Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 definitions 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 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 nforum 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
   • (edited Mar 4th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownA few weeks ago, in a discussion on the cafe, Tom Leinster and Mike Shulman (I think Urs and Andrew were involved as well.). were discussing an "algebraic" form of Kan complexes. Is there a page on the nLab about this? If not, is there anywhere I can read up about them? It's in the comment thread [here](http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2009/12/this_weeks_finds_in_mathematic_48.html).

   A few weeks ago, in a discussion on the cafe, Tom Leinster and Mike Shulman (I think Urs and Andrew were involved as well.). were discussing an "algebraic" form of Kan complexes. Is there a page on the nLab about this? If not, is there anywhere I can read up about them?

   It's in the comment thread here.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownYou'll see that [[Thomas Nikolaus]] was involved - you can now see his nLab page (linked) for the write-up, and the new post at the cafe (just gone up yesterday or so)

   You'll see that Thomas Nikolaus was involved - you can now see his nLab page (linked) for the write-up, and the new post at the cafe (just gone up yesterday or so)

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownCool! Thanks for the link!

   Cool! Thanks for the link!

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
   • (edited Mar 5th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownUm, does this mean that the homotopy hypothesis is proven? Then it should be called the homotopy thesis (theorem? [how about lemma?]), right?

   Um, does this mean that the homotopy hypothesis is proven? Then it should be called the homotopy thesis (theorem? [how about lemma?]), right?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
   • (edited Mar 5th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownIt depends. The homotopy hypothesis is really a condition by which we judge definitions of n- or oo-groupoids. But one could say that it was proven when we knew Kan complexes (of the ordinary sort) modeled all spaces up to weak homotopy type, if you take the same position as some where oo-groupoids are Kan complexes. Personally I would call it to be 'done' when we show globular (eg batanin) oo-groupoids model all (weak) homotopy types, at least from Grothendieck's point of view, as this was the original formulation in AG's letter to Breen in 1975. Then the challenge remains to show that all definitions of oo-groupoids are equivalent, say by showing that the (oo,1)-categories of such are equivalent .

   It depends. The homotopy hypothesis is really a condition by which we judge definitions of n- or oo-groupoids. But one could say that it was proven when we knew Kan complexes (of the ordinary sort) modeled all spaces up to weak homotopy type, if you take the same position as some where oo-groupoids are Kan complexes.

   Personally I would call it to be 'done' when we show globular (eg batanin) oo-groupoids model all (weak) homotopy types, at least from Grothendieck's point of view, as this was the original formulation in AG's letter to Breen in 1975. Then the challenge remains to show that all definitions of oo-groupoids are equivalent, say by showing that the (oo,1)-categories of such are equivalent .

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
   • (edited Mar 5th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownNow that we have an algebraic form, shouldn't it be a straight shot to the finish? I mean, the proof shows that it's algebraic (in the monadic sense), that seems like enough to work with to bridge the gap from the other direction, or am I vastly oversimplifying things. To be honest, I know very little about the algebraic side of higher category theory. The only thing I know is that operads are somehow a unifying "device" in the whole affair.

   Now that we have an algebraic form, shouldn't it be a straight shot to the finish? I mean, the proof shows that it's algebraic (in the monadic sense), that seems like enough to work with to bridge the gap from the other direction, or am I vastly oversimplifying things. To be honest, I know very little about the algebraic side of higher category theory. The only thing I know is that operads are somehow a unifying "device" in the whole affair.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMar 5th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownHarry, it's harder than that! But algebraic Kan complexes do seem like they may be helpful in making a connection to Batanin's oo-groupoids. Several of us are thinking in that direction right now. I don't think there is any "the" homotopy hypothesis. There is only "the homotopy hypothesis for X definition of n-category." The homotopy hypothesis for the definition "an oo-groupoid is a Kan complex" is proven. By Thomas' result, the homotopy hypothesis for the definition "an oo-groupoid is an algebraic Kan complex" is now also proven.

   Harry, it's harder than that! But algebraic Kan complexes do seem like they may be helpful in making a connection to Batanin's oo-groupoids. Several of us are thinking in that direction right now.

   I don't think there is any "the" homotopy hypothesis. There is only "the homotopy hypothesis for X definition of n-category." The homotopy hypothesis for the definition "an oo-groupoid is a Kan complex" is proven. By Thomas' result, the homotopy hypothesis for the definition "an oo-groupoid is an algebraic Kan complex" is now also proven.