Not signed in (Sign In)

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 book bundles calculus categorical 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 foundation 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-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad 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 sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack 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.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2014

    For the past week or so I’ve been trying to analyse Kan’s Ex Ex^\infty functor in the constructive setting and I keep running into difficulties because I don’t have a geometric realisation functor at hand. Here’s an attempt to construct a surrogate – but it has a nasty flaw I don’t know how to fix.

    To begin, let 𝒞\mathcal{C} be the category of simplicial sets (or even just finite simplicial sets). Barycentric subdivision defines an endofunctor Sd:𝒞𝒞Sd : \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{C}. Any reasonable geometric realisation functor should have the property that |Sd(X)||X|\left| Sd (X) \right| \cong \left| X \right| naturally in XX; unfortunately, we cannot expect the isomorphism to come from a morphism in 𝒞\mathcal{C}, so the usual trick of inverting morphisms won’t work here. Instead, we borrow an idea from stable homotopy theory: if we take 𝒟\mathcal{D} to be the (strict) colimit of the sequence

    𝒞Sd𝒞Sd𝒞Sd𝒞\cdots \to \mathcal{C} \stackrel{Sd}{\to} \mathcal{C} \stackrel{Sd}{\to} \mathcal{C} \stackrel{Sd}{\to} \mathcal{C} \to \cdots

    then there is an induced automorphism Sd:𝒟𝒟Sd : \mathcal{D} \to \mathcal{D}. Unfortunately, it is only an outer automorphism; to fix this, we take the pseudo-quotient of 𝒟\mathcal{D} by the induced \mathbb{Z}-action to get a category \mathcal{E} with an inner automorphism SdSd.

    The categories 𝒟\mathcal{D} and \mathcal{E} have the following explicit descriptions:

    • The objects in both are equivalence classes of pairs (n,X)(n, X), where nn is an integer and XX is an object in 𝒞\mathcal{C}, with (n+k,X)=(n,Sd k(X))(n + k, X) = (n, Sd^k (X)) for all natural numbers kk. We write Sd +n(X)Sd^{\infty + n} (X) for (n,X)(n, X); we then have the expected identity Sd +n(Sd k(X))=Sd +n+k(X)Sd^{\infty + n} (Sd^k (X)) = Sd^{\infty + n + k} (X).
    • The morphisms Sd +n(X)Sd +m(Y)Sd^{\infty + n} (X) \to Sd^{\infty + m} (Y) in 𝒟\mathcal{D} are equivalence classes of pairs (k,f)(k, f), where kmax{n,m,0}k \ge max \{ -n, -m, 0 \} and f:Sd k+n(X)Sd k+m(Y)f : Sd^{k + n} (X) \to Sd^{k + m} (Y) is in 𝒞\mathcal{C}, with (k,f)=(k+l,Sd l(f))(k, f) = (k + l, Sd^l (f)) for all natural numbers ll.
    • The morphisms Sd +n(X)Sd +m(Y)Sd^{\infty + n} (X) \to Sd^{\infty + m} (Y) in \mathcal{E} are pairs (k,[f])(k, [f]), where kk is an integer and [f]:Sd +n+k(X)Sd +m(Y)[f] : Sd^{\infty + n + k} (X) \to Sd^{\infty + m} (Y) is in 𝒟\mathcal{D}. Composition is defined by the Grothendieck/Kleisli formula (l,[g])(k,[f])=(l+k,[g]Sd l([f])(l, [g]) \circ (k, [f]) = (l + k, [g] \circ Sd^l ([f]).

    Sadly, this does not work as well as one might hope. Because SdSd acts trivially (up to natural isomorphism) on discrete simplicial sets, the image of Δ 0\Delta^0 ends up having \mathbb{Z} as its automorphism group in \mathcal{E}. This makes no sense geometrically and induces an unwanted free \mathbb{Z}-action on the the set of “points” of Sd (X)Sd^\infty (X) in \mathcal{E}. Does anyone have any thoughts about how this might be fixed?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2014

    What does it mean to say that an automorphism of a category is “outer” or “inner”?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    An inner automorphism is one that is isomorphic (as a functor) to the identity. This agrees with the definition from group theory.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    Rrrgh, it would agree with the definition from group theory if groups were the same as one-object groupoids. But they’re not. (-:

    In category theory, why not just say that such a functor “is the identity”?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    The Ex Ex^\infty functor as it depends on the very ‘unnatural’ barycentric realisation is bound to be a bit weird. (It is very unnatural at the level of the simplicial sets.) Why not try the ordinal subdivision and any associated completion functor? As the ordinal subdivision works in the models it may be easier to work with. (It depends of course why you are wanting Ex Ex^\infty in the first place.)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014
    • (edited Apr 6th 2014)

    Hello Zhen Lin,

    I was just wondering where your difficulties lie in working with Ex \mathsf{Ex}^{\infty} constructively?

