Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

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

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2012
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2012

    Why ’elegant’?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2012

    Beats me; ask Julie and Charles. My guess would be that they just wanted a word with connotations of “nice” or “well-behaved” that hadn’t been overused already.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 30th 2012

    I’ve added some additional characterizations and examples to elegant Reedy category.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2014

    I’ve corrected the stated theorem at elegant Reedy category to only claim that the Reedy and injective model structures coincide for simplicial presheaves. The more general version (for any model category whose cofibrations are the monos) was copied from v1 of Bergner-Rezk, but v2 removed that claim.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 28th 2014

    I’ve added a proof of the main theorem about elegant Reedy categories. Writing it more categorically shows the generality in which it is true: it seems to work for presheaves valued in any Cisinski model category.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorpcapriotti
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2018

    Isn’t condition 1 of the third equivalent formulation of elegant Reedy category (definition 1.1) redundant? In Bergner-Rezk, they define elegant by just condition 2 there, and prove that it is equivalent to the formulation in terms of absolute pushouts, which of course then implies condition 1 as well.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 27th 2018

    You’re right. It looks like the definition on the nLab page was taken from their arXiv v1 and no one updated it after their final version was posted. Please feel free to fix it!

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorpcapriotti
    • CommentTimeMar 27th 2018

    Alright, I removed the extra condition and added a corollary to show that it follows from the others. I think it would also be nice to add a proof of the equivalence of the three formulations, since I don’t think it’s all that obvious. I’ll try to do that when I have some time.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2018