# 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

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• CommentRowNumber1.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeDec 10th 2009

added to (infinity,1)-operad the definition/proposition of the model structure for the category of (oo,1)-categories of operations here

• CommentRowNumber2.
• CommentAuthorTobyBartels
• CommentTimeDec 10th 2009

• CommentRowNumber3.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeDec 11th 2009
• (edited Dec 11th 2009)

at (infinity,1)-operad where I give some definition/proposition/proof, as far as I think I can see, of aspects of what is expected to be a Quillen equivalence between the Cisinski-Moerdijk-Weiss-model and the Lurie-model of (oo,1)-operads.

• CommentRowNumber4.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeDec 11th 2009

In that context I added to spine the definition for dendroidal sets.

• CommentRowNumber5.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeDec 11th 2009
• (edited Dec 11th 2009)

I further strengthened the statement (and proof) of the theorem about the Relation between the two definitions at (infinity,1)-operad.

Now I have almost that the dendroidal nerve from the Lurie-model to the Cisinski-Moerdijk-Weiss model is the right adjoint of a Quillen adjunction, except that I currently only know that the left adjoint has the required respect for acylic cofibrations only for cofibrant domains. I'll think about getting rid of that condition...

• CommentRowNumber6.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeDec 11th 2009

ahm, or maybe not. There is a gap in my argument. I have briefly indicated this in the proof for the moment, but need to leave it at that for the time being, as I have to go offline now. More later.