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 bundle bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched etcs fibration 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 lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds 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 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 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 23rd 2009
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2009

    I redirected it from model structure on an under category.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2009

    By the way: I keep seeing in the literature overcategory instead of over category . For instance in the article by Hirschhorn linked to at model structure on an over category.

    Are we sure we want to have the entries named over category and so on?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2009

    Well, I like slice category, but I remember putting it over category in the days before redirects to help insure that your links to it would work.

    I have put in redirects for overcategory and the like.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 23rd 2009

    Oh, really, was it me who started writing "over category"? I forget. Sorry, then! :-)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2009

    Now I am interested in the special case of Top with Strom's model structure. Then there are theorems on the connection between Dold fibrations and Hurewicz fibrations, one of them is that every Dold fibration p:E -> B is

       homotopy equivalent over B 
    

    with a Hurewicz fibration p:E' to B. Is this giving some light on the open question as if there is a model category structure on Top where fibrations are Dold fibrations ? Another important thing is that you can verbatim repeat the definition of Hurewitz fibration to get Dold fibration if instead of homotopies you use delayed homotopies (this is a theorem). Is there a way to use delayed homotopies to nontrivially modify the notion of cofibration ?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2009
    In the case of the under category, a relevant theorem may be Dold's theorem which states that a map whose underlying map is a homotopy equivalence is already a homotopy equivalence under provided its source and target are cofibrations. This is discussed in Kamps-Porter in quite a lot of detail.
    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2009

    These are still usual cofibrations, and these do not form a model category with Dold fibrations, but maybe there is a good modified choice of cofibrations which woudl be "complementary" with Dold fibrations (maybe silly idea knowing something specific banning this choice, but to me it looks still reasonable).

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthordomenico_fiorenza
    • CommentTimeJan 3rd 2010
    • (edited Jan 3rd 2010)
    modified Idea in over quasi-category. now it should be less evil.
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2010

    That reminds me: we should add a discussion about if and how the model structure on an over category models the corresponding over quasi-category. I was about to make the obvious statement, but I'll need to check something first.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2011

    I have somewhat hastily added to model structure on an over category the argument that over a fibrant object this presents the correct over-(,1)(\infty,1)-category.

    However, I have to dash off now and go offline. Will try to look into this again later.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 18th 2011

    have now found a few minutes to expand and polish the proof

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeDec 21st 2016

    I added a new section https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/model+structure+on+an+over+category#quillen_adjunctions_between_slice_categories about Quillen adjunctions between slice categories.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2017

    Hm, the entry slice model structure states that slicing preserves cofibrant generation, properness, combinatoriality, but then what it means to use is preservation of simplicial model structure…

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2017

    Re #14: I added Proposition 2.3, which shows that if C is a simplicial model category, then so is C/X.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 29th 2020

    added pointer to

    diff, v21, current

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2021

    I’ve cited a theorem in Cisinksi’s paper that proves the slice construction with a fibrant object is correct for any model category.

    This makes the theorem proved in the section on derived hom-spaces redundant, and can be removed. Is there any content in the proof that should be retained on the page?

    diff, v22, current

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2021

    Thanks for your addition. But why would any of the proof offered on the page need to be removed. There is no harm in spelling out a proof of a special case of theorem that is proven more generally elsewhere. On the contrary. Unless I am missing something in your question?

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2021

    I have merged the two subsections. Added a lead-over sentence: “We spell out a proof for the special case that 𝒞\mathcal{C} carries the extra structure of a simplicial model category:”

    diff, v23, current

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2021

    But on re-reading I still found it a little weird, so I took the liberty of adding this line:

    this proof was written in 2011 when no comparable statement seemed to be available in the literature

    diff, v24, current

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2021
    • (edited Apr 18th 2021)

    Aesthetically it seems weird for an encyclopedic reference to include the special case when it’s not a simplification of the more general case.

