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 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 topological topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 11th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexthis evident concept maybe deserves an entry of its own, for ease of linking. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Quillen+adjoint+triple/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple">current</a>

   this evident concept maybe deserves an entry of its own, for ease of linking.

   v1, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 11th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexSo the main point is to say that the right derived functor of a right Quillen functor is identified with the left derived functor of a left Quillen functor. It is immediate to say this a) on the level of homotopy categories and b) on the level of Kan-complex enriched simplicial localizations. Is there an intermediate, more purely model-category-theoretic way to express this?

   So the main point is to say that the right derived functor of a right Quillen functor is identified with the left derived functor of a left Quillen functor.

   It is immediate to say this a) on the level of homotopy categories and b) on the level of Kan-complex enriched simplicial localizations. Is there an intermediate, more purely model-category-theoretic way to express this?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 11th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexPerhaps with the derived natural transformations of [this paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2868)?

   Perhaps with the derived natural transformations of this paper?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 11th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThese derived natural transformation go between (images under some derived Quillen functor of) left Quillen functors, right ([p. 8](https://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.2868.pdf#page=8))? The issue with the adjoint triples is to identify a left Quillen functor with a right Quillen functor, after deriving.

   These derived natural transformation go between (images under some derived Quillen functor of) left Quillen functors, right (p. 8)? The issue with the adjoint triples is to identify a left Quillen functor with a right Quillen functor, after deriving.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 11th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThe ones on p8 do, but the more general ones on p20 live in a square composed of two left Quillen functors and two right Quillen functors (some of which could be identities).

   The ones on p8 do, but the more general ones on p20 live in a square composed of two left Quillen functors and two right Quillen functors (some of which could be identities).

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 11th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexNow I see, thanks. That looks like what I'd need, yes.

   Now I see, thanks. That looks like what I’d need, yes.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 12th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexokay, so in the [[double category of model categories]], the "Quillen adjoint triple" for homotopy limit/colimit is incarnated by the diagram $$ \array{ && [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} &\overset{ \phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} \\ && {}^{\mathllap{ \underset{\longrightarrow}{\lim} }}\Big\downarrow &{}^{\mathllap{\eta}}\swArrow& \Big\downarrow{}^{\mathrlap{id}} \\ [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} &\overset{ \phantom{A}\underset{\longleftarrow}{\lim}\phantom{A} }{\longrightarrow}& sSet_{Qu} &\overset{\phantom{A}const\phantom{A}}{\longrightarrow}& [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} \\ {}^{\mathllap{ id }}\Big\downarrow & {}^{\mathllap{\epsilon}}\swArrow & {}^{\mathllap{const}} \big\downarrow &\swArrow_{\mathrlap{id}}& \big\downarrow{}^{ \mathrlap{ id } } \\ [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} &\underset{\phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA}}{\longrightarrow}& [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} &\underset{\phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA}}{\longrightarrow}& [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} } $$ maybe that kind of diagram could be taken as the general definition of "Quillen adjoint triple".

   okay, so in the double category of model categories, the “Quillen adjoint triple” for homotopy limit/colimit is incarnated by the diagram

