Theorem 2.1.2.2 Higher Topos Theory
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
At the page 74 of HTT, there is the following theorem
Let $S$ be a simplicial set, $mathcal{C}$ a simplicial category, and $phi: mathfrak{C}[S] rightarrow mathcal{C}^{op}$ a simplicial functor. The straightening and unstraigntening functors determine a Quillen adjunction
$$ St_{phi} : (Set_{Delta})_{/S} leftrightarrows Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}} :Un_{phi}$$
where $(Set_{Delta})_{/S}$ is endowed with the contravariant model structure and $Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}}$ with the projective model structure. [...]
In then says that the proof is easy, but I can't manage to show that $St_{phi}$ sends cofibrations to projective cofibrations. I thought that since the the class of morphisms which are sent to projective cofibrations is weakly saturated it is enough to show the result for all inclusions $partial Delta^n subseteq Delta^n$.
I did not have much success for the simplicial category $mathcal{C}$ and the map $phi$ could be anything and I have a hard time dealing with it.
Furthermore there is something else which troubles me: the model structure on the $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ makes no use of the simplicial enrichement on both $mathcal{C}$ and $sSet$ so I was wondering if I was not missing something by believing that the that model structure on $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ is really the projective model structure coming from the Kan model structure on $sSet$ and not the one coming somehow from an other model stucture using the simplicial enrichement.
ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff model-categories
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
At the page 74 of HTT, there is the following theorem
Let $S$ be a simplicial set, $mathcal{C}$ a simplicial category, and $phi: mathfrak{C}[S] rightarrow mathcal{C}^{op}$ a simplicial functor. The straightening and unstraigntening functors determine a Quillen adjunction
$$ St_{phi} : (Set_{Delta})_{/S} leftrightarrows Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}} :Un_{phi}$$
where $(Set_{Delta})_{/S}$ is endowed with the contravariant model structure and $Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}}$ with the projective model structure. [...]
In then says that the proof is easy, but I can't manage to show that $St_{phi}$ sends cofibrations to projective cofibrations. I thought that since the the class of morphisms which are sent to projective cofibrations is weakly saturated it is enough to show the result for all inclusions $partial Delta^n subseteq Delta^n$.
I did not have much success for the simplicial category $mathcal{C}$ and the map $phi$ could be anything and I have a hard time dealing with it.
Furthermore there is something else which troubles me: the model structure on the $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ makes no use of the simplicial enrichement on both $mathcal{C}$ and $sSet$ so I was wondering if I was not missing something by believing that the that model structure on $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ is really the projective model structure coming from the Kan model structure on $sSet$ and not the one coming somehow from an other model stucture using the simplicial enrichement.
ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff model-categories
1
Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
– Watson
2 days ago
1
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
At the page 74 of HTT, there is the following theorem
Let $S$ be a simplicial set, $mathcal{C}$ a simplicial category, and $phi: mathfrak{C}[S] rightarrow mathcal{C}^{op}$ a simplicial functor. The straightening and unstraigntening functors determine a Quillen adjunction
$$ St_{phi} : (Set_{Delta})_{/S} leftrightarrows Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}} :Un_{phi}$$
where $(Set_{Delta})_{/S}$ is endowed with the contravariant model structure and $Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}}$ with the projective model structure. [...]
In then says that the proof is easy, but I can't manage to show that $St_{phi}$ sends cofibrations to projective cofibrations. I thought that since the the class of morphisms which are sent to projective cofibrations is weakly saturated it is enough to show the result for all inclusions $partial Delta^n subseteq Delta^n$.
I did not have much success for the simplicial category $mathcal{C}$ and the map $phi$ could be anything and I have a hard time dealing with it.
Furthermore there is something else which troubles me: the model structure on the $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ makes no use of the simplicial enrichement on both $mathcal{C}$ and $sSet$ so I was wondering if I was not missing something by believing that the that model structure on $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ is really the projective model structure coming from the Kan model structure on $sSet$ and not the one coming somehow from an other model stucture using the simplicial enrichement.
ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff model-categories
At the page 74 of HTT, there is the following theorem
Let $S$ be a simplicial set, $mathcal{C}$ a simplicial category, and $phi: mathfrak{C}[S] rightarrow mathcal{C}^{op}$ a simplicial functor. The straightening and unstraigntening functors determine a Quillen adjunction
$$ St_{phi} : (Set_{Delta})_{/S} leftrightarrows Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}} :Un_{phi}$$
where $(Set_{Delta})_{/S}$ is endowed with the contravariant model structure and $Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}}$ with the projective model structure. [...]
In then says that the proof is easy, but I can't manage to show that $St_{phi}$ sends cofibrations to projective cofibrations. I thought that since the the class of morphisms which are sent to projective cofibrations is weakly saturated it is enough to show the result for all inclusions $partial Delta^n subseteq Delta^n$.
I did not have much success for the simplicial category $mathcal{C}$ and the map $phi$ could be anything and I have a hard time dealing with it.
