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
   • CommentTimeMar 7th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have added some first content to _[[generalized Reedy model structure]]_.

   I have added some first content to generalized Reedy model structure.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 27th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have been adding a bunch of further details to _[[generalized Reedy model structure]]_. I wanted to break down the full proof into steps in a way that lends itself to presentation in a seminar. But I guess so far I mainly just copied it, just adding a few intermediate steps here and there. To be continued.

   I have been adding a bunch of further details to generalized Reedy model structure.

   I wanted to break down the full proof into steps in a way that lends itself to presentation in a seminar. But I guess so far I mainly just copied it, just adding a few intermediate steps here and there. To be continued.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMar 28th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexOkay, I have polished a bit more. Should now be readable and fairly complete.

   Okay, I have polished a bit more. Should now be readable and fairly complete.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 8th 2014
   • (edited Jul 8th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexLooking at Berger-Moerdijk's article, it seems to me that a generalized Reedy category produces *only* model structures built out of the *projective* model structures on group actions; to use injective model structures one would need the dual notion (the definition of generalized Reedy category not being self-dual). This is what I get from their Remark 1.8. But our page [[generalized Reedy model structure]] seems to be saying that the same notion suffices for both kinds of model structure. Is that right?

   Looking at Berger-Moerdijk’s article, it seems to me that a generalized Reedy category produces only model structures built out of the projective model structures on group actions; to use injective model structures one would need the dual notion (the definition of generalized Reedy category not being self-dual). This is what I get from their Remark 1.8. But our page generalized Reedy model structure seems to be saying that the same notion suffices for both kinds of model structure. Is that right?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 8th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexHm, I remember that issue from back when I wrote the entry (which was when I gave our group seminar about it). But I don't remember now the argument. I'll try to check.

   Hm, I remember that issue from back when I wrote the entry (which was when I gave our group seminar about it). But I don’t remember now the argument. I’ll try to check.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeMay 18th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexThere is a question about this article on MathOverflow: <https://mathoverflow.net/questions/300326/reference-request-for-statement-on-nlab-reedy-cofibrancy-of-cosimplicial-ob>

   There is a question about this article on MathOverflow: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/300326/reference-request-for-statement-on-nlab-reedy-cofibrancy-of-cosimplicial-ob

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeMay 18th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexThe claim discussed in the MathOverflow question was added by Urs Schreiber in revision 32.

   The claim discussed in the MathOverflow question was added by Urs Schreiber in revision 32.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 18th 2018
   • (edited May 18th 2018)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks for the alert! I forget what I thought when I wrote this in [rev 32](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Reedy+model+structure/32). For the moment I have implemented the most lazy fix now: [this example](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Reedy+model+structure#EveryBisimplicialSetIsReedyCofibrant). Notice that this concerns the entry _[[Reedy model structure]]_, maybe we should move discussion to [that thread](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/8547/reedy-model-structure/#Item_0)

   Thanks for the alert! I forget what I thought when I wrote this in rev 32. For the moment I have implemented the most lazy fix now: this example.

   Notice that this concerns the entry Reedy model structure, maybe we should move discussion to that thread

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 10th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexUrs, did you ever get anywhere with the issue discussed in #4-5 above? I would be a little surprised if one doesn't have to switch to co-generalized Reedy categories when using injective model structures.

   Urs, did you ever get anywhere with the issue discussed in #4-5 above? I would be a little surprised if one doesn’t have to switch to co-generalized Reedy categories when using injective model structures.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexSorry, no. It's lost in time.

    Sorry, no. It’s lost in time.

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 10th 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexOkay, then I'll edit our page to align with the published results.

    Okay, then I’ll edit our page to align with the published results.