   maybe that kind of diagram could be taken as the general definition of “Quillen adjoint triple”.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 12th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have made that the definiton, and spelled out the Example of the Quillen adjoint quadruple over a site with terminal object: *** Let $\mathcal{C}_1, \mathcal{C}_2, \mathcal{D}$ be [[model categories]], where $\mathcal{C}_1$ and $\mathcal{C}_2$ share the same underlying [[category]] $\mathcal{C}$, and such that the [[identity functor]] on $\mathcal{C}$ constitutes a [[Quillen equivalence]] $$ \mathcal{C}_2 \underoverset {\underset{ \phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{ \phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA} }{\longleftarrow}} {{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} \mathcal{C}_1 $$ Then 1. a [[Quillen adjoint triple]] of the form $$ \mathcal{C}_{1/2} \array{ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{L}{\longrightarrow} \\ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{C}{\longleftarrow} \\ \overset{\phantom{AA}R\phantom{AA}}{\longrightarrow} \\ } \mathcal{D} $$ is a diagram in the [[double category of model categories]] of the form $$ \array{ && \mathcal{C}_1 &\overset{ \phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_2 \\ && {}^{\mathllap{ L }}\Big\downarrow &{}^{\mathllap{\eta}}\swArrow& \Big\downarrow{}^{\mathrlap{id}} \\ \mathcal{C}_2 &\overset{ \phantom{A}R\phantom{A} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{D} &\overset{\phantom{A}C\phantom{A}}{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 \\ {}^{\mathllap{ id }}\Big\downarrow & {}^{\mathllap{\epsilon}}\swArrow & {}^{\mathllap{C}} \big\downarrow &\swArrow_{\mathrlap{id}}& \big\downarrow{}^{ \mathrlap{ id } } \\ \mathcal{C}_2 &\underset{\phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA}}{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_2 &\underset{\phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA}}{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_2 } $$ such that $\eta$ is the [[unit of an adjunction]] and $\epsilon$ the [[counit of an adjunction]], thus exhibiting [[Quillen adjunctions]] $$ \array{ \mathcal{C}_1 \underoverset {\underset{C}{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{L}{\longrightarrow}} {{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} \mathcal{D} \\ \\ \mathcal{C}_2 \underoverset {\underset{R}{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{C}{\longleftarrow}} {{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} \mathcal{D} } $$ 1. a [[Quillen adjoint triple]] of the form $$ \mathcal{C}_{1/2} \array{ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{L}{\longleftarrow} \\ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{C}{\longrightarrow} \\ \overset{\phantom{AA}R\phantom{AA}}{\longleftarrow} \\ } \mathcal{D} $$ is a diagram in the [[double category of model categories]] of the form $$ \array{ \mathcal{C}_2 &\overset{ \phantom{AA} id \phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 &\overset{ \phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 \\ {}^{\mathllap{id}} \Big\downarrow &{}^{ \mathllap{ id } }\swArrow& \Big\downarrow{}^{ \mathrlap{ C } } & {}^{ \mathllap{\epsilon} }\swArrow & \Big\downarrow{}^{\mathrlap{id}} \\ \mathcal{C}_2 &\underset{ \phantom{A}C\phantom{A} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{D} &\underset{R}{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 \\ {}^{\mathllap{id}}\Big\downarrow &{}^{\mathllap{ \epsilon }}\swArrow& \Big\downarrow{}^{\mathrlap{L}} \\ \mathcal{C}_2 &\underset{ \phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_2 } $$ such that $\eta$ is the [[unit of an adjunction]] and $\epsilon$ the [[counit of an adjunction]], thus exhibiting [[Quillen adjunctions]] $$ \array{ \mathcal{C}_2 \underoverset {\underset{C}{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{L}{\longleftarrow}} {{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} \mathcal{D} \\ \\ \mathcal{C}_1 \underoverset {\underset{R}{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{C}{\longrightarrow}} {{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} \mathcal{D} } $$ If a Quillen adjoint triple of the first kind overlaps with one of the second kind $$ \mathcal{C}_{1/2} \array{ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{L_1 \phantom{= A_a}}{\longrightarrow} \\ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{C_1 = L_2}{\longleftarrow} \\ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{R_1 = C_2}{\longrightarrow} \\ \overset{\phantom{A_a = } R_2}{\longleftarrow} \\ } \mathcal{D} $$ we speak of a _Quillen [[adjoint quadruple]]_, and so forth. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Quillen+adjoint+triple/6">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Quillen+adjoint+triple/6">v6</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple">current</a>

   I have made that the definiton, and spelled out the Example of the Quillen adjoint quadruple over a site with terminal object:

   ---

   Let be model categories, where and share the same underlying category , and such that the identity functor on constitutes a Quillen equivalence

   Then

   1. a Quillen adjoint triple of the form

      is a diagram in the double category of model categories of the form

      such that is the unit of an adjunction and the counit of an adjunction, thus exhibiting Quillen adjunctions

   2. a Quillen adjoint triple of the form

      is a diagram in the double category of model categories of the form

      such that is the unit of an adjunction and the counit of an adjunction, thus exhibiting Quillen adjunctions

   If a Quillen adjoint triple of the first kind overlaps with one of the second kind

   we speak of a Quillen adjoint quadruple, and so forth.

   diff, v6, current

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 12th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThat doesn't seem like enough: don't you also need to require that the derived transformation of your square $id$ is an isomorphism? Also there doesn't seem to be any point to including the unit and counit in your "diagram" (which is not even a composable diagram in the double category). So if this is what you want, I would phrase it as "two Quillen adjunctions $$ \array{ \mathcal{C}_1 \underoverset {\underset{C}{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{L}{\longrightarrow}} {{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} \mathcal{D} \\ \\ \mathcal{C}_2 \underoverset {\underset{R}{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{C}{\longleftarrow}} {{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} \mathcal{D} } $$ such that the derived natural transformation of that square $id$ is an isomorphism." But it's not really any harder to allow $\mathcal{D}$ to have two model structures as well, is it? And even to allow the underlying categories to be different and the Quillen equivalence to be a nonidentity adjunction?

   That doesn’t seem like enough: don’t you also need to require that the derived transformation of your square is an isomorphism?

   Also there doesn’t seem to be any point to including the unit and counit in your “diagram” (which is not even a composable diagram in the double category). So if this is what you want, I would phrase it as “two Quillen adjunctions

   such that the derived natural transformation of that square is an isomorphism.”

   But it’s not really any harder to allow to have two model structures as well, is it? And even to allow the underlying categories to be different and the Quillen equivalence to be a nonidentity adjunction?

