Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 4th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: Markdownstarted entry on [[stabilization]] (in the sense of sending an (oo,1)-category to its free [[stable (infinity,1)-category]]) I want to eventually state more properties of the effect of stabilization on objects here.

   started entry on stabilization (in the sense of sending an (oo,1)-category to its free stable (infinity,1)-category)

   I want to eventually state more properties of the effect of stabilization on objects here.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexadded in the References of _[[stabilization]]_: > Discussion of the relation between stabilization of [[(∞,1)-categories]] (to [[stable (∞,1)-categories]]) and of [[model categories]] (to [[stable model categories]]) is in section 4 of > * [[Marco Robalo]], _Noncommutative Motives I: A Universal Characterization of the Motivic Stable Homotopy Theory of Schemes_, June 2012 ([arxiv:1206.3645](http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3645))

   added in the References of stabilization:

   Discussion of the relation between stabilization of (∞,1)-categories (to stable (∞,1)-categories) and of model categories (to stable model categories) is in section 4 of

   • Marco Robalo, Noncommutative Motives I: A Universal Characterization of the Motivic Stable Homotopy Theory of Schemes, June 2012 (arxiv:1206.3645)

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeOct 2nd 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexadded also a brief paragraph under _[Properties -- Construciton in terms of stable model categories](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/stabilization#ConstructionInTermsOfStableModelCategories)_

   added also a brief paragraph under Properties – Construciton in terms of stable model categories

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 30th 2018
   • (edited Dec 30th 2018)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexwe had pointer to * [[Marco Robalo]], section 4 of _Noncommutative Motives I: A Universal Characterization of the Motivic Stable Homotopy Theory of Schemes_, June 2012 ([arxiv:1206.3645](http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3645)) I have added pointer to the published version, which is: * [[Marco Robalo]], section 2 of _K-theory and the bridge from motives to noncommutative motives_, Advances in Mathematics Volume 269, 10 January 2015 ([doi:10.1016/j.aim.2014.10.011](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2014.10.011)) <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/stabilization/15">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/stabilization/15">v15</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/stabilization">current</a>

   we had pointer to

   • Marco Robalo, section 4 of Noncommutative Motives I: A Universal Characterization of the Motivic Stable Homotopy Theory of Schemes, June 2012 (arxiv:1206.3645)

   I have added pointer to the published version, which is:

   • Marco Robalo, section 2 of K-theory and the bridge from motives to noncommutative motives, Advances in Mathematics Volume 269, 10 January 2015 (doi:10.1016/j.aim.2014.10.011)

   diff, v15, current

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJan 2nd 2019
   • (edited Jan 2nd 2019)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexadded also pointer to * [[Marc Hoyois]], section 6.1 of _The six operations in equivariant motivic homotopy theory_, Adv. Math. 305 (2017), 197-279 ([arXiv:1509.02145](https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.02145)) for making explicit stabilization with respect to a set of objects. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/stabilization/16">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/stabilization/16">v16</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/stabilization">current</a>

   added also pointer to

   • Marc Hoyois, section 6.1 of The six operations in equivariant motivic homotopy theory, Adv. Math. 305 (2017), 197-279 (arXiv:1509.02145)

   for making explicit stabilization with respect to a set of objects.

   diff, v16, current

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorn.mertes
   • CommentTimeMay 14th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: n.mertes
   Format: TextWhat is the stabilization of the nerve of the category of sets? Is it the nerve of the category of abelian groups? I would like to compute this explicitly in terms of reduced excisive functors, but I'm having trouble.

   What is the stabilization of the nerve of the category of sets? Is it the nerve of the category of abelian groups? I would like to compute this explicitly in terms of reduced excisive functors, but I'm having trouble.
7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
   • CommentTimeMay 14th 2020
   • (edited May 14th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Richard Williamson
   Format: MarkdownItexNice question! I haven't thought about it quasi-categorically, but $(\infty, 1)$-limits in the nerve of a category should just be ordinary limits, and then the loop space functor is trivial (takes everything to the point). One can also observe that the nerve of the category of abelian groups cannot really be stable, since its homotopy category would then be triangulated, and any such structure (if there even exists one?) will be very artificial/trivial. I would say that to make the analogy precise, one can proceed as follows. One observes that the definition of a stable $(\infty, 1)$-category is a categorification of the notion of an abelian category. The category of abelian groups is the 'free abelian category on the category of sets', and the $(\infty, 1)$-category of spectra is the 'free stable $(\infty, 1)$-category on the $(\infty, 1)$-category of spaces'. But the actual construction of these things is different, and only exists under circumstances which are more or less mutually exclusive (localisation of category of presheaves of sets vs $(\infty, 1)$-localisation of $(\infty, 1)$-category of presheaves of spaces).