    I ask because some collaborators (Espen Auseth Nielsen, Erik Rybakken, and Marius Thaule) and I have a proof that Ex (X)\mathsf{Ex}^{\infty}(X) is weakly equivalent to XX for cubical sets that I would consider to be both conceptual and constructive in a very strong sense (it is very different to the usual proof for simplicial sets). Here ’weakly equivalent’ means homotopy equivalent (which we show directly, without appealing to Whitehead’s theorem) after taking the geometric realisation. A paper is in preparation that should be finished quite soon.

    This might be irrelevant for your purposes, as I’m not quite sure what you mean by ’not having a geometric realisation functor to hand’; why working constructively means that you do not have one; or exactly what you are trying to achieve with your replacement construction!

    I agree with Tim that there is not much hope for naturality of the homeomorphism that you are looking for when using the barycentric subdivision. I recommend the work of Fritsch for more on this (I gave some more precise references in another thread on the simplicial approximation theorem earlier this year).

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    I am led to believe that topological spaces should be avoided in constructive mathematics. The main difficulty in working with Ex Ex^\infty is showing that the canonical embedding XEx(X)X \to Ex (X) is a weak homotopy equivalence (in the sense of becoming a weak homotopy equivalence of Kan complexes, defined combinatorially, after applying Ex Ex^\infty). However, it is more or less clear geometrically why it should be a weak homotopy equivalence.

    Regardless, as much as I would like to solve that problem, it is not what I am asking about here. The difficulty with the construction is common to any subdivision functor that acts trivially on Δ 0\Delta^0. The motivating picture is the simplicial approximation theorem: that is why I want SdSd to “become” the identity.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014
    • (edited Apr 6th 2014)

    I have thought long and hard about these kind of questions for some years, it is interesting that you are pursuing them too!

    With regard to avoiding topological spaces in constructive mathematics, I understand what you mean. If one thinks about it, one rapidly comes to the conclusion that any proof of Milnor’s theorem that XS|X|X \rightarrow S|X| is a weak equivalence, for instance via a simplicial/cubical approximation theorem, will rely ultimately on the compactness of the unit interval, and it is impossible to prove that constructively for the usual notion of a topological space. However, I do not necessarily draw from this the conclusion that we should avoid topological spaces at all.

    Topological spaces have a lot of structure that does not exist in the category of simplicial/cubical sets. From my point of view, this comes down to the structure of the unit interval: one has what I call (after Kamps, Brown and Higgins, Tim, etc) a ’subdivision structure’, which allows one to compose homotopies. This is impossible in any presheaf model of homotopy types. There are also many other structures (involution, connections, …), but one could modify the definition of the category of cubes, for instance, to include all of these, except those involving a ’subdivision structure’.

    This extra structure is crucial for the foundations of homotopy theory. If one wishes to avoid topological spaces, one needs to find this extra structure somewhere else. I think that Kan complexes themselves are something of a will-of-the-wisp here. They are very poorly behaved constructively. One needs, I believe, at least to work not with the category of Kan complexes, but with the category of algebraic Kan complexes. The latter category does have a ’subdivision structure’, but working with it introduces its own difficulties.

    For instance, I have thought a lot about equipping the category of cubical sets with a model structure in a constructive way, which is Quillen equivalent to the Serre model structure on Top (or, if you prefer, the usual model structure on cubical sets). I understand conceptually how to do this (it is, as with much of my work in this area and related work on the homotopy hypothesis, in the process of being written up!). There are a number of possible approaches, but one of them was in fact my original motivation for the work on the Ex (X)\mathsf{Ex}^{\infty}(X) functor that I mentioned above: one can equip the category of algebraic Kan complexes with a model structure via my thesis in a constructively valid way, and then the idea would be to ’transfer’ this model structure (in a way which, again, I understand, and which is in the process of being written up) to the entire category of cubical sets using Ex \mathsf{Ex}^{\infty}.