Furthermore there is something else which troubles me: the model structure on the $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ makes no use of the simplicial enrichement on both $mathcal{C}$ and $sSet$ so I was wondering if I was not missing something by believing that the that model structure on $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ is really the projective model structure coming from the Kan model structure on $sSet$ and not the one coming somehow from an other model stucture using the simplicial enrichement.
ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff model-categories
ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff model-categories
asked 2 days ago
Valérian Montessuit
463
463
1
Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
– Watson
2 days ago
1
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
– Watson
2 days ago
1
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
1
1
Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
– Watson
2 days ago
Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
– Watson
2 days ago
1
1
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
First, notice that if $Xhookrightarrow Y$ is an injective map over $S$, then the map $M_{X,phi} to M_{Y,phi}$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories. To see this, notice that it is a pushout of the map $M_{X,id}to M_{Y,id},$ which can easily be verified to be a cofibration, as it is the image of the injective map $$X^trianglerightcoprod_X S hookrightarrow Y^triangleright coprod_Y S$$ under the functor $mathfrak{C},$ which preserves cofibrations.
Then we see that if $Cto D$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories, then given any $xin C$ such that $C(-,x)$ is projectively cofibrant, the induced natural transformation $C(-, x)to D(f-,fx)$ is a projective cofibration by A.3.3.9.ii.
The last thing that remains to be proved is that $M_{phi,X}(-,p),$ where $p$ denotes the image of the cone point, is projectively cofibrant. The previous revision to this answer did not answer this question, and I am leaving it open until I have more time later or until someone adds an answer.
I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
I think what Lurie might have meant when he wrote "It is easy to see that $St_{phi}$ preserves cofibrations" in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1.2, is that it is easy to see it if you take into account the compatibility of straightening with left Kan extensions as described just above in Proposition 2.2.1.1. Indeed, combining (1) and (2) of the latter proposition we see that given any generating cofibration $partial Delta^n to Delta^n to S$ in $({rm Set}_{Delta})_{/S}$, in order to show that $St_{phi}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{{cal C}}$ it is enough to show that $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}}$. The map $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ can then be described very explicitly, and one can check that it is a pushout of a map of the form $(i_0)_!partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (i_0)_!(Delta^1)^n$, where $(i_0)_!$ denotes the left Kan extension functor along the terminal object inclusion ${0} subseteq mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}$ and $partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (Delta^1)^n$ is the inclusion of the boundary of the $n$-cube inside the full $n$-cube.
1
I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
First, notice that if $Xhookrightarrow Y$ is an injective map over $S$, then the map $M_{X,phi} to M_{Y,phi}$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories. To see this, notice that it is a pushout of the map $M_{X,id}to M_{Y,id},$ which can easily be verified to be a cofibration, as it is the image of the injective map $$X^trianglerightcoprod_X S hookrightarrow Y^triangleright coprod_Y S$$ under the functor $mathfrak{C},$ which preserves cofibrations.
Then we see that if $Cto D$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories, then given any $xin C$ such that $C(-,x)$ is projectively cofibrant, the induced natural transformation $C(-, x)to D(f-,fx)$ is a projective cofibration by A.3.3.9.ii.
The last thing that remains to be proved is that $M_{phi,X}(-,p),$ where $p$ denotes the image of the cone point, is projectively cofibrant. The previous revision to this answer did not answer this question, and I am leaving it open until I have more time later or until someone adds an answer.
I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
First, notice that if $Xhookrightarrow Y$ is an injective map over $S$, then the map $M_{X,phi} to M_{Y,phi}$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories. To see this, notice that it is a pushout of the map $M_{X,id}to M_{Y,id},$ which can easily be verified to be a cofibration, as it is the image of the injective map $$X^trianglerightcoprod_X S hookrightarrow Y^triangleright coprod_Y S$$ under the functor $mathfrak{C},$ which preserves cofibrations.
Then we see that if $Cto D$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories, then given any $xin C$ such that $C(-,x)$ is projectively cofibrant, the induced natural transformation $C(-, x)to D(f-,fx)$ is a projective cofibration by A.3.3.9.ii.
The last thing that remains to be proved is that $M_{phi,X}(-,p),$ where $p$ denotes the image of the cone point, is projectively cofibrant. The previous revision to this answer did not answer this question, and I am leaving it open until I have more time later or until someone adds an answer.
I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
First, notice that if $Xhookrightarrow Y$ is an injective map over $S$, then the map $M_{X,phi} to M_{Y,phi}$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories. To see this, notice that it is a pushout of the map $M_{X,id}to M_{Y,id},$ which can easily be verified to be a cofibration, as it is the image of the injective map $$X^trianglerightcoprod_X S hookrightarrow Y^triangleright coprod_Y S$$ under the functor $mathfrak{C},$ which preserves cofibrations.
