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 object 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
   • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
   • (edited Nov 15th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexRecall the [[zigzag category]] $T$. It is known that $T$ is a reedy category. Suppose we weaken the definition a bit, by only requiring that "-" objects map to "-" objects, but not necessarily maintain the partition, and call these "weak zigzags". Is there any existing work considering presheaves on this category? At least superficially, it seems like presheaves on the zigzag category resemble something like stratified simplicial sets, so I'm wondering if anybody has tried to equip them with a model structure of sorts.

   Recall the zigzag category $T$. It is known that $T$ is a reedy category. Suppose we weaken the definition a bit, by only requiring that “-” objects map to “-” objects, but not necessarily maintain the partition, and call these “weak zigzags”. Is there any existing work considering presheaves on this category? At least superficially, it seems like presheaves on the zigzag category resemble something like stratified simplicial sets, so I’m wondering if anybody has tried to equip them with a model structure of sorts.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexAs it involves stratified simplicial sets, have you checked through the papers and monograph of Dom Verity?

   As it involves stratified simplicial sets, have you checked through the papers and monograph of Dom Verity?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeNov 15th 2010
   • (edited Nov 15th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexHmm, my original assessment was wrong. More correctly, I should have said, "these resemble marked simplicial sets". However, I just realized that perhaps we shouldn't weaken the axioms for Zigzags, to avoid double-counting simplices. Perhaps a better way to state this would be: Let Z be the category of pairs $([n],W)$ where $W$ is a lluf subcategory of $[n]$, and where the morphisms $([n],W) \to ([m],W')$ are functors $[n]\to [m]$ such that $im(W)=im([n])\cap W'$. Then take the category of presheaves over Z. That is, they're not exactly zig-zags, but they're not exactly relative posets either. The idea here is, we define a functor $Z\to sSet^+$ sending $([n],W)\mapsto (\Delta^n,\mathfrak{N}(W)_1)$. Notice that these range over all of the ways we can mark $\Delta^n$ for each $n$, and by abstract nonsense, this gives us a colimit-preserving functor $Psh(Z)\to sSet^+$, whose right adjoint is a nerve functor sending a marked simplicial set to the $Z$-set of its edge-marked simplices. I'm hoping that it is an equivalence of categories, but I haven't checked. At first glance, it seems like it honestly should be.

   Hmm, my original assessment was wrong. More correctly, I should have said, “these resemble marked simplicial sets”. However, I just realized that perhaps we shouldn’t weaken the axioms for Zigzags, to avoid double-counting simplices.

   Perhaps a better way to state this would be: Let Z be the category of pairs $([n],W)$ where $W$ is a lluf subcategory of $[n]$, and where the morphisms $([n],W) \to ([m],W')$ are functors $[n]\to [m]$ such that $im(W)=im([n])\cap W'$. Then take the category of presheaves over Z. That is, they’re not exactly zig-zags, but they’re not exactly relative posets either.

   The idea here is, we define a functor $Z\to sSet^+$ sending $([n],W)\mapsto (\Delta^n,\mathfrak{N}(W)_1)$. Notice that these range over all of the ways we can mark $\Delta^n$ for each $n$, and by abstract nonsense, this gives us a colimit-preserving functor $Psh(Z)\to sSet^+$, whose right adjoint is a nerve functor sending a marked simplicial set to the $Z$-set of its edge-marked simplices. I’m hoping that it is an equivalence of categories, but I haven’t checked.

   At first glance, it seems like it honestly should be.