    This ’transfer’ is also constructive (and has nothing to do with the criterion for ’transfer of model structures across an adjunction’ that is well known). The fact that we can prove that XEx (X)X \rightarrow \mathsf{Ex}^{\infty}(X) is a weak equivalence in the sense of my previous comments demonstrates that this model structure is Quillen equivalent to the usual one.

    One has to, though, prove that Ex (X)\mathsf{Ex}^{\infty}(X) is a Kan complex, or an algebraic Kan complex, in a constructively valid way, and check various other things. This is my main point: working constructively in homotopy theory does not just mean not using topological spaces! There are also other categories than algebraic Kan complexes that one can use, or one could work with a constructive variant of topological spaces instead.

    With regard to proving that the canonical arrow XEx (X)X \rightarrow \mathsf{Ex}^{\infty}(X) is a weak homotopy equivalence, yes, geometrically one can easily see it in low dimensions, but it is another matter entirely to write down a rigorous proof. The only proof that I am aware of for simplicial sets is very indirect and non-constructive, reducing to Milnor’s theorem and an argument on homotopy groups. One of the main aspects of our work is to give a conceptual way to pass from ’geometric intuition in low dimensions’ to a rigorous proof. For this, the fact that we work with cubical sets, where one has universal properties that are not available in the simplicial setting, is essential, and this is something that I am generally convinced of: cubical sets are much better than simplicial sets for the foundations of homotopy theory, if one wishes to work conceptually and constructively!

    Moreover, our proof in fact relies on nothing about Top except the existence of the structures that I mentioned, so could be carried out for any ’alternative’ category (and we are writing it up in this generality). In particular, it does not rely on any of the non-constructive aspects of topological spaces.

    Feel free to get in touch over email if you would like to know more about any aspects of this!

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    Kan complexes are not that badly behaved constructively. Actually, my view is that it is model structures, or more precisely, weak factorisation systems that are badly behaved constructively. For instance, (following van Osdol) using the completeness theorem for regular logic, I can prove that the category of Kan complexes in any regular category forms a category of fibrant objects. It is only slightly harder to transfer the fact that Ex Ex^\infty is a fibrant replacement functor over to the setting of σ\sigma-pretoposes. I am confident that we can prove that Ex (X)Ex^\infty (X) is a Kan complex in the setting of elementary toposes with NNO – Kan’s original proof should still work. The hard part is proving that Ex (X)Ex^\infty (X) is weakly homotopy equivalent to XX itself. There is no need to select preferred liftings.

    As for subdivision: the whole point of the construction I outline in my first post is to obtain a combinatorial model of spaces where the standard simplices are isomorphic to their subdivisions.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    From my point of view, this comes down to the structure of the unit interval: one has what I call (after Kamps, Brown and Higgins, Tim, etc) a ’subdivision structure’, which allows one to compose homotopies.

    An excellent point. Compare the terminal coalgebra characterization of the unit interval II due to Freyd, where the coalgebra structure = subdivision structure IIII \to I \vee I, a bipointed map, is what we use to compose homotopies.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014
    • (edited Apr 6th 2014)

    Actually, my view is that it is model structures, or more precisely, weak factorisation systems that are badly behaved constructively.

    I guess it depends upon what one means by badly behaved, but I agree that it is a very tricky matter to obtain weak factorisation systems constructively, and that to settle for only ’half’ a model structure is much easier. However, there are, of course, reasons that one would like a full model structure. Moreover, I have found it possible to obtain weak factorisations systems constructively, and have found that the methods have given me a lot of insight that I would have not have been led to if I had not been working constructively. This is what the methods of my thesis and the ’transfer’ method that I mentioned concern.

    Kan complexes are not that badly behaved constructively.

    Again, it obviously depends upon what one means by badly behaved, but I don’t see how one can prove anything constructively about a Kan complex which does not have lifts as part of the structure. In other words, take an arbitrary horn: how do you obtain the ’filling’ constructively? Of course, if one interprets ’there exists’ constructively, there is no problem, but this is exactly to ask for given liftings.

    However, it is not the given liftings that are significant about the category of algebraic Kan complexes for the purposes of my previous comment, but the fact that the morphisms preserve these liftings. This gives the category of algebraic Kan complexes a completely different feel from that of ordinary Kan complexes, and is the reason that a subdivision structure exists.

    The hard part is proving that Ex (X)\mathsf{Ex}^{\infty}(X) is weakly homotopy equivalent to XX itself. There is no need to select preferred liftings.