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2018
    • (edited Jul 12th 2018)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItex> you also need to require that the derived transformation of your square $id$ is an isomorphism Sure, thanks, forgot the most important bit in all the editing. Fixed now. Also added check that this is the case in the two examples. > there doesn't seem to be any point to including the unit and counit in your "diagram" (which is not even a composable diagram in the double category). I enjoyed how the double category 2-cells allow me to display the structure involved in a "Quillen triple" as one single _connected_ diagram (could we call it a "pasting diagram in the double category"), that's what I tried to bring out. But the alternative that you suggest follows right after, after "thus exhibiting". > it's not really any harder to allow $\mathcal{D}$ to have two model structures as well, is it? And even to allow the underlying categories to be different and the Quillen equivalence to be a nonidentity adjunction? That's what I had initially. But the special case seems really neat, with the "2-cells with adjacent 1-identities" for the unit/counit being accompanied exactly by the remaining possible "2-cells with adjacent 1-identities" exhibiting the gluing of the two Quillen adjunction. This feels like it really deserves to be called "Quillen adjoint triple". The more general version might rather go by "derivable adjoint triple" or the like.(?)

    you also need to require that the derived transformation of your square is an isomorphism

    Sure, thanks, forgot the most important bit in all the editing. Fixed now. Also added check that this is the case in the two examples.

    there doesn’t seem to be any point to including the unit and counit in your “diagram” (which is not even a composable diagram in the double category).

    I enjoyed how the double category 2-cells allow me to display the structure involved in a “Quillen triple” as one single connected diagram (could we call it a “pasting diagram in the double category”), that’s what I tried to bring out. But the alternative that you suggest follows right after, after “thus exhibiting”.

    it’s not really any harder to allow to have two model structures as well, is it? And even to allow the underlying categories to be different and the Quillen equivalence to be a nonidentity adjunction?

    That’s what I had initially. But the special case seems really neat, with the “2-cells with adjacent 1-identities” for the unit/counit being accompanied exactly by the remaining possible “2-cells with adjacent 1-identities” exhibiting the gluing of the two Quillen adjunction.

    This feels like it really deserves to be called “Quillen adjoint triple”. The more general version might rather go by “derivable adjoint triple” or the like.(?)

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexNo, I don't think you could call it a pasting diagram in a double category, because it's not composable. It wouldn't even be a composable diagram in a 2-category. I think the more concise definition is much easier to understand than a big diagram, but YMMV I guess. I also think it obscures what's going on, rather than being neat, to focus on the special case when certain functors happen to be identities. Regarding naming, one criterion of sensibility is that there ought to be a theorem like "any adjoint triple between locally presentable $(\infty,1)$-categories can be presented by some Quillen adjoint triple". Is that true for the more restricted version? For that matter, is it true for the more general version?

    No, I don’t think you could call it a pasting diagram in a double category, because it’s not composable. It wouldn’t even be a composable diagram in a 2-category. I think the more concise definition is much easier to understand than a big diagram, but YMMV I guess. I also think it obscures what’s going on, rather than being neat, to focus on the special case when certain functors happen to be identities.

    Regarding naming, one criterion of sensibility is that there ought to be a theorem like “any adjoint triple between locally presentable -categories can be presented by some Quillen adjoint triple”. Is that true for the more restricted version? For that matter, is it true for the more general version?

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2018
    • (edited Jul 13th 2018)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItex> "any adjoint triple between locally presentable $(\infty,1)$-categories can be presented by some Quillen adjoint triple". Is that true for the more restricted version? For that matter, is it true for the more general version? Yeah, I was wondering, too, that's what one should know. I suppose adjoint triples of left/right Kan extension between Bousfield localizations of simplicial presheaves will also fit the strict definition, by direct generalization of the limit/colimit example. That probably exhausts the class of examples of adjoint triples of presentable $\infty$-categories that I know of.

    “any adjoint triple between locally presentable -categories can be presented by some Quillen adjoint triple”. Is that true for the more restricted version? For that matter, is it true for the more general version?

    Yeah, I was wondering, too, that’s what one should know.

    I suppose adjoint triples of left/right Kan extension between Bousfield localizations of simplicial presheaves will also fit the strict definition, by direct generalization of the limit/colimit example. That probably exhausts the class of examples of adjoint triples of presentable -categories that I know of.