   Nice question! I haven’t thought about it quasi-categorically, but $(\infty, 1)$-limits in the nerve of a category should just be ordinary limits, and then the loop space functor is trivial (takes everything to the point).

   One can also observe that the nerve of the category of abelian groups cannot really be stable, since its homotopy category would then be triangulated, and any such structure (if there even exists one?) will be very artificial/trivial.

   I would say that to make the analogy precise, one can proceed as follows. One observes that the definition of a stable $(\infty, 1)$-category is a categorification of the notion of an abelian category. The category of abelian groups is the ’free abelian category on the category of sets’, and the $(\infty, 1)$-category of spectra is the ’free stable $(\infty, 1)$-category on the $(\infty, 1)$-category of spaces’. But the actual construction of these things is different, and only exists under circumstances which are more or less mutually exclusive (localisation of category of presheaves of sets vs $(\infty, 1)$-localisation of $(\infty, 1)$-category of presheaves of spaces).

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorGuest
   • CommentTimeMay 15th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Guest
   Format: MarkdownItexThe stabilization of the category of sets is zero. An object in Stab(Set) is a sequence of pointed sets $(E_0, E_1, \ldots)$ together with isomorphisms $\Omega(E_{i+1}) \simeq E_i$. But $\Omega(X) = \ast \times_X \ast \simeq \ast$ for every pointed set $X$. So every object is isomorphic to $(\ast, \ast, \ldots)$. The space of endomorphisms of this object is a limit of the endomorphism spaces $Map_{Set_*}(\ast, \ast) \simeq \ast$, which is again contractible.

   The stabilization of the category of sets is zero. An object in Stab(Set) is a sequence of pointed sets $(E_0, E_1, \ldots)$ together with isomorphisms $\Omega(E_{i+1}) \simeq E_i$. But $\Omega(X) = \ast \times_X \ast \simeq \ast$ for every pointed set $X$. So every object is isomorphic to $(\ast, \ast, \ldots)$. The space of endomorphisms of this object is a limit of the endomorphism spaces $Map_{Set_*}(\ast, \ast) \simeq \ast$, which is again contractible.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
   • CommentTimeMay 15th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Richard Williamson
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, this is what I had in mind when I wrote that the loop space functor is trivial.

   Yes, this is what I had in mind when I wrote that the loop space functor is trivial.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorn.mertes
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: n.mertes
    Format: MarkdownItexThank you for the answers. This clears up the fact that the existence of a nontrivial loop functor on the $\infty$-category of pointed spaces is something which significantly distinguishes $\infty$-category theory from ordinary category theory (where the category of pointed sets has trivial loop functor).

    Thank you for the answers. This clears up the fact that the existence of a nontrivial loop functor on the $\infty$-category of pointed spaces is something which significantly distinguishes $\infty$-category theory from ordinary category theory (where the category of pointed sets has trivial loop functor).

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: Dmitri Pavlov
    Format: MarkdownItexAdded an example: stabilization of Set. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/stabilization/17">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/stabilization/17">v17</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/stabilization">current</a>

    Added an example: stabilization of Set.

    diff, v17, current

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorThéo de Oliveira S.
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2021
    • (edited Aug 13th 2021)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Théo de Oliveira S.
    Format: MarkdownItexA question: what does stabilisation give us if we keep going up on the categorical ladder, from sets to categories, to $2$-categories, to $3$-categories, and so on? --- I think the stabilisations of $\mathrm{N}_{\bullet}(\mathsf{Cats})$ and $\mathrm{N}_{\bullet}(\mathsf{Grpd})$, the nerves of the $1$-categories of categories and groupoids are trivial for the same reason that the stabilisation of $\mathrm{N}_{\bullet}(\mathsf{Sets})$ is trivial―pushouts of the form $\Omega\mathcal{C}\overset{\mathrm{def}}{=}*\times_{\mathcal{C}}*$ are isomorphic to $*$, and once again the loop space object functor will be trivial. However, if instead we take the Duskin nerves $\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{D}}_{\bullet}\left(\mathsf{Grpd}_{(2,1)}\right)$ and $\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{D}}_{\bullet}\left(\mathsf{Pith}\left(\mathsf{Cats}_{(2,0)}\right)\right)$ of the $(2,1)$-category of groupoids and of the pith of the $(2,0)$-category of categories, then the based loop space object functors will no longer be trivial: $\Omega\mathcal{C}\overset{\mathrm{def}}{=}*\times^{\mathsf{h}}_{\mathcal{C}}*$ is now the pseudopullback $*\times^{\mathsf{ps}}_{\mathcal{C}}*$, which (if I'm not mistaken) is given by $\mathrm{Aut}(x_0)_\mathsf{disc}$, the discrete groupoid on the automorphism group of the point $x_0$ of a pointed category/groupoid $(\mathcal{C},x_0)$. So $\Omega^{2}\mathcal{C}$ will once again be trivial, and hence so will the stabilisations of $\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{D}}_{\bullet}\left(\mathsf{Grpd}_{(2,1)}\right)$ and $\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{D}}_{\bullet}\left(\mathsf{Pith}\left(\mathsf{Cats}_{(2,0)}\right)\right)$, right? More generally, one would expect based loop space object functors to get more and more non-trivial as $n$ goes up (e.g. for an $n$-category $\mathcal{C}$, the iterated loop space object $\Omega^{n}\mathcal{C}$ is trivial, but $\Omega^{n-1}\mathcal{C}$ isn't, the idea being that $\Omega$ sends $n$-categories to $(n-1)$-categories (or rather to grouplike monoidal $(n-1)$-categories, or something close)), but stabilisations will nevertheless only be nontrivial for $n=\infty$, correct? (I was thinking about adding these as examples (including $\mathrm{Aut}(x_0)_\mathsf{disc}$ as an example in the [[loop space object]] page), but I'd like to confirm that these are right with someone else before writing something possibly wrong on these pages.)