    Yes, as I wrote, we can prove this cubically, and Kan complexes (with or without specified liftings) do not play any role in the proof. In fact, though, cubically (with connections), it is not that easy to give a nice proof that Ex (X)\mathsf{Ex}^{\infty}(X) is a Kan complex, though it is clear geometrically in low dimensions. I agree that the standard proof in the simplicial setting is not difficult, although I feel that the heart of the matter is better captured in a cubical setting.

    As for subdivision: the whole point of the construction I outline in my first post is to obtain a combinatorial model of spaces where the standard simplices are isomorphic to their subdivisions.

    A ’subdivision structure’ in the sense of my comment has a precise meaning, as in Todd’s comment, which is a priori unrelated to subdivision in the sense you are using it here.

    However, I have in fact considered before the kind of idea that you are looking at here, and think it is a very interesting one. I usually think of it as trying to define a foundational category for ’piecewise-linear topology’. One needs to allow morphisms of cubical/simplicial sets ’up to subdivision’. This category does admit a subdivision structure in the technical sense.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    There is a well-understood interpretation of intuitionistic logic in elementary toposes. The meaning of \exists in that setting is, roughly speaking, “there locally exists”. The difference between “there locally exists” and “there globally exists” is a subtle one: for instance, any epimorphism f:XYf : X \to Y satisfies y:Y.x:X.f(x)=y\forall y : Y . \exists x : X. f (x) = y, but that does not mean that every epimorphism splits! But the problem with weak factorisation systems goes deeper than the interpretation of \exists; for instance, the assertion that the left class is closed under coproducts is equivalent to the axiom of choice. This is not so bad in ultra-constructive settings where \exists is interpreted very strictly like you suggest, but I am more interested in the topos setting.

  1. Yes, I thought that you might have been thinking of \exists in this way. My experience is that once one gives \exists a constructive interpretation, one has to adapt many other aspects of the theory of Kan complexes: one needs to ask for certain kinds of compatibilities between the lifts, or ask for other kinds of structures, as in the recent work of Bezem, Coquand, and Huber. Whilst I have focused on very strong interpretations of constructivity, I would be surprised if these aspects do not manifest themselves in the topos theoretic setting too.

    But the problem with weak factorisation systems goes deeper than the interpretation of ∃; for instance, the assertion that the left class is closed under coproducts is equivalent to the axiom of choice. This is not so bad in ultra-constructive settings where ∃ is interpreted very strictly like you suggest

    Yes, exactly. Usually one has to work so hard to construct the weak factorisation system in the kind of constructive setting that I work with, that one has a very good understanding of the arrows involved, and does not have any need for facts about the arrows that follow formally from having a weak factorisation system!

  2. Zhen Lin,

    What if you consider your diagram not as a diagram of categories, but as a diagram of categories under the category of sets (viewed as the discrete simplicial sets)? It seems like that might cancel out the extra integers worth of automorphisms for these objects.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    @Richard Williamson

    Yes, I thought that you might have been thinking of \exists in this way. My experience is that once one gives \exists a constructive interpretation, one has to adapt many other aspects of the theory of Kan complexes: one needs to ask for certain kinds of compatibilities between the lifts, or ask for other kinds of structures, as in the recent work of Bezem, Coquand, and Huber. Whilst I have focused on very strong interpretations of constructivity, I would be surprised if these aspects do not manifest themselves in the topos theoretic setting too.

    I do not know. However, I remain unconvinced of your assertion that Kan complexes are badly behaved: the fact of the matter is that Kan complexes in Grothendieck toposes have been studied for quite a long time, and at the very least, the homotopy category of Kan complexes in a Grothendieck topos is equivalent to the homotopy category of the corresponding (model!) category of hypersheaves. If something goes wrong in the case of elementary toposes with NNO, that would (to me) suggest a subtle interplay between homotopy theory and arithmetic. That would not be surprising if geometric realisation (and hence \mathbb{R}) were somehow indispensible in homotopy theory, but we already know that geometric realisation is not needed in classical mathematics.

    Anyway, getting back to the original topic:

    @Chris Schommer-Pries

    What if you consider your diagram not as a diagram of categories, but as a diagram of categories under the category of sets (viewed as the discrete simplicial sets)? It seems like that might cancel out the extra integers worth of automorphisms for these objects.

    I’m not sure what you mean. Slicing under an object doesn’t change connected colimits. But I had a similar thought: since Sd(X)Sd (X) is always a simplicial complex, we could just quotient out by the equivalence relation that makes two morphisms equal if they agree on vertices.

