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.
   • CommentAuthorEmily Riehl
   • CommentTimeApr 4th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Emily Riehl
   Format: MarkdownItexThis is in response to a comment at the bottom of [enriched factorization system](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/enriched+factorization+system). I want to propose a notion of *enriched weak factorization system*. On account of the enriched version of the algebraic small object argument there will be many examples. I don't know whether this appears in the literature. (If so, please tell me! I'd love to have a reference.) Suppose $K$ is a tensored and cotensored $V$-category. Say maps $j$ and $f$ in the underlying category of $K$ satisfy the *enriched lifting property* with respect to each other if the map from the hom-object $K(cod j, dom f) \to Sq(j,f)$ admits a section in $V$. The latter object is defined by pullback in the usual way. An enriched weak factorization system consists of left and right classes of maps and a $V$-functorial factorization such that the left class is precisely those things that lift on the left in the enriched sense against the right class and dually. Note that an enriched weak factorization system is an ordinary weak factorization system: both classes are closed under retracts. *Cofibrantly generated* examples are produced by the enriched version of the algebraic small object argument. Note that this use of cofibrantly generated does not coincide with the usual one; more on this below. To see this, note that $j$ and $f$ satisfy the enriched lifting property if and only if there is a solution to the canonical lifting problem in $K$ of $j$ tensored with $Sq(j,f)$ against $f$. The enriched version of the algebraic small object argument starts by forming the coproduct of such lifting problems over $J$ (but not over squares; that's subsumed by the tensor) and then pushing out. This produces the "step-one" functorial factorization. Algebras for the functor that sends a map to its right factor are precisely things that satisfy the enriched lifting property against $J$. The algebraic small object argument produces an algebraic weak factorization system whose right class is the free monad on this; hence its algebras again satisfy the enriched lifting property. Because the enriched algebraic small object produces a $V$-functorial factorization, it is easy to see that coalgebras for the comonad satisfy the enriched lifting property with respect to algebras for the monad. The retract closures of maps admitting (co)algebra structures define the classes of the enriched (algebraic) weak factorization system. Here's an easy example to keep in mind: in the category of modules of a commutative ring $R$ the ordinary wfs generated by $0 \to R$ has as right class the epimorphisms. The enriched wfs generated by this has as right class the epimorphisms admitting an $R$-module section. A souped up version of this example shows that the (trivial cofibration, fibration) wfs in the h-model structure on unbounded chain complexes of $R$-modules is cofibrantly generated in the $R$-module enriched sense (though not in the usual one). More details (rather hastily written, alas) can be found [here](http://www.math.harvard.edu/~eriehl/266x/lectures.pdf) in notes I've writing for a course I'm teaching this term. The relevant lecture is today's (April 3). What do you think of this?

   This is in response to a comment at the bottom of enriched factorization system.

   I want to propose a notion of enriched weak factorization system. On account of the enriched version of the algebraic small object argument there will be many examples. I don’t know whether this appears in the literature. (If so, please tell me! I’d love to have a reference.)

   Suppose $K$ is a tensored and cotensored $V$-category. Say maps $j$ and $f$ in the underlying category of $K$ satisfy the enriched lifting property with respect to each other if the map from the hom-object $K(cod j, dom f) \to Sq(j,f)$ admits a section in $V$. The latter object is defined by pullback in the usual way.

   An enriched weak factorization system consists of left and right classes of maps and a $V$-functorial factorization such that the left class is precisely those things that lift on the left in the enriched sense against the right class and dually. Note that an enriched weak factorization system is an ordinary weak factorization system: both classes are closed under retracts.

   Cofibrantly generated examples are produced by the enriched version of the algebraic small object argument. Note that this use of cofibrantly generated does not coincide with the usual one; more on this below.

   To see this, note that $j$ and $f$ satisfy the enriched lifting property if and only if there is a solution to the canonical lifting problem in $K$ of $j$ tensored with $Sq(j,f)$ against $f$. The enriched version of the algebraic small object argument starts by forming the coproduct of such lifting problems over $J$ (but not over squares; that’s subsumed by the tensor) and then pushing out. This produces the “step-one” functorial factorization. Algebras for the functor that sends a map to its right factor are precisely things that satisfy the enriched lifting property against $J$. The algebraic small object argument produces an algebraic weak factorization system whose right class is the free monad on this; hence its algebras again satisfy the enriched lifting property. Because the enriched algebraic small object produces a $V$-functorial factorization, it is easy to see that coalgebras for the comonad satisfy the enriched lifting property with respect to algebras for the monad. The retract closures of maps admitting (co)algebra structures define the classes of the enriched (algebraic) weak factorization system.