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexmade explicit the example of left/right homotopy Kan extension ([here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple#QuillenAdjointTripleHomotopyKanExtension)) <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Quillen+adjoint+triple/9">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Quillen+adjoint+triple/9">v9</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple">current</a>

    made explicit the example of left/right homotopy Kan extension (here)

    diff, v9, current

14. • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2018
    • (edited Jul 13th 2018)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexmade explicit the Quillen adjoint quadruple of homotopy Kan extension of simplicial presheaves along an adjoint pair of functors ([here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple#QuillenAdjointQuadrupleOfHomotopyKanExtensionAlongAdjointPair)) <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Quillen+adjoint+triple/10">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Quillen+adjoint+triple/10">v10</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple">current</a>

    made explicit the Quillen adjoint quadruple of homotopy Kan extension of simplicial presheaves along an adjoint pair of functors (here)

    diff, v10, current

15. • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2018
    • (edited Jul 13th 2018)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexFor what it's worth, the restriction to changing the model structure only on one of the two sides also goes along well with the examples of "$\infty$-solid sites" $$ \ast \array{ \phantom{\underoverset{\bot}{\phantom{AA}even\phantom{AA}}{\longleftarrow}} \\ \phantom{\underoverset{\bot}{\phantom{AA}\iota_{inf}\phantom{AA}}{\hookrightarrow}} \\ \underoverset{\bot}{\phantom{AA}\Pi\phantom{AA}}{\longleftarrow} \\ \underoverset{}{\phantom{A}Disc\phantom{A}}{\hookrightarrow} } CartSp \array{ \phantom{\underoverset{\bot}{\phantom{AA}even\phantom{AA}}{\longleftarrow}} \\ \underoverset{\bot}{\phantom{AA}\iota_{inf}\phantom{AA}}{\hookrightarrow} \\ \underoverset{}{\phantom{AA}\Pi_{inf}\phantom{AA}}{\longleftarrow} \\ \phantom{\underoverset{}{\phantom{A}Disc\phantom{A}}{\hookrightarrow}} } FormalCartSp \array{ \underoverset{\bot}{\phantom{AA}even\phantom{AA}}{\longleftarrow} \\ \underoverset{\bot}{\phantom{AA}\iota_{sup}\phantom{AA}}{\hookrightarrow} \\ \underoverset{}{\phantom{AA}\Pi_{sup}\phantom{AA}}{\longleftarrow} \\ \phantom{\underoverset{}{\phantom{A}Disc\phantom{A}}{\hookrightarrow}} } SuperFormalCartSp $$ This induces a progression of Quillen adjoint quadruples of the form $$ sSet_{Qu} \;\; \array{ \phantom{\underoverset{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ even }{\longleftarrow}} \\ \phantom{\underoverset{ \phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ \iota_{inf} }{\hookrightarrow}} \\ \underoverset{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ \Pi }{\longleftarrow} \\ \underoverset{ \phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ Disc }{\hookrightarrow} \\ \underoverset{ \phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ \Gamma }{\longleftarrow} \\ \overset{ coDisc }{\hookrightarrow} } \;\; [CartSp^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj/inj} \;\; \array{ \phantom{\underoverset{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ even }{\longleftarrow}} \\ \underoverset{ \phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ \iota_{inf} }{\hookrightarrow} \\ \underoverset{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ \Pi_{inf} }{\longleftarrow} \\ \underoverset{ \phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ Disc_{inf} }{\hookrightarrow} \\ \underoverset{ \phantom{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} }{ \Gamma_{inf} }{\longleftarrow} \\ \phantom{\overset{ coDisc }{\longrightarrow}} } \;\; [FormalCartSp^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} \;\; \array{ \underoverset{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ even }{\longleftarrow} \\ \underoverset{ \phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ \iota_{sup} }{\hookrightarrow} \\ \underoverset{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ \Pi_{sup} }{\longleftarrow} \\ \underoverset{ \phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu} }{ Disc_{sup} }{\hookrightarrow} \\ \underoverset{ \phantom{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} }{ \Gamma_{sup} }{\longleftarrow} \\ \phantom{\overset{ coDisc }{\longrightarrow}} } \;\; [SuperFormalCartSp^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj/inj} $$ and so the way that the topmost left adjoints between sites keep shifting up in position, in this example, matches the alternation between a single model structure (proj) and change of model structure (proj/inj). So at least I luck out, and the neat restrictive definition is sufficient for my current purpose.

    For what it’s worth, the restriction to changing the model structure only on one of the two sides also goes along well with the examples of “-solid sites”

    This induces a progression of Quillen adjoint quadruples of the form

    and so the way that the topmost left adjoints between sites keep shifting up in position, in this example, matches the alternation between a single model structure (proj) and change of model structure (proj/inj).

    So at least I luck out, and the neat restrictive definition is sufficient for my current purpose.

16. • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexI know that there are various theorems about how every geometric morphism between Grothendieck toposes can be induced by a morphism of sites as long as we choose appropriate sites for the two toposes. What sort of theorems are there like this for adjunctions between locally presentable categories? I feel like I should know the answer to that.

    I know that there are various theorems about how every geometric morphism between Grothendieck toposes can be induced by a morphism of sites as long as we choose appropriate sites for the two toposes. What sort of theorems are there like this for adjunctions between locally presentable categories? I feel like I should know the answer to that.

17. • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexLet's see, if $C$ and $D$ are locally presentable and $U:C\to D$ is a right adjoint, then if $D_f\subseteq D$ is a small generating full subcategory, the restricted Yoneda embedding $D \to [D_f^{op},Set]$ is fully faithful and has a left adjoint. So the composite $C \to D \to [D_f^{op},Set]$ is a right adjoint and lands inside $D$, while its left adjoint restricts on $D$ to the left adjoint $F$ of $U$. Now let $C_f\subseteq C$ be a small generating full subcategory that contains $F(D_f)$; then since every presheaf is the colimit of representables and left adjoints preserve colimits, the left adjoint $[D_f^{op},Set] \to C$ factors as left Kan extension $[D_f^{op},Set] \to [C_f^{op},Set]$ along the restriction $F_f: D_f \to C_f$ followed by reflection into $C$ (i.e. weighted colimits). Thus, if we present $C$ and $D$ with model structures on these presheaf categories, the given adjunction should be presented by the left Kan extension Quillen adjunction. Not sure yet how to extend this to adjoint triples though.

    Let’s see, if and are locally presentable and is a right adjoint, then if is a small generating full subcategory, the restricted Yoneda embedding is fully faithful and has a left adjoint. So the composite is a right adjoint and lands inside , while its left adjoint restricts on to the left adjoint of . Now let be a small generating full subcategory that contains ; then since every presheaf is the colimit of representables and left adjoints preserve colimits, the left adjoint factors as left Kan extension along the restriction followed by reflection into (i.e. weighted colimits). Thus, if we present and with model structures on these presheaf categories, the given adjunction should be presented by the left Kan extension Quillen adjunction.

    Not sure yet how to extend this to adjoint triples though.

18. • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexThanks, Mike, for the input! I'll try to further think about this later. For the moment, I have a different kind of question: Can we see that a Quillen adjoint triple between combinatorial model categories maps to an adjunction under Renaudin's 2-localization?

    Thanks, Mike, for the input!

    I’ll try to further think about this later. For the moment, I have a different kind of question:

    Can we see that a Quillen adjoint triple between combinatorial model categories maps to an adjunction under Renaudin’s 2-localization?

19. • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 16th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexThat's... a good question. It's not obvious to me! Maybe his theorem needs to be extended to a localization of the *double* category of model categories.

    That’s… a good question. It’s not obvious to me! Maybe his theorem needs to be extended to a localization of the double category of model categories.

20. • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: DavidRoberts
    Format: MarkdownItexNaive quick question: could the diagram >$$ \array{ \mathcal{C}_2 &\overset{ \phantom{AA} id \phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 &\overset{ \phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 \\ {}^{\mathllap{id}} \Big\downarrow &{}^{ \mathllap{ id } }\swArrow& \Big\downarrow{}^{ \mathrlap{ C } } & {}^{ \mathllap{\epsilon} }\swArrow & \Big\downarrow{}^{\mathrlap{id}} \\ \mathcal{C}_2 &\underset{ \phantom{A}C\phantom{A} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{D} &\underset{R}{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 \\ {}^{\mathllap{id}}\Big\downarrow &{}^{\mathllap{ \epsilon }}\swArrow& \Big\downarrow{}^{\mathrlap{L}} \\ \mathcal{C}_2 &\underset{ \phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_2 } $$ be extended to some $$ \array{ \mathcal{C}_2 &\overset{ \phantom{AA} id \phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 &\overset{ \phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 \\ {}^{\mathllap{id}} \Big\downarrow &{}^{ \mathllap{ id } }\swArrow& \Big\downarrow{}^{ \mathrlap{ C } } & {}^{ \mathllap{\epsilon} }\swArrow & \Big\downarrow{}^{\mathrlap{id}} \\ \mathcal{C}_2 &\underset{ \phantom{A}C\phantom{A} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{D} &\underset{R}{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 \\ {}^{\mathllap{id}}\Big\downarrow &{}^{\mathllap{ \epsilon }}\swArrow& \Big\downarrow{}^{\mathrlap{L}} &{}^{\mathllap{?? }}\swArrow& \Big\downarrow{}^{\mathrlap{??}} \\ \mathcal{C}_2 &\underset{ \phantom{AA}id\phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_2 &\underset{ \phantom{AA}??\phantom{AA} }{\longrightarrow}& \mathcal{C}_1 } $$ ?

    Naive quick question: could the diagram

    be extended to some

    ?

21. • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexQuick answer: no? (-:

    Quick answer: no? (-:

22. • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: DavidRoberts
    Format: MarkdownItex@Mike - ah, ok :-) I had a stupidly wrong guess at first, then realised the didn't work, but then couldn't quickly see what would prevent some other filler for that gap.

    @Mike - ah, ok :-) I had a stupidly wrong guess at first, then realised the didn’t work, but then couldn’t quickly see what would prevent some other filler for that gap.

23. • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 17th 2018
    • (edited Jul 17th 2018)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexAnother thought: Given a Quillen adjoint triple $L \dashv C \dashv R$, what we should really ask is if the derived unit of $\mathbb{R}C \circ \mathbb{L}L$ satisfies its universal property for pre-composition on derived hom-spaces. This is easy to see if in additon to $\mathcal{C}_1 \underoverset{\underset{id}{\longrightarrow}}{\overset{id}{\longleftarrow}}{\bot} \mathcal{C}_2$ being a Quillen equivalence, we also assume that $\mathcal{C}_1$ and $\mathcal{C}_2$ have the same class of weak equivalences. Of course this further assumption is again met for the case of left/right homotopy Kan extension. (Hm, or is this automatic, in general?) I made a simple note on this [here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple#DerivedAdjointModality).

    Another thought:

    Given a Quillen adjoint triple , what we should really ask is if the derived unit of satisfies its universal property for pre-composition on derived hom-spaces.

    This is easy to see if in additon to being a Quillen equivalence, we also assume that and have the same class of weak equivalences. Of course this further assumption is again met for the case of left/right homotopy Kan extension. (Hm, or is this automatic, in general?)

    I made a simple note on this here.

24. • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2018
    • (edited Jul 18th 2018)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexI have written out discussion ([here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple#DerivedAdjointModality)) of how simplicial Quillen adjoint triples induce "derived adjoint modalities", such that on suitably fibrant/cofibrant objects the derived modal operators are represented by the ordinary modal operators. Strangely, I can make this work only in 3 of 4 cases: For Quillen adjoint triples of the form $$ \mathcal{C}_{1/2} \array{ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{L}{\longleftarrow} \\ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{C}{\longrightarrow} \\ \overset{\phantom{AA}R\phantom{AA}}{\longleftarrow} \\ } \mathcal{D} $$ it works for a) $C$ being fully faithful and b) $L$ and $R$ being fully faithful, but for Quillen adjoint triples of the form $$ \mathcal{C}_{1/2} \array{ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{L}{\longrightarrow} \\ \underoverset{{}_{\phantom{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}{C}{\longleftarrow} \\ \overset{\phantom{AA}R\phantom{AA}}{\longrightarrow} \\ } \mathcal{D} $$ it seems to work only for the case that $C$ is fully faithful. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Quillen+adjoint+triple/16">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Quillen+adjoint+triple/16">v16</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple">current</a>

    I have written out discussion (here) of how simplicial Quillen adjoint triples induce “derived adjoint modalities”, such that on suitably fibrant/cofibrant objects the derived modal operators are represented by the ordinary modal operators.

    Strangely, I can make this work only in 3 of 4 cases: For Quillen adjoint triples of the form

    it works for a) being fully faithful and b) and being fully faithful, but for Quillen adjoint triples of the form

    it seems to work only for the case that is fully faithful.

    diff, v16, current

25. • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexI don't understand what you're trying to do here. Once we know that we have an adjoint triple at the homotopy level, doesn't everything we want follow from abstract nonsense there?

    I don’t understand what you’re trying to do here. Once we know that we have an adjoint triple at the homotopy level, doesn’t everything we want follow from abstract nonsense there?

26. • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexHere I am after control of the $\infty$-adjoint triple, whose properties are seen not by the set-valued hom in the homotopy category, but the simplicial-set valued derived hom.

    Here I am after control of the -adjoint triple, whose properties are seen not by the set-valued hom in the homotopy category, but the simplicial-set valued derived hom.

27. • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexBut the properties that you're talking about look like they should follow by abstract nonsense of $(\infty,1)$-category theory once we have an $\infty$-adjoint triple, without needing to futz about with model categories any more.

    But the properties that you’re talking about look like they should follow by abstract nonsense of -category theory once we have an -adjoint triple, without needing to futz about with model categories any more.

28. • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItex(By "homotopy" I meant $\infty$, sorry if that wasn't clear.)

    (By “homotopy” I meant , sorry if that wasn’t clear.)

29. • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexI am trying to do without $\infty$-category theory here. Just model category theory.

    I am trying to do without -category theory here. Just model category theory.

30. • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexWhy? In any case, it seems like it would be more nPOV to first do it with $\infty$-category theory, and then relegate the model-categorical version to a subsection or a sub-page.

    Why?

    In any case, it seems like it would be more nPOV to first do it with -category theory, and then relegate the model-categorical version to a subsection or a sub-page.

31. • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItex> Why? To give readers a comprehensive account without sending them through the $\infty$-literature. To have a clean 1-category theoretic construction. To know how to build models of modal HoTT in model categories. > it seems like it would be more nPOV to first do it with $\infty$-category theory, and then relegate the model-categorical version to a subsection or a sub-page. That would be for an entry with a different title. This here is titled "Quillen adjoint triple" and not "$\infty$-adjoint triple".

    Why?