    A question: what does stabilisation give us if we keep going up on the categorical ladder, from sets to categories, to $2$-categories, to $3$-categories, and so on?

    ---

    I think the stabilisations of $\mathrm{N}_{\bullet}(\mathsf{Cats})$ and $\mathrm{N}_{\bullet}(\mathsf{Grpd})$, the nerves of the $1$-categories of categories and groupoids are trivial for the same reason that the stabilisation of $\mathrm{N}_{\bullet}(\mathsf{Sets})$ is trivial―pushouts of the form $\Omega\mathcal{C}\overset{\mathrm{def}}{=}*\times_{\mathcal{C}}*$ are isomorphic to $*$, and once again the loop space object functor will be trivial.

    However, if instead we take the Duskin nerves $\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{D}}_{\bullet}\left(\mathsf{Grpd}_{(2,1)}\right)$ and $\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{D}}_{\bullet}\left(\mathsf{Pith}\left(\mathsf{Cats}_{(2,0)}\right)\right)$ of the $(2,1)$-category of groupoids and of the pith of the $(2,0)$-category of categories, then the based loop space object functors will no longer be trivial: $\Omega\mathcal{C}\overset{\mathrm{def}}{=}*\times^{\mathsf{h}}_{\mathcal{C}}*$ is now the pseudopullback $*\times^{\mathsf{ps}}_{\mathcal{C}}*$, which (if I’m not mistaken) is given by $\mathrm{Aut}(x_0)_\mathsf{disc}$, the discrete groupoid on the automorphism group of the point $x_0$ of a pointed category/groupoid $(\mathcal{C},x_0)$.

    So $\Omega^{2}\mathcal{C}$ will once again be trivial, and hence so will the stabilisations of $\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{D}}_{\bullet}\left(\mathsf{Grpd}_{(2,1)}\right)$ and $\mathrm{N}^{\mathrm{D}}_{\bullet}\left(\mathsf{Pith}\left(\mathsf{Cats}_{(2,0)}\right)\right)$, right?

    More generally, one would expect based loop space object functors to get more and more non-trivial as $n$ goes up (e.g. for an $n$-category $\mathcal{C}$, the iterated loop space object $\Omega^{n}\mathcal{C}$ is trivial, but $\Omega^{n-1}\mathcal{C}$ isn’t, the idea being that $\Omega$ sends $n$-categories to $(n-1)$-categories (or rather to grouplike monoidal $(n-1)$-categories, or something close)), but stabilisations will nevertheless only be nontrivial for $n=\infty$, correct?

    (I was thinking about adding these as examples (including $\mathrm{Aut}(x_0)_\mathsf{disc}$ as an example in the loop space object page), but I’d like to confirm that these are right with someone else before writing something possibly wrong on these pages.)

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 11th 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexadded pointer to formalization in [[dependent linear homotopy type theory]]: * [[Mitchell Riley]], §2.1.2 in: *A Bunched Homotopy Type Theory for Synthetic Stable Homotopy Theory*, PhD Thesis (2022) &lbrack;[doi:10.14418/wes01.3.139](https://doi.org/10.14418/wes01.3.139)&rbrack; <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/stabilization/20">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/stabilization/20">v20</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/stabilization">current</a>

    added pointer to formalization in dependent linear homotopy type theory:

    • Mitchell Riley, §2.1.2 in: A Bunched Homotopy Type Theory for Synthetic Stable Homotopy Theory, PhD Thesis (2022) [doi:10.14418/wes01.3.139]

    diff, v20, current