   Here’s an easy example to keep in mind: in the category of modules of a commutative ring $R$ the ordinary wfs generated by $0 \to R$ has as right class the epimorphisms. The enriched wfs generated by this has as right class the epimorphisms admitting an $R$-module section. A souped up version of this example shows that the (trivial cofibration, fibration) wfs in the h-model structure on unbounded chain complexes of $R$-modules is cofibrantly generated in the $R$-module enriched sense (though not in the usual one).

   More details (rather hastily written, alas) can be found here in notes I’ve writing for a course I’m teaching this term. The relevant lecture is today’s (April 3).

   What do you think of this?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 4th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexVery nice! I think I remember talking about this with you at least once before, but IIRC I kept getting sidetracked and disappointed by the fact that the "enriched lifting property" you get is different from the one in SM7. But clearly this one is also useful! Can you say anything about the h-model structure on topological spaces?

   Very nice! I think I remember talking about this with you at least once before, but IIRC I kept getting sidetracked and disappointed by the fact that the “enriched lifting property” you get is different from the one in SM7. But clearly this one is also useful! Can you say anything about the h-model structure on topological spaces?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorEmily Riehl
   • CommentTimeApr 5th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Emily Riehl
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, I suppose it's clear the Hurewicz cofibrations are closed under tensors and Hurewicz fibrations are closed under cotensors. Assuming *closed cofibrations* are also closed on tensors, it would follow that both weak factorization systems satisfy the enriched lifting property. Similar remarks (that are easier to verify) hold for the h-model structure on unbounded chain complexes over a ring, where I'm think of enrichments over abelian groups or $R$-modules (if the ring is commutative). Indeed, in the latter case, the (trivial cofibration, fibration) weak factorization system is generated by the set $\{ 0 \to D^n\}$ interpretted in the usual way. Furthermore, the functorial factorization produced by the enriched algebraic small object argument exactly factors a map through the mapping path space. Richard Garner first observed this back when you were still at Chicago.

   Yes, I suppose it’s clear the Hurewicz cofibrations are closed under tensors and Hurewicz fibrations are closed under cotensors. Assuming closed cofibrations are also closed on tensors, it would follow that both weak factorization systems satisfy the enriched lifting property.

   Similar remarks (that are easier to verify) hold for the h-model structure on unbounded chain complexes over a ring, where I’m think of enrichments over abelian groups or $R$-modules (if the ring is commutative). Indeed, in the latter case, the (trivial cofibration, fibration) weak factorization system is generated by the set $\{ 0 \to D^n\}$ interpretted in the usual way. Furthermore, the functorial factorization produced by the enriched algebraic small object argument exactly factors a map through the mapping path space. Richard Garner first observed this back when you were still at Chicago.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorEmily Riehl
   • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Emily Riehl
   Format: MarkdownItex...and clearly your memory is better than mine :) Now that you mention telling me about this, I'm starting to get a vague recollection. In any case, the mathematical content seems to have transferred to my subconscious. No wonder everything was so easy to prove!

   …and clearly your memory is better than mine :) Now that you mention telling me about this, I’m starting to get a vague recollection. In any case, the mathematical content seems to have transferred to my subconscious. No wonder everything was so easy to prove!

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIs knowing that the h-model structures are "cofibrantly generated" in the enriched sense useful? Does it let us do anything with them that we can usually only do with cofibrantly generated model structures?

   Is knowing that the h-model structures are “cofibrantly generated” in the enriched sense useful? Does it let us do anything with them that we can usually only do with cofibrantly generated model structures?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
   • (edited Apr 6th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have added to the entry _[[enriched factorization system]]_ a few lines to indicate how the non-orthogonal case works. I have also added a _References_-section with a pointer to your (Emily's) notes. I was going to add an Examples-section remark that -- if maybe in slight disguise -- enriched lifting is present all over the place in Reedy model category theory: whenever the matching objects are co-represented by powering out of cell boundaries (as happens for all "[EZ categories](http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3341v1.pdf#page=22)"). But now I am running out of steam for that.

   I have added to the entry enriched factorization system a few lines to indicate how the non-orthogonal case works.

   I have also added a References-section with a pointer to your (Emily’s) notes.

   I was going to add an Examples-section remark that – if maybe in slight disguise – enriched lifting is present all over the place in Reedy model category theory: whenever the matching objects are co-represented by powering out of cell boundaries (as happens for all “EZ categories”). But now I am running out of steam for that.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorEmily Riehl
   • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Emily Riehl
   Format: MarkdownItexTo clarify, I don't know of any generators for the (cofibrations, trivial fibrations) side; just the other one. Actually I'd love to have a list of "things we can only do with cofibrantly generated model structures." I do know that this observation allows you to construct projective model structures. What other constructions should I think about?

   To clarify, I don’t know of any generators for the (cofibrations, trivial fibrations) side; just the other one.

   Actually I’d love to have a list of “things we can only do with cofibrantly generated model structures.” I do know that this observation allows you to construct projective model structures. What other constructions should I think about?

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 9th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexBousfield localization?

   Bousfield localization?