    To give readers a comprehensive account without sending them through the -literature. To have a clean 1-category theoretic construction. To know how to build models of modal HoTT in model categories.

    it seems like it would be more nPOV to first do it with -category theory, and then relegate the model-categorical version to a subsection or a sub-page.

    That would be for an entry with a different title. This here is titled “Quillen adjoint triple” and not “-adjoint triple”.

32. • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexWell, but we should at least *tell* the reader on this page that these model-categorical shenanigans are not actually required, and in particular that any seeming-arbitrary restrictions like "having the same weak equivalences" or "only working in 3/4 cases" come only from the choice of machinery rather than being fundamental to the result.

    Well, but we should at least tell the reader on this page that these model-categorical shenanigans are not actually required, and in particular that any seeming-arbitrary restrictions like “having the same weak equivalences” or “only working in 3/4 cases” come only from the choice of machinery rather than being fundamental to the result.

33. • CommentRowNumber33.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 19th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexExpand Idea section to mention other possibilities in the definition, and remark that we could just as well use $(\infty,1)$-categories. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Quillen+adjoint+triple/22">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Quillen+adjoint+triple/22">v22</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple">current</a>

    Expand Idea section to mention other possibilities in the definition, and remark that we could just as well use -categories.

    diff, v22, current

34. • CommentRowNumber34.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2018
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexI had had a silly variance error in the discussion of adjoint quadruples. Have fixed this now. In the process I ended up pretty much rewriting large bits of the entry. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Quillen+adjoint+triple/28">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Quillen+adjoint+triple/28">v28</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple">current</a>

    I had had a silly variance error in the discussion of adjoint quadruples. Have fixed this now. In the process I ended up pretty much rewriting large bits of the entry.

    diff, v28, current

35. • CommentRowNumber35.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2018
    • (edited Jul 20th 2018)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexSupposing that I have it right now, I can now say "[[solid topos|solid]] [[model topos]]" to be a system of [[Quillen adjoint triples]] of this form: $$ \array{ \phantom{ sSet_{Qu} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\Pi_{red}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {\underset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{\iota_{inf}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } } [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{even}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \\ \phantom{ sSet_{Qu} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\Pi_{red}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {\underset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } } [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{\iota_{inf}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{\iota_{sup}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj \atop loc} \\ sSet_{Qu} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\Pi_{red}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{ \Pi_{inf} }{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\Pi_{sup}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj \atop loc} \\ sSet_{Qu} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{Disc_{red}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{ Disc_{inf} }{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj \atop loc} \underoverset {\phantom{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\;\;id}{\phantom{\longleftarrow}}} {\phantom{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu}} } \phantom{[\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc}} \underoverset {\phantom{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{\;Disc_{sup}}{\phantom{\longrightarrow}}} {\phantom{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}} \phantom{[\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc}} \\ sSet_{Qu} \underoverset {\underset{coDisc_{red}}{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\Gamma_{red}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj \atop loc} \underoverset {\phantom{\underset{id}{\longrightarrow}}} {\overset{id}{\phantom{\longleftarrow}}} {\phantom{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu}} } \phantom{ [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj \atop loc} } \underoverset {\phantom{{\longleftarrow}}} {\overset{ \Gamma_{inf} }{\phantom{\longrightarrow}}} {\phantom{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}} \phantom{ [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj \atop loc} \underoverset {\underset{}{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{\iota_{sup}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} } } $$ Here $Disc_{inf} \circ Disc_{red} \dashv \Gamma_{red} \circ \Gamma_{inf}$ composes to a Quillen adjunction, and we ask in addition that this extends to yet another Quillen adjoint triple one step down. Unfortunately $\Pi_{inf}\circ \Pi_{sup} \dashv Disc_{sup} \circ Disc_{inf}$ is not manifestly a Quillen adjunction from just the above data. Maybe I made a mistake somewhare, or maybe it's just not going to happen, and the right adjoint $\&$ to the $\Im$-modality will be the (only) one among the 12 which is not directly the derived functor of a Quillen functor.

    Supposing that I have it right now, I can now say “solid model topos” to be a system of Quillen adjoint triples of this form:

    Here composes to a Quillen adjunction, and we ask in addition that this extends to yet another Quillen adjoint triple one step down.

    Unfortunately is not manifestly a Quillen adjunction from just the above data. Maybe I made a mistake somewhare, or maybe it’s just not going to happen, and the right adjoint to the -modality will be the (only) one among the 12 which is not directly the derived functor of a Quillen functor.

