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 comma 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2017
    • (edited Aug 22nd 2017)

    On the article augmented simplicial set, an augmented simplicial set was defined as a presheaf on the full subcategory Δ +\Delta_+ of CatCat consisting of free categories over finite linear directed graphs. This is fairly convoluted, so I’ve added a simpler description of a skeleton of this category. My main point, though, is that this category is denoted Δ +\Delta_+.

    On the article semi-simplicial set, a semi-simplicial set is defined as a presheaf on the category of finite linearly ordered sets and injective order-preserving maps. This is also denoted Δ +\Delta_+.

    This is a bit unfortunate. On augmented simplicial set the alternative notation Δ a\Delta_a is suggested for the category on which augmented simplicial sets are presheaves. So, one possible solution is to change the notation to this. However, I suspect that augmented simplicial sets are used more commonly than semi-simplicial sets, at least on the nLab, so this might cause more damage. Can someone fix things someday?

    The reason I bring this up is that I’d like to write a bit about augmented semi-simplicial sets, but right now I can’t, due to notational conflicts.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2017

    I would also incline towards renaming the shape category for semi-simplicial sets. One possible name for this category is Δ\vec{\Delta}, since it is the category of “up-going maps” in the Reedy category structure on Δ\Delta. A more verbose name would be Δ inj\Delta_{inj}.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2017
    • (edited Aug 22nd 2017)

    Nice idea. But over on Reedy category, the category of “up-going maps” on Δ\Delta is called Δ +\Delta_+! Do most people use Δ\vec{\Delta}? If so, I’ll dive in and change that page!

    (By the way, how do you notate the subcategory of “down-going maps”?)

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorKarol Szumiło
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2017
    • (edited Aug 22nd 2017)

    I don’t think that there is a truly standard notation, everybody just uses something ad hoc. For what it’s worth, I’ve been using the following notation inspired by the book by Fritsch and Piccinini. Given a simplicial operator ϕ\phi they write ϕ=ϕ ϕ \phi = \phi^\sharp \phi^\flat for its standard decomposition with ϕ \phi^\sharp a face operator and ϕ \phi^\flat a degeneracy operator. I think they stop there, but I have adopted this for face/degeneracy operators in any Reedy category RR and also started writing R R_\sharp and R R_\flat for its direct and inverse parts. (It makes sense in that morphisms of R R_\sharp move up the Reedy degree and those of R R_\flat move down.) Consequently, I denote the semisimplicial indexing category by Δ \Delta_\sharp.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
    • CommentTimeAug 22nd 2017

    I like that notation, Karol. That would make me happy. But I’d also like to hear Mike’s opinion.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2017

    I prefer Δ\overset{\to}{\Delta} and Δ\overset{\leftarrow}{\Delta}, with ϕ=ϕϕ\phi = \overset{\to}{\phi} \overset{\leftarrow}{\phi}. I think this is rather more common, for instance Riehl-Verity use it, as does Hirschhorn in his book on model categories, and I used it too. I’ve never seen a musical notation for Reedy categories before.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2017
    • (edited Aug 24th 2017)

    Jacob Lurie uses, if I’m not mistaken, Δ R\Delta^R for this subcategory and Δ L\Delta^L for the subcategory built from the surjections, which agrees in arrow-direction with Mike’s suggestion. Jacob uses that notation generally for Reedy categories, and the arrow notation is pretty much identical in spirit. I believe Joyal also uses the superscript RR and LL notation for factorization systems.

    On the other hand, Cisinski uses the Δ +\Delta_+ and Δ \Delta_- notation, so I don’t think there’s really any consistency of use between the different writers.

    I think Δ a\Delta_a is good for the augmented simplex category, and then whatever notation gets chosen for the injections should just be made consistent. I’m not in love with the overarrow notation, and I think I prefer the RR and LL notation best, but I guess whoever is going to go in and do all of the cleanup edits first (not me) has the prerogative to use whatever he wants so long as it is consistent.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2017

    For some reason I don’t usually think of “R” as referring to something that goes to the right rather than being placed on the right, so I would have a harder time remembering what Δ R\Delta^R means. Actually, since the real intuition is that they go up and down, maybe Δ \Delta^{\uparrow} and Δ \Delta^{\downarrow} would be even better.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2017

    By the way, Hovey also uses +/+/-, while the Dwyer-Hirschhorn-Kan-Smith book on model categories also uses /\to/\leftarrow; that’s not a completely independent data point because of Hirschhorn, but it at least means his coauthors didn’t have too strong feelings otherwise. A quick glance at Reedy’s original note introducing the Reedy model structure doesn’t show any notation for these subcategories at all. Are there other references we should consult?

    A more verbose but possibly more self-evident notation for the augmented simplex category might be Δ 1\Delta_{\ge -1}.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorCharles Rezk
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2017

    As I remember it, the /\to/\leftarrow notation was chosen by Kan (who called them the “direct” and “indirect” subcategories), and was adopted by Hirschhorn. Publication order is not a good guide here: DHKS was already in development during the 90s, and I regularly saw drafts of it (or heard about it from Dan) when I was a graduate student (c. 1993-1996). It had a great deal of influence on both Hirshhorn and Hovey’s books.

    I kind of like the /\sharp/\flat notation.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2017

    @Charles I thought Lurie uses /\sharp/\flat for all of that marked sSet stuff, which would introduce another level of confusion along the line.

    @Mike I like the uparrow and downarrow superscript idea a lot, probably the best of all of them. For the augmented simplex category though, I dislike it because the indexing is usually increased by one in the augmented category, for better or for worse.