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 accessible adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity 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 infinity integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry 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 topological 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.
    • CommentAuthorBaptiste
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2017

    Hello,

    In the (infinity,1)-functor page, in part Properties, there is a Theorem. Some notation is introduced in it, [C^op,KanCplx]°, but instead [C^op,sSet]° is used in the statement. Is the statement incorrect?

    Also, I guess it would be nice to add a reference for this Theorem. Does anyone have one?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2017

    Yes, this theorem statement is a bit confused. The fibrant and cofibrant objects are all valued in Kan complexes, but a consistent notation should be used. Also the text says we have an equivalence of \infty-groupoids, but the displayed equation is an equivalence between (,1)(\infty,1)-categories.

    For a reference, if you follow enough links you can find a citation to Lurie at (infinity,1)-category of (infinity,1)-functors (models).

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorBaptiste
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2017

    Thank you.

    I understand the statement in the reference to Lurie.

    I’m not making the edit to clarify the entry under discussion, because I’m not sure how to do it. I don’t think it’s a good idea, in a statement, to mix concrete models for (,1)(\infty,1)-categories (such as quasicategories, at the beginning of the statement) and then general (,1)(\infty,1)-notions that should in principle existe for any model (such as (,1)(\infty,1)-functor later on). Here the final equivalence in the statement seems to live in the world of simplicial categories. So what should be done?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2017

    This theorem is all about particular models, I don’t think there is any part of it that makes sense model-independently.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 16th 2017

    I made the least invasive edit I could think of that I think makes the statement true and all notations defined.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorBaptiste
    • CommentTimeOct 23rd 2017

    Thanks. It looks better indeed.

    I understand that this theorem is about particular models; actually, it seems to be about the particular model of quasi-categories. That is why I believe the statement should end by

    Then we have an equivalence of quasi-categories etc. But it is a minor point, I guess.