    More precisely, 𝒟(Sd (Δ 0),):𝒟Set\mathcal{D} (Sd^\infty (\Delta^0), -) : \mathcal{D} \to Set is SdSd-equivariant (up to natural isomorphism), so we get an induced functor Set\mathcal{E} \to Set. Forcing this functor to be faithful kills the unwanted automorphisms and hopefully leaves everything else intact…

  3. However, I remain unconvinced of your assertion that Kan complexes are badly behaved: the fact of the matter is that Kan complexes in Grothendieck toposes have been studied for quite a long time, and at the very least, the homotopy category of Kan complexes in a Grothendieck topos is equivalent to the homotopy category of the corresponding (model!) category of hypersheaves. If something goes wrong in the case of elementary toposes with NNO, that would (to me) suggest a subtle interplay between homotopy theory and arithmetic. That would not be surprising if geometric realisation (and hence R) were somehow indispensible in homotopy theory, but we already know that geometric realisation is not needed in classical mathematics.

    I don’t know exactly what you are trying to do, and, of course, you may be able to work constructively with ordinary Kan complexes to achieve it! I do not particularly see that the facts you mention are closely related to the sense in which I asserted that they are, from a certain constructive point of view, badly behaved, though!

    But this is not important: I just wished to record the observation, in case you or anyone else reading finds it helpful, that I have found, in the constructive setting in which I work, the category of Kan complexes to be badly behaved/not nice enough if one is trying to erect constructively a foundations for homotopy theory on a category of presheaves, and that if you/anybody else reading arrives at this conclusion too, there are alternatives; that Top\mathsf{Top}, by which I really mean Top\mathsf{Top} and not one of its cartesian closed variants, is actually a very nice category for many (not all!) purposes in homotopy theory, and that it is worth considering replacing it by a constructive variant as opposed to ignoring it completely; and that it is possible constructively to prove the result that you are looking for in a cubical setting.

    In addition, I wished to say that a variant of the category that you consider is definitely interesting (to me!), and admits a notion of ’geometric realisation’ for which one can prove that |X||Ex (X)||X| \rightarrow |\mathsf{Ex}^{\infty}(X)| is a homotopy equivalence in this category. This may not be helpful for your purposes, though.

    since Sd(X) is always a simplicial complex

    This is not necessarily the case. This is closely related to Tim’s comment and my first comment. See my comment on the simplicial approximation theorem that I referred to earlier.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    Hmmm, yes. As long as Sd k(X)Sd^k (X) is “eventually” a simplicial complex, there should be no problem.

  4. Unfortunately, as can be seen in the example of the model of 2-sphere mentioned in the other thread, one may never obtain a simplicial complex by iterated barycentric subdivision! If one uses semi-simplicial sets, one obtains a simplicial complex after two steps. There are ways to do it for cubical sets in one step.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    Ah. That’s annoying. Ordinal subdivision doesn’t work there either.

    Perhaps it doesn’t actually matter? The barycentre of every “simplex” in Sd Sd^\infty is itself a vertex, so there shouldn’t be any essential information lost by passing to the map of vertices.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 6th 2014

    I believe one particular thing that goes wrong with Kan complexes constructively is that even if they are algebraic, one cannot prove that B AB^A is a Kan complex when AA and BB are, not unless the degenerate simplices are a decidable subset. Thierry Coquand has thought a lot about these issues in the attempt to produce a constructive model of the univalence axiom, and ended up using cubical sets instead; you may want to ask his opinion.

  5. Re: second half of 15:

    Slicing under Sets does change the “pseudo-quotient”. In particular you note that on D the functor Sd is not equivalent to the identity, however when restricted to Set it becomes the trivial functor (with a canonical trivialization). Now when you take the “pseudo-quotient” in categories under Set, you universally trivialize the Z action, but subject to the condition that it agrees with the trivial trivialization on Set. This is different than your category E.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014
    • (edited Apr 7th 2014)

    @Mike Shulman

    That makes sense. Even in a cartesian model category, we should only expect B AB^A to be fibrant when AA is cofibrant and BB is fibrant. For instance, on a site with the “chaotic” topology (Why isn’t there a good name for this?!), the locally fibrant simplicial presheaves coincide with the projectively fibrant simplicial presheaves, but in general not all simplicial presheaves are projectively cofibrant. Having “free degeneracies” is a sufficient condition for cofibrancy in this case.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014

    @Chris Schommer-Pries

    I see now, yes. It sounds like a good idea, but I do not know how to compute that pseudo-quotient. I guess it should be the same as taking the strict quotient of \mathcal{E} by the smallest congruence that makes all the automorphisms of the discrete things trivial? In that case we would get a comparison between your construction and the category described at the end of #15. With luck, it will be an isomorphism…

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014
    • (edited Apr 7th 2014)

    Perhaps it doesn’t actually matter? The barycentre of every “simplex” in Sd∞ is itself a vertex, so there shouldn’t be any essential information lost by passing to the map of vertices.