    As a more practical note, I’ve actually found this a usability issue on the nLab from time to time where pages pay attention to a theorem written for a special case, leading me to completely miss that more general statements are available. Or when I do notice, to wind up spending a lot of time trying to understand what’s different about the special case that it would be needed addition to what is actually a strictly more general theorem – especially if there’s some restatement involved.

    But, maybe it’s more a phrasing issue. I had taken as a given that we’d eventually want to remove the restatement to the special case – so I’m thinking of the question more as how to reorganize the interesting contents of the proof we’d like to retain as “here’s more interesting information!”

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2021

    The text is crystal clear that there is a general case, thanks for adding that!

    The general proof is not in the entry currently, is it?

    I just checked out Denis-Charles’s proof. It’s nice, but the one in the entry is arguably simpler: It just observes the formula for homs in slices and pullback-power axiom in an enriched model category and it’s done; that’s pretty slick I’d think.

    So I’d say: once somebody (probably you?!) writes out the more general proof into the entry, we can check again if the special case proof then feels like an annoying duplication. I don’t see how it would, but if it does, I’ll agree to remove it.

    I just want to be sure that next time somebody (like myself) needs to remind themselves about how the argument works for simplicial model categories, it can still be found.

    There is no harm done here, really, to readers not interested in this case, is there?

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2021

    Perhaps also a useful time for a reminder that the nLab is not intended as an encyclopedia, but as a public lab book for everyone who contributes to it. So if something is useful for those people it should be kept in. Moreover, there’s also no reason for an encyclopedia not to include a special case if it is simpler or more comprehensible, at least not now that encyclopedias are digital and have essentially no space constraints.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v26, current

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 14th 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v26, current

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2021
    • (edited Jul 15th 2021)

    I have reworked the statement about sliced Quillen adjunctions (from rev 16):

    • have disentangled the statement about sliced Quillen adjunctions (now this Prop.)

      from that about sliced Quillen equivalences (now this Prop.)

    • have completed the proof of the former by adding pointer to the nature of the underlying sliced adjunctions (here)

      (have not yet added proofs of the latter, which is more fiddly – but I added pointer, for what it’s worth, to a reference that at least claims one of the two cases)

    diff, v28, current

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2021

    added statement and proof of the left base change Quillen adjunction (here) and cross-linked with the respective discussion at proper model category (there)

    diff, v28, current

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2021

    spelled out the example (here) of induced Quillen adjunctions on pointed objects

    diff, v30, current

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 20th 2021

    I have inserted (here) the proposition & proof (taken from Quillen equivalence – Examples, but reworked a fair bit, as announced in another thread) that the left base change Quillen adjunction along a weak equivalence is a Quillen equivalence if that weak equivalence is stable under pullback.

    We already had essentially that statement in what is now the following proposition, but without proof, just with a citation.

    diff, v33, current

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2021

    added the previously missing cross-link with model category of pointed objects (here)

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime7 days ago

    Is there a citable reference for Quillen equivalences of PSh(𝒮 /S,sSet)PSh(\mathcal{S}_{/S}, sSet) with PSh(𝒮,sSet) /y(S)PSh(\mathcal{S}, sSet)_{/y(S)}?

    Otherwise I should type it out…

    • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    I have added missing cross-link of this Prop. with enriched slice category.

    diff, v37, current

    • CommentRowNumber33.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    That same proposition (here) used to point to non-existent entries

    1. “cartesian enriched model category”

    2. “cartesian enriched categories”.

    I have replaced these broken links by links to entries that do exist:

    1. enriched model category over a cartesian closed model category

    2. enriched categories over cartesian closed categories

    diff, v37, current

    • CommentRowNumber34.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    added mentioning of the example of the Borel model structure (here)

    diff, v38, current

    • CommentRowNumber35.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    I have added (here) statement and proof that simplicial weak equivalence between fibrations over a base simplicial set are detected fiber-wise.

    (I was expecting that I could cite this as a special case of some statement we already have on the nnLab somewhere, but if we do, then I didn’t find/remember it.)

    diff, v38, 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)