Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
started Elmendorf’s theorem with a brief statement of the theorem
added a section Model category presentation / Quillen equivalence with some brief paragraphs on Guillou’s notes (fro discrete groups).
This was sparked by John Huerta’s recent Café post where he’s seeking a “nice conceptual explanation for Elmendorf’s theorem”. You’d imagine that a very general setting would provide this.
But now I look again at that introductory paper at Parametrized Higher Category Theory and Higher Algebra, what precisely are they promising in an Elmendorf direction? On p. 6 certain unstable results are said to hold for any base $(\infty, 1)$-category, while stable results need those ’atomic’ and ’orbital’ properties.
An “Elmendorf–McClure theorem” is discussed on p. 8.
Added doi link, tweaked formatting of (Cordier-Porter 1996)
There are some papers by Dror that are sometimes cited.
E. Dror Farjoun, Homotopy theories for diagrams of spaces, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 101, (1987), 181 – 189.
E. Dror Farjoun and A. Zabrodsky, Homotopy equivalence between diagrams of spaces, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra, 41, (1986), 169 – 182.
These could be mentioned in several places (but do not seem to be there, of course, I may have searched on the worng term!) ELmendorf’s theorem, Orbit category etc. They are cited by Barwick et al. and are relevent here as well. They could be useful but where?
Apparently the latest on this is:
I have grouped the reference Stephan 10 together with Stephan 13 and expanded the citation data (MS thesis 2010, and pointer also to the full thesis text). I checked briefly if the latter is just the published version of the former, but maybe not.
I seem to recall that the generalization to sub-families of subgroups is also claimed in May 96, just not in terms of model categories. So I have added a “see also” to May96. If anyone has the energy to check, we should add pointer to the precise proposition number.
I have a vague memory the Dwyer and Kan looked at the sub-families of subgroups quite early as well… but they did such a lot in the 1980s that I am not sure where to look!
1 to 13 of 13