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 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 sheaves 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.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItex[Question](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/56339/artin-mazur-codiagonal-preserves-kan-objects) at MO. Reproduced below: >The Artin-Mazur codiagonal $\nabla:ssSet \to sSet$ is right adjoint to the total decalage functor $Dec:sSet \to ssSet$. The total decalage functor is defined to be precomposition with the ordinal sum functor $+:\Delta\times \Delta \to \Delta$, $+([n],[m]) = [n+m+1]$. >If we agree to call a bisimplicial set $X= ([n]\times [m] \mapsto X_{nm})$ a _bi-Kan complex_ if each simplicial set $[k] \mapsto X_{km}$ and $[k] \mapsto X_{nk}$ is a Kan complex (for all $n$ and $m$), then I'm wondering if it is known in the literature whether $\nabla X$ is a Kan complex. Perhaps in Artin-Mazur's monograph? >Note that a bi-Kan complex is not necessarily the same as an internal Kan complex in the category of Kan complexes (I haven't checked this - just a warning) In particular, this is relevant to showing that $\bar W G$ is globally Kan for a topological simplicial group $G$.

   Question at MO. Reproduced below:

   The Artin-Mazur codiagonal $\nabla:ssSet \to sSet$ is right adjoint to the total decalage functor $Dec:sSet \to ssSet$. The total decalage functor is defined to be precomposition with the ordinal sum functor $+:\Delta\times \Delta \to \Delta$, $+([n],[m]) = [n+m+1]$.

   If we agree to call a bisimplicial set $X= ([n]\times [m] \mapsto X_{nm})$ a bi-Kan complex if each simplicial set $[k] \mapsto X_{km}$ and $[k] \mapsto X_{nk}$ is a Kan complex (for all $n$ and $m$), then I’m wondering if it is known in the literature whether $\nabla X$ is a Kan complex. Perhaps in Artin-Mazur’s monograph?

   Note that a bi-Kan complex is not necessarily the same as an internal Kan complex in the category of Kan complexes (I haven’t checked this - just a warning)

   In particular, this is relevant to showing that $\bar W G$ is globally Kan for a topological simplicial group $G$.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2011
   • (edited Feb 23rd 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexI am! but often do not look at MO. (but have answered it there as well now!) I assume you have checked the various papers by Cegarra, e.g. <i>The behaviour of the W-construction on the homotopy theory of bisimplicial sets.</i> Manuscripta Math. 124 (2007), 427–457 (With J. Remedios). I do not have a copy in front of me so cannot cross check. His webpage is at http://www.ugr.es/~acegarra/Trabajos.html. Another very relevant paper to check is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.3820v1.pdf This seems to say that the answer is YES. see Fact 2.8 page 9. (Possibly also http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.4103v1.pdf might be useful.)

   I am! but often do not look at MO. (but have answered it there as well now!)

   I assume you have checked the various papers by Cegarra, e.g.
   The behaviour of the W-construction on the homotopy theory of bisimplicial sets. Manuscripta Math. 124 (2007), 427–457 (With J. Remedios).

   I do not have a copy in front of me so cannot cross check. His webpage is at http://www.ugr.es/~acegarra/Trabajos.html. Another very relevant paper to check is http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.3820v1.pdf

   This seems to say that the answer is YES. see Fact 2.8 page 9.

   (Possibly also http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.4103v1.pdf might be useful.)

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
   • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2011
   • (edited Feb 23rd 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Tim_Porter
   Format: MarkdownItexIf you check the MO question now, you will find the same answer (and a good remark by Harry!) My reason for re-replying here is to emphasise that the Granada group working with Cegarra, etc. have done a lot of very good stuff in this area and it may be a good idea to double check in some of the other papers for results that are useful for nLab threads. I must admit to not knowing enough of their work well enough. (It should also be said that the city of Granada has some wonderful things in it... not just the Alhambra.)

   If you check the MO question now, you will find the same answer (and a good remark by Harry!) My reason for re-replying here is to emphasise that the Granada group working with Cegarra, etc. have done a lot of very good stuff in this area and it may be a good idea to double check in some of the other papers for results that are useful for nLab threads. I must admit to not knowing enough of their work well enough. (It should also be said that the city of Granada has some wonderful things in it… not just the Alhambra.)