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
   • CommentTimeDec 11th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexat [[compact object in an (infinity,1)-category]] I have added the definition and stated the examples: the $\kappa$-compact objects in $(\infty,1)Cat$/$\infty Grpd$ are the essentially $\kappa$-small $(\infty,1)$-categories/groupoids.

   at compact object in an (infinity,1)-category I have added the definition and stated the examples: the $\kappa$-compact objects in $(\infty,1)Cat$/$\infty Grpd$ are the essentially $\kappa$-small $(\infty,1)$-categories/groupoids.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 16th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexHow are $\kappa$-compact objects in a locally presentable $(\infty,1)$-category related to $\kappa$-compact objects in a combinatorial model category that presents it? Does one property imply the other? Are they equivalent? I'm willing to take $\kappa$ to be arbitrarily large.

   How are $\kappa$-compact objects in a locally presentable $(\infty,1)$-category related to $\kappa$-compact objects in a combinatorial model category that presents it? Does one property imply the other? Are they equivalent? I’m willing to take $\kappa$ to be arbitrarily large.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2012
   • (edited Apr 26th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have put a pointer to your [MO discussion](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/95165/compact-objects-in-model-categories-and-infty-1-categories) with Jacob Lurie on this question into the entry _[[compact object in an (infinity,1)-category]]_ . By coincidence, right now I have started wanting to know more about the class of objects $X \in Sh_\infty(SmthMfd)$ such that $Hom(X,-)$ preserves the $\infty$-colimit $$ \mathbf{B} U := \lim_{\to_n} \mathbf{B} U(n) $$ over the smooth moduli stacks of unitary bundles. I realize that I haven't thought about such issues enough.

   I have put a pointer to your MO discussion with Jacob Lurie on this question into the entry compact object in an (infinity,1)-category .

   By coincidence, right now I have started wanting to know more about the class of objects $X \in Sh_\infty(SmthMfd)$ such that $Hom(X,-)$ preserves the $\infty$-colimit

   $$\mathbf{B} U := \lim_{\to_n} \mathbf{B} U(n)$$

   over the smooth moduli stacks of unitary bundles.

   I realize that I haven’t thought about such issues enough.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 26th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks. If I have a chance to work out the details in his rather sketchy answer, I'll put them on the nLab page too. I am of course interested in this for purposes of modeling univalent universes with object classifiers. If the corresponding statement for relatively $\kappa$-compact morphisms is true for $\kappa$ sufficiently large, then that means the universes we construct in model categories, which classify fiberwise $\kappa$-small fibrations, actually do present object classifiers of relatively $\kappa$-compact morphisms in the $(\infty,1)$-topos being presented. Which is what we expect, of course.

   Thanks. If I have a chance to work out the details in his rather sketchy answer, I’ll put them on the nLab page too.

   I am of course interested in this for purposes of modeling univalent universes with object classifiers. If the corresponding statement for relatively $\kappa$-compact morphisms is true for $\kappa$ sufficiently large, then that means the universes we construct in model categories, which classify fiberwise $\kappa$-small fibrations, actually do present object classifiers of relatively $\kappa$-compact morphisms in the $(\infty,1)$-topos being presented. Which is what we expect, of course.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexHow is the $\infty$-colimit $$ \mathbf{B} U := \lim_{\to_n} \mathbf{B} U(n) $$ different to the ordinary colimit? I ask because I was considering a similar problem (compact objects) in the mere (2,1)-category of Lie groupoids and anafunctors, in particular with regards to a similar colimit of classifying spaces. I conjecture (based on some other work) that a proper Lie groupoid such that the orbit space $X_0/X_1$ is compact is sufficient to preserve the colimit. But perhaps I should be thinking of colimits in a (2,1)-sense, no just an ordinary colimit.

   How is the $\infty$-colimit

   $$\mathbf{B} U := \lim_{\to_n} \mathbf{B} U(n)$$

   different to the ordinary colimit?

   I ask because I was considering a similar problem (compact objects) in the mere (2,1)-category of Lie groupoids and anafunctors, in particular with regards to a similar colimit of classifying spaces. I conjecture (based on some other work) that a proper Lie groupoid such that the orbit space $X_0/X_1$ is compact is sufficient to preserve the colimit. But perhaps I should be thinking of colimits in a (2,1)-sense, no just an ordinary colimit.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2012
   • (edited Apr 27th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexEvery hocolim is computed as an ordinary colimit over a suitable diagram, so the question is how much one has to bend over backwards to massage this into a "suitable diagram". And here the answer is indeed: not much at all. The hocolim is computed as the colim over a projectively cofibrant diagram. A cotower diagram is projectively cofibrant if all morphisms are cofibrations and the first and hence all objects are cofibrant. So it's sufficient here to use an injective model structure on simplicial presheaves and then everything goes through very naively.

   Every hocolim is computed as an ordinary colimit over a suitable diagram, so the question is how much one has to bend over backwards to massage this into a “suitable diagram”. And here the answer is indeed: not much at all.

   The hocolim is computed as the colim over a projectively cofibrant diagram. A cotower diagram is projectively cofibrant if all morphisms are cofibrations and the first and hence all objects are cofibrant. So it’s sufficient here to use an injective model structure on simplicial presheaves and then everything goes through very naively.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexSorry if that reply was too terse. It's past 2am here and I should call it quits. Let's talk about it tomorrow :-)

   Sorry if that reply was too terse. It’s past 2am here and I should call it quits. Let’s talk about it tomorrow :-)