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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2010

    added to Quillen adjunction the statement how the SSet-enriched version presents adjoint (infinity,1)-functors.

    Also indicated how one shows that a left Quillen functor prserves weak equivalences between cofibrant objects, and dually

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeJan 14th 2015

    I added to both pages the new reference

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMatanP
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2015

    @adeelkh: There is a previous reference for the result you gave a pointer to: it is already in Hinich, Proposition 1.5.1 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.4128v3.pdf.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2015

    That’s good to know, thanks!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2015

    Thanks. I have added also a pointer to HTT for the sSet-enriched case.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthoramg
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2015
    • (edited Jan 19th 2015)

    Wow, I remember taking a look at that paper when it came out – I can’t believe I forgot its contents!

    However, I don’t think that the argument given there actually proves the stated result. In the notation of my own paper (section 2), Hinich is more-or-less constructing the sset-enriched category cocart(L H(F c)){cocart}(L^H(F^c)) – the “cocartesian fibration over [1][1]” associated to the functor obtained by applying hammock localization to the composite functor of relative categories F c:C cCFDF^c : C^c \hookrightarrow C \xrightarrow{F} D – and then checking that it induces an adjunction of quasicategories. At best, this identifies the resulting left adjoint as being the “underlying functor of \infty-categories” associated to this composite F cF^c, but nowhere does he identify the resulting right adjoint as being associated to the composite G f:D fDGCG^f : D^f \hookrightarrow D \xrightarrow{G} C. As I mention in the middle of page 4 (“Now, it is actually not so hard to show…”), the bulk of the difficulty of my own paper is in proving that this adjunction actually does have the expected right adjoint. This is achieved by constructing not just cocart(L H(F c)){cocart}(L^H(F^c)), but also its cousin cart(L H(G f)){cart}(L^H(G^f)), as well as the intermediate object L H(C c+D f)L^H(C^c+D^f) of Construction 2.3.

    Less seriously, Hinich also implicitly asserts that co/simplicial resolutions functorially compute hom-spaces, i.e. that if x x^\bullet is a cosimplicial resolution of xx, then for any map yzy \to z of fibrant objects, the map hom(x ,y)hom(x ,z){hom}(x^\bullet,y) \to {hom}(x^\bullet,z) computes the induced map of hom-spaces in the underlying \infty-category. (Actually a full assertion of functoriality would refer to any diagram, not just to a single map yzy \to z, but that’s all that Hinich uses.) In fact, the purpose of Zhen Lin Low’s recent paper “Revisiting function complexes and simplicial localisation” is to show that co/simplicial resolutions do functorially compute hom-homotopytypes (of the underlying ho(Top){ho}({Top}) enriched category of the hammock localization of a model category), but there he assumes his model categories come equipped with functorial factorizations, which is a stronger requirement than Hinich or I use.

    As I mentioned, I was certainly unaware of this paper when I wrote my own. My inclination here is to update my own paper by turning the prose “Now, it is not so hard to show…” into a numbered Remark and referring to Hinich’s result there. Given what I’ve said above, does this seem reasonable to you all?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthoramg
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2015
    • (edited Jan 19th 2015)
    (Sorry, I'm trying to use either "mbox" or "textup" to get non-italicized text in math mode, but for some reason it both de-italicizes the characters and displays the command. Hence the repeated edits of #6. But now I've removed any use of either of those commands, and for some reason the desired characters are still residually retaining their de-italicized status. Can anyone explain to me what's going on?)
    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 19th 2015

    You have to put spaces between them: $a b c$ makes abca b c whereas $abc$ makes abcabc. iTex “saves you work” by automatically treating juxtaposed letters as part of the same identifier. You can always put a \mathrm around them for emphasis, but iTeX doesn’t understand \mbox or \textup, and it also treats commands it doesn’t know as identifiers to be displayed.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthoramg
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2016

    My aforementioned has been accepted and published; it is freely accessible here. In Remark 2.3, I explain concisely why Hinich’s argument falls short. Would it be reasonable to remove that reference from the nLab page on Quillen adjunctions? If so, should I leave a word of explanation there as well?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2016
    • (edited Feb 19th 2016)

    Would it be reasonable to remove that reference from the nLab page on Quillen adjunctions? If so, should I leave a word of explanation there as well?

    Yes!

    (And don’t hesitate to add pointer to your article, too.)

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2016

    Strange coincidence, Hinich’s paper has also just been published.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthoramg
    • CommentTimeFeb 19th 2016
    • (edited Feb 19th 2016)

    Yes, that is strange and it is a coincidence! I corresponded at length with Hinich about this, but he remained unconvinced. The key issue is just that a left adjoint F:CDF : C \to D and a right adjoint CD:GC \leftarrow D : G do not necessarily have to be adjoint to each other. I gave the extremely concrete example of the two functors Free:SetAbGrp\mathrm{Free} : \mathrm{Set} \to \mathrm{AbGrp} and SetAbGrp:const pt\mathrm{Set} \leftarrow \mathrm{AbGrp} : \mathrm{const}_{\mathrm{pt}}. (This subtlety is why his argument was under 2 pages, whereas mine was ~20.) Anyways, I’ve updated the nLab page now.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeFeb 25th 2016

    Here is what is probably a stupid question, but let me ask it anyway: suppose in a Quillen adjunction one of the functors (left or right) preserves all weak equivalences. Then one can induce an adjunction of quasicategories in a similar fashion, but without peforming the (co)fibrant replacements for one of the categories (namely, the source of the functor that preserves all weak equivalences). Is the resulting adjunction of quasicategories the “same” as the adjunction obtained from the general construction?

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeFeb 25th 2016

    How do you get actual structure of the adjunction? The easiest way is to do transport of structure from the Quillen adjunction, in which case it is the same by construction…

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeFeb 25th 2016

    @ZhenLin: I have in mind the same construction as in Mazel-Gee’s paper, but with the functor F^c replaced by F, provided that F preserves all weak equivalences. (Here F^c = F∘Q, where Q is a cofibrant replacement functor.)

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthoramg
    • CommentTimeFeb 25th 2016

    @Dmitri #13: Yes, if I understand correctly your question is addressed in Remark 2.7.