36. • CommentRowNumber36.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2018
    • (edited Jul 21st 2018)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexadded the example of Quillen adjoint quintuples on simplicial presheaves induced via Kan extension along adjoint triples ([here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple#QuillenAdjointQuintupleOfHomotopyKanExtensionAlongAdjointTriple)). This has two realizations: either $$ [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{L_! \phantom{\simeq A_a \simeq A_a}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{\phantom{A}{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}\phantom{A}} [\mathcal{D}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} $$ $$ [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{L^\ast \simeq C_! \phantom{\simeq A_a}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{\phantom{A}{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}\phantom{A}} [\mathcal{D}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} $$ $$ [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} \underoverset {\underset{}{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{L_\ast \simeq C^\ast \simeq R_!}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{\phantom{A}{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}\phantom{A}} [\mathcal{D}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} $$ $$ [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} \underoverset {\underset{ \phantom{ A_a \simeq A_a \simeq} R_\ast }{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{ \phantom{A_a \simeq} C_\ast \simeq R^\ast }{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{\phantom{A}{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}\phantom{A}} [\mathcal{D}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} $$ or $$ [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{L_! \phantom{\simeq A_a \simeq A_a}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{\phantom{A}{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}\phantom{A}} [\mathcal{D}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} $$ $$ [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{L^\ast \simeq C_! \phantom{\simeq A_a}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{\phantom{A}{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}\phantom{A}} [\mathcal{D}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} $$ $$ [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} \underoverset {\underset{}{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{L_\ast \simeq C^\ast \simeq R_!}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{\phantom{A}{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}\phantom{A}} [\mathcal{D}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj} $$ $$ [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} \underoverset {\underset{ \phantom{ A_a \simeq A_a \simeq} R_\ast }{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{ \phantom{A_a \simeq} C_\ast \simeq R^\ast }{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{\phantom{A}{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}\phantom{A}} [\mathcal{D}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj} $$ This pattern continues for homotopy Kan extension along adjoint $(n+1)$-tuples: the resulting Quillen adjoint $(n+3)$-ples have 1. projective model structures "everywhere on top" 1. injective model structure "everywhere at the bottom" 1. a transition zone across a Quillen adjoint quadruple where projective turns into injective. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/Quillen+adjoint+triple/29">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/Quillen+adjoint+triple/29">v29</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple">current</a>

    added the example of Quillen adjoint quintuples on simplicial presheaves induced via Kan extension along adjoint triples (here). This has two realizations: either

    or

    This pattern continues for homotopy Kan extension along adjoint -tuples: the resulting Quillen adjoint -ples have

    1. projective model structures “everywhere on top”

    2. injective model structure “everywhere at the bottom”

    3. a transition zone across a Quillen adjoint quadruple where projective turns into injective.

    diff, v29, current

37. • CommentRowNumber37.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2018
    • (edited Jul 21st 2018)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexWith this I can fix the remaining problem in [#35](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/8721/quillen-adjoint-triple/?Focus=70213#Comment_70213): Since in the examples of solid model toposes of interest we happen to have not just a Quillen adjoint quadruple but a Quillen adjoint quintuple on the "far right": $$ \array{ \phantom{ sSet_{Qu} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\Pi_{red}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {\underset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{\iota_{inf}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } } [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{even}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \\ \phantom{ sSet_{Qu} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\Pi_{red}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {\underset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } } [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{\iota_{inf}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{\iota_{sup}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} \\ sSet_{Qu} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\Pi_{red}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{ \Pi_{inf} }{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\Pi_{sup}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} \\ sSet_{Qu} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{Disc_{red}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{id}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{ Disc_{inf} }{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\;\;id}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} } [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} \underoverset {{\longleftarrow}} {\overset{\;Disc_{sup}}{\longrightarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} \\ sSet_{Qu} \underoverset {\underset{coDisc_{red}}{\longrightarrow}} {\overset{\Gamma_{red}}{\longleftarrow}} {\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}} [\mathcal{C}_{red}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} \underoverset {\phantom{\underset{id}{\longrightarrow}}} {\overset{id}{\phantom{\longleftarrow}}} {\phantom{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu}} } \phantom{ [\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc} } \underoverset {\phantom{{\longleftarrow}}} {\overset{ \Gamma_{inf} }{\phantom{\longrightarrow}}} {\phantom{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}} \phantom{[\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{inj\phantom{r} \atop loc}} \underoverset {\underset{}{\phantom{\longrightarrow}}} {\overset{id}{\phantom{\longleftarrow}}} {\phantom{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\simeq_{Qu} }} \phantom{[\mathcal{C}_{inf}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc}} \underoverset {\phantom{{\longleftarrow}}} {\overset{\Gamma_{sup}}{\phantom{\longrightarrow}}} {\phantom{\phantom{{}_{Qu}}\bot_{Qu}}} \phantom{[\mathcal{C}^{op}, sSet_{Qu}]_{proj \atop loc}} } $$ This now implies all the 12 derived adjoint modalities, all by application of [this prop.](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Quillen+adjoint+triple#DerivedAdjointModalitiesFromFullyFaithfulQuillenAdjointQuadruples).

    With this I can fix the remaining problem in #35: Since in the examples of solid model toposes of interest we happen to have not just a Quillen adjoint quadruple but a Quillen adjoint quintuple on the “far right”:

    This now implies all the 12 derived adjoint modalities, all by application of this prop..