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 bundle bundles calculus 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 finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory itex k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory 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 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2009

    created cellular model category.

    I still need a discussion on what exactly one can say about the relation to combinatorial model category. There must be some good statement, but I am not sure yet.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2014

    Some kind soul wrote me an email with the following content

    The first condition in a cellular model category is that the domains and codomains of the generating cofibrations are compact. My remark is that in my understanding what Hirschhorn calls a compact object (namely Definition 10.8.1 in his book) is very far from the definition given in the link in nLab. The definition of compact object given in nLab is what Hirschhorn calls ω\omega-small object, and I don’t see any relation between the two. This can be very misleading.

    Perhaps a related issue, in the entries on combinatorial model categories and on Bousfield localization it is mentioned a few times that the notion of a cellular model category is more general then that of a combinatorial model category. Can you please point me to a reference to this fact. I find it a bit hard to believe since for example the right Bousfield localization theorem (Theorem 5.1.1 in Hirschhorn’s book) holds for cellular model categories while for combinatorial model categories it is an open problem according to what [some expert] told me.

    Probably something indeed needs to be fixed here. However, right now I have no chance to look into any of this, let alone make edits. I’ll leave this message here either for me to come back to later, or else for whoever feels motivated to look into this.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2014
    • (edited Jun 26th 2014)

    Hirschhorn’s definition of “compact” is what we might call small, i.e. κ\kappa-compact for large-enough regular cardinals κ\kappa.

    Top\mathbf{Top} (in Hirschhorn’s sense, so e.g. the category of compactly generated weakly Hausdorff spaces) is a cellular model category that is not combinatorial. I suppose that was the motivating example. This example is already on the page.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2014

    Thanks. I am quasi-offline. If you wanted to do me a favor (me and all other nLab users, that is) you could briefly add whatever comment/link the page might need for clarification. Thanks!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2014

    Hmmm. Actually, on further reflection, I’m not so confident that “compact relative to II” is equivalent to “small relative to II”. The forward implication appears as Proposition 10.8.7, but I cannot find the reverse implication. It should at least be true in the case where II is the class of all morphisms (which we usually get for free in a combinatorial model category), but there is still a non-trivial check involved.

    I added a warning about the meaning of “compact”.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorilanbarnea
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2014
    Hi
    I was the one who wrote to Urs. I was nor aware that these thins are discussed here.
    In relation to Zhen Lin first comment:
    Clearly there are cellular model categories that are not combinatorial. What is not clear to me is why every combinatorial model category is cellular.
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2014
    • (edited Jun 29th 2014)

    I guess you are taking for granted that the cofibrations are effective monomorphisms; otherwise there are trivial counterexamples.

    It is well known that every object in a locally presentable category is small (relative to the class of all morphisms). It should also be true that every object is compact, at least under the following hypothesis: for any large-enough regular cardinal κ\kappa and any presented relative cell complex, the poset of subcomplexes of size <κ\lt \kappa is κ\kappa-filtered. But perhaps that hypothesis is not always satisfied.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorilanbarnea
    • CommentTimeJun 29th 2014
    Then even because of the trivial reason, places where it is said that the notion of a cellular model category is more general then that of a combinatorial model category should be corrected (like in the entries on combinatorial model categories and on Bousfield localization)
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)