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.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2019

    Added a section about the preservation of five classes of maps.

    diff, v11, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2019
    • (edited Jan 5th 2019)

    Changed the formatting to display the (new) five classes of maps material more.

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2019

    I suppose the model structure on topological spaces could be defined by transfer from simplicial sets, but usually I think the definitions go the other way. So I rewrote the reason for preservation of weak equivalences in a more neutral way.

    diff, v15, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2019
    • (edited Jan 5th 2019)

    [Comment deleted!]

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJan 6th 2019

    Re #3: I doubt one can use the adverb “traditionally” to characterize the other approach. Quillen’s original book on model categories, which is as traditional as one could possibly get, defines the model structure on topological spaces by transferring it from simplicial sets. Only later other authors transferred it in the opposite direction.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2019

    I’m looking at section II.3 of Quillen’s book. The fact that topological spaces are a model category is Theorem 1. The fact that simplicial sets are a model category is Theorem 3. So I don’t think that the former model structure could be transferred from the latter. (Note that Quillen defines “simplicial model category” in section II.2, before he’s proven that simplicial sets are themselves a model category.)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2019

    My memory of Quillen (I do not have it in front of me) is that he intends the three classes of w.e., fib and cofib to have the ’traditional ’meaning (e.g. from J. H. C. Whitehead, etc. and Whitehead is not only ’traditional’ it is more or less ’classical’, unless you go pre-WWII;-)), but as Quillen define homotopy groups for simplicial sets via geometric realisation, which structure has precedence is slightly problematic. It is also slightly irrelevant. The singular complex predates Quillen by some years, and is the motivation for the definition of simplicial sets. It dates from 1950 and Eilenberg-Zilber’s Annals paper. I am wary of ’traditional’ and ’classical’ as adjectives to describe mathematical ideas although I must admit to using them myself in what I write.

    I have a slight feeling of unease about the paragraph in this entry on weak equivalences as I find it a bit too complicated, but do not see what to do to simplify it … or I would try to do it myself. Perhaps reducing what is said here to saying just that weak equivalences in simplicial sets were initially defined via those in topological spaces, might clear up the issue. (The construction using combinatorial methods is introduced by Kan (1958) as being secondary’).

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2019

    In fact Quillen’s book technically defines weak equivalences of simplicial sets to be the morphisms that factor as a trivial cofibration followed by a trivial fibration; only later in Proposition 4 does he prove that this is equivalent to inducing a homotopy equivalence on geometric realizations.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2019

    Indeed, my account of Quillen’s book was obviously incorrect. I edited the article on weak homotopy equivalences to add a few more definitions.