Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology 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 foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration-theory internal-categories k-theory kan lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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 string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2009

    added to combinatorial model category a reference (here) discussing that using a funny set-theoretic assumption about large cardinals, every cofibrantly generated mod cat is Quillen equivalent to a combinatorial one.

    Weird that set-theory...

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2009

    polished a bit and then created a separate section for Jeff Smith's theorem.

    wanted to spell out the full proof there, but not yet

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 24th 2009

    added to combinatorial model category the statement and detailed proof (here) that in a combinatorial model cat a kappa-filtered colimit over a sufficiently large kappa is already a homotopy colimit.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009
    • (edited Nov 25th 2009)
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 25th 2009

    am pleased to be able to say that I typed into the entry combinatorial model category now the complete and detailed proof of Smith's theorem.

    Well, there is one point that might need attention: in the first part of the proof, where one shows that these diagrams may be factored, somehow the argument the way I present it looks (while being close) a bit simpler than what I see in the literature. I expect, however, that this is only because I am missing some subtlety. But I leave it the way it is for the moment.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2010
    • (edited Apr 15th 2010)

    edited the list of basic examples slightly. Added the model structure for Cartesian fibrations as the sSet QuillensSet_{Quillen}-enriched replacement of the Joyal model structure

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2010

    I started adding details on the proof of Dugger’s theorem

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 2nd 2012
    • (edited Apr 2nd 2012)

    I have added to combinatorial model category, right after the proof of Smith’s theorem, two basic statemens useful for applying the theorem in the first place (that accessible full preimages of accessible full subcategories are accessible, and that the weak equivalences in a combinatorial model category form an accessibly included accessible full subcategory of the arrow category).

    Also I have tried to stream-line the typesetting of the pointers to the references a bit more.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2014
    • (edited Mar 9th 2014)

    In combinatorial model category the line

    This are corollaries 2.7 and 2..8 in Bar.

    has a dead link. The reference to Barwick further down the page does not seem to correspond and Barwick’s homepage does not seem to have an article of that name. Does anyone have a live link for this?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTim Campion
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2016

    The paragraph about Dugger’s Theorem under Characterization Theorems just said that all combinatorial simplicial model categories have presentations. Looking at Dugger’s paper, he actually shows that all combinatorial model categories have presentations. He gives a separate, easier proof in the simplicial case, though. I edited to reflect this.

  1. Proof of Smith’s theorem: correct the argument for the solution set condition. 1. Adjust choice of J such that it contains the P->R constructed through factorization. 2. Clarify that only morphisms I->W are claimed to factor through W_0. Adjust W_0 to ensure this. 3. Factor P->Q instead of L+P->Q.

    Gábor Braun

    diff, v59, current

  2. Proof of Smith’s theorem: simplify last argument, avoiding the need of functorial factorizations.

    Gábor Braun

    diff, v59, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)