theories must have the same kind of relation to $\infty$-operads as ordinary algebraic theories have to ordinary operads. So in as far as an $\infty$-operad corresponds to an $\infty$-algebraic theory, its $\infty$-category of algebras should be equivalent to that of the $\infty$-algebraic theory.

   So Tom’s notion should be equivalent to this to the extent that it is equivalent to algebras over $\infty$-operads. Which we know are modeled by ordinary algbras over cofibrant topological/simplicial operads.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeOct 12th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownUrs, you assume that every case which Tom covers is representable in a sense. I am not sure, because the Lurie and others consider operads in more specific context. Leinster takes any monoidal category with a choice of class of morphisms called equivalences satifsying some axioms. he does not take operads in dg-category or in stable infinity category or in similar more specific context. So it may be that it is not quite the same level of generality, but one should check.

   Urs, you assume that every case which Tom covers is representable in a sense. I am not sure, because the Lurie and others consider operads in more specific context. Leinster takes any monoidal category with a choice of class of morphisms called equivalences satifsying some axioms. he does not take operads in dg-category or in stable infinity category or in similar more specific context. So it may be that it is not quite the same level of generality, but one should check.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 13th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Leinster takes any monoidal category with a choice of class of morphisms called equivalences satifsying some axioms. Similarly, in * Berger, Moerdijk, _The Boardman-Vogt resolution of operads in monoidal model categories_ (<a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/math.AT/0502155">arXiv</a>) _Axiomatic homotopy theory for operads_ (<a href="http://www.math.uu.nl/publications/preprints/1242.pdf">pdf</a>) operads over any symmetric monoidal model category with suitable interval object are considered. We happen to know for the case that the enriching category is $sSet_{Quillen}$ how this relates to $\infty$-operads, hence to $\infty$-algebraic theories, hence to homotopy $T$-algebras. For other enriching categories less is known about the general abstract context. But since you asked about the relation of Tom Leinster's construction to homotopy $T$-algebras: if one knew how his construction relates to operads enriched in $sSet_{Quillen}$, we knew how it relates to homotopy $T$-algebas.

   Leinster takes any monoidal category with a choice of class of morphisms called equivalences satifsying some axioms.

   Similarly, in

   • Berger, Moerdijk,

     The Boardman-Vogt resolution of operads in monoidal model categories (arXiv)

     Axiomatic homotopy theory for operads (pdf)

   operads over any symmetric monoidal model category with suitable interval object are considered.

   We happen to know for the case that the enriching category is $sSet_{Quillen}$ how this relates to $\infty$-operads, hence to $\infty$-algebraic theories, hence to homotopy $T$-algebras.

   For other enriching categories less is known about the general abstract context. But since you asked about the relation of Tom Leinster’s construction to homotopy $T$-algebras: if one knew how his construction relates to operads enriched in $sSet_{Quillen}$, we knew how it relates to homotopy $T$-algebas.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeOct 13th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownSo, the question on enrichment in sSet is more or less if there is nice "simplicial nerve" of his "monoidal categories with equivalences", something like simplicial localization. This is an interesting question.

   So, the question on enrichment in sSet is more or less if there is nice "simplicial nerve" of his "monoidal categories with equivalences", something like simplicial localization. This is an interesting question.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 13th 2010
   • (edited Oct 13th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, for instance consider the example of enrichment in chain complexes: if we take non-negatively graded chain complexes, then we know that their simplicial nerve, yes, injects them into $sSet_{Quillen}$ and we may think this way of a $Ch_\bullet^+$-enriched operad as a certain $(\infty,1)$-operad. Another interesting choice to consider is enriching in $sSet_{Joyal}$. If that goes through, it would be a natural candidate for a model for $(\infty,2)$-operads.

   Yes, for instance consider the example of enrichment in chain complexes: if we take non-negatively graded chain complexes, then we know that their simplicial nerve, yes, injects them into $sSet_{Quillen}$ and we may think this way of a $Ch_\bullet^+$-enriched operad as a certain $(\infty,1)$-operad.

   Another interesting choice to consider is enriching in $sSet_{Joyal}$. If that goes through, it would be a natural candidate for a model for $(\infty,2)$-operads.