    I don’t quite follow here: it seems to me that one will definitely lose information.

    [Edit: My instinct is that the construction you are trying to carry out is a little contrived: it seems unlikely to me that one can ’force’ it to work in the manner you are trying. There are various other categories and realisation functors that one can consider that, to me, have a more ’conceptual’ feel, such as by an appropriate localisation in the sense of Bousfield that I had originally mentioned here, but it does not, following subsequent discussion, seem that it would achieve much to outline them here.]

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014
    • (edited Apr 7th 2014)

    No, I definitely do not want to localise at morphisms XSd(X)X \to Sd (X) or Sd(X)XSd (X) \to X. For one thing, those morphisms generally do not become homeomorphisms after geometric realisation.

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014
    • (edited Apr 7th 2014)

    Then I am somewhat lost as to what you are trying to achieve!

    Indepedently of what you are trying to do, the localised category that I mentioned is a very interesting category in this circle of ideas. The way that I am looking at it, whether or not we are localising at arrows which become homeomorphisms after topological geometric realisation is irrelevant.

    If you are looking for a natural homeomorphism between the topological geometric realisations of XX and Sd(X)Sd(X), then, as TIm and I mentioned towards the top of the thread, there is not much hope, as you will see if you look at the work of Fritsch!

    [Edit: Just for clarity, in case anyone stumbles on this thread in the future: the two possible arrows that I was referring to are 1Sd( 1)\square^{1} \rightarrow Sd(\square^{1}). I got my wires crossed slightly with another setting that I am working on when I wrote the description of the localised category, but the essential idea is the same.]

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014
    • (edited Apr 7th 2014)

    I don’t actually know what morphisms XSd(X)X \to Sd (X) you are referring to. There is a natural morphism Sd(X)XSd (X) \to X but it does not split in general.

    The fact that the geometric realisations of XX and Sd(X)Sd (X) are not naturally homeomorphic is unfortunate. That does not change the fact that they are homeomorphic, at least for simplicial complexes XX.

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014
    • (edited Apr 7th 2014)

    Yes, they are homeomorphic for all simplicial/cubical sets. What I have lost is the thread of your reflections, but it’s no problem, maybe somebody else can help.

    [Edit: with regard to the direction of the morphisms, my apologies, I got my wires crossed with some other setting that I am working in. I was thinking of the two morphisms 1Sd( 1)\square^{1} \rightarrow Sd(\square^{1}), and their analogues for higher cubes. You are absolutely correct that we have a morphism Sd(X)XSd(X) \rightarrow X, and that we do not in general have an interesting morphism in general the other way.]

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014

    Since when did the topic of discussion change to cubical sets???

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014
    • (edited Apr 7th 2014)

    I would have thought that it would be possible to discuss on this thread matters around and closely related to the question that you asked, and maybe there are others than yourself who are/might have been interested in that discussion. Considering not only simplicial but cubical sets, especially since you are trying to work constructively and I have been arguing (as are others, such as Coquand, as Mike mentioned) that cubical sets have advantages over simplicial sets for this, would not seem too large a leap.

    However, it is absolutely fine for me if you are not interested, and I will cease the conversation here.

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014

    I am aware that cubical sets have advantages, just as I am aware that topological spaces have advantages. However, I am trying to understand what is happening for simplicial sets, if only because there are so many simplicial constructions that need to be accounted for. For instance, the Čech nerve of a covering, the ordinary nerve of a category, the theory of simplicial resolutions…

    • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2014
    • (edited Apr 7th 2014)

    The philosophy from the point of view of cubical sets would, naturally, be to adapt these constructions to the cubical setting. I have worked a lot with cubical nerves of ordinary and higher categories, for instance, and have again found advantages over the simplicial ones.

    Anyhow, best of luck with your work on this, and I hope that you can get your idea to work for you!