Then we see that if $Cto D$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories, then given any $xin C$ such that $C(-,x)$ is projectively cofibrant, the induced natural transformation $C(-, x)to D(f-,fx)$ is a projective cofibration by A.3.3.9.ii.
The last thing that remains to be proved is that $M_{phi,X}(-,p),$ where $p$ denotes the image of the cone point, is projectively cofibrant. The previous revision to this answer did not answer this question, and I am leaving it open until I have more time later or until someone adds an answer.
First, notice that if $Xhookrightarrow Y$ is an injective map over $S$, then the map $M_{X,phi} to M_{Y,phi}$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories. To see this, notice that it is a pushout of the map $M_{X,id}to M_{Y,id},$ which can easily be verified to be a cofibration, as it is the image of the injective map $$X^trianglerightcoprod_X S hookrightarrow Y^triangleright coprod_Y S$$ under the functor $mathfrak{C},$ which preserves cofibrations.
Then we see that if $Cto D$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories, then given any $xin C$ such that $C(-,x)$ is projectively cofibrant, the induced natural transformation $C(-, x)to D(f-,fx)$ is a projective cofibration by A.3.3.9.ii.
The last thing that remains to be proved is that $M_{phi,X}(-,p),$ where $p$ denotes the image of the cone point, is projectively cofibrant. The previous revision to this answer did not answer this question, and I am leaving it open until I have more time later or until someone adds an answer.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Harry Gindi
8,673675164
8,673675164
I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
add a comment |
I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
I think what Lurie might have meant when he wrote "It is easy to see that $St_{phi}$ preserves cofibrations" in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1.2, is that it is easy to see it if you take into account the compatibility of straightening with left Kan extensions as described just above in Proposition 2.2.1.1. Indeed, combining (1) and (2) of the latter proposition we see that given any generating cofibration $partial Delta^n to Delta^n to S$ in $({rm Set}_{Delta})_{/S}$, in order to show that $St_{phi}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{{cal C}}$ it is enough to show that $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}}$. The map $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ can then be described very explicitly, and one can check that it is a pushout of a map of the form $(i_0)_!partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (i_0)_!(Delta^1)^n$, where $(i_0)_!$ denotes the left Kan extension functor along the terminal object inclusion ${0} subseteq mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}$ and $partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (Delta^1)^n$ is the inclusion of the boundary of the $n$-cube inside the full $n$-cube.
1
I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
I think what Lurie might have meant when he wrote "It is easy to see that $St_{phi}$ preserves cofibrations" in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1.2, is that it is easy to see it if you take into account the compatibility of straightening with left Kan extensions as described just above in Proposition 2.2.1.1. Indeed, combining (1) and (2) of the latter proposition we see that given any generating cofibration $partial Delta^n to Delta^n to S$ in $({rm Set}_{Delta})_{/S}$, in order to show that $St_{phi}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{{cal C}}$ it is enough to show that $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}}$. The map $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ can then be described very explicitly, and one can check that it is a pushout of a map of the form $(i_0)_!partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (i_0)_!(Delta^1)^n$, where $(i_0)_!$ denotes the left Kan extension functor along the terminal object inclusion ${0} subseteq mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}$ and $partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (Delta^1)^n$ is the inclusion of the boundary of the $n$-cube inside the full $n$-cube.
1
I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
I think what Lurie might have meant when he wrote "It is easy to see that $St_{phi}$ preserves cofibrations" in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1.2, is that it is easy to see it if you take into account the compatibility of straightening with left Kan extensions as described just above in Proposition 2.2.1.1. Indeed, combining (1) and (2) of the latter proposition we see that given any generating cofibration $partial Delta^n to Delta^n to S$ in $({rm Set}_{Delta})_{/S}$, in order to show that $St_{phi}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{{cal C}}$ it is enough to show that $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}}$. The map $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ can then be described very explicitly, and one can check that it is a pushout of a map of the form $(i_0)_!partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (i_0)_!(Delta^1)^n$, where $(i_0)_!$ denotes the left Kan extension functor along the terminal object inclusion ${0} subseteq mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}$ and $partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (Delta^1)^n$ is the inclusion of the boundary of the $n$-cube inside the full $n$-cube.
I think what Lurie might have meant when he wrote "It is easy to see that $St_{phi}$ preserves cofibrations" in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1.2, is that it is easy to see it if you take into account the compatibility of straightening with left Kan extensions as described just above in Proposition 2.2.1.1. Indeed, combining (1) and (2) of the latter proposition we see that given any generating cofibration $partial Delta^n to Delta^n to S$ in $({rm Set}_{Delta})_{/S}$, in order to show that $St_{phi}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{{cal C}}$ it is enough to show that $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}}$. The map $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ can then be described very explicitly, and one can check that it is a pushout of a map of the form $(i_0)_!partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (i_0)_!(Delta^1)^n$, where $(i_0)_!$ denotes the left Kan extension functor along the terminal object inclusion ${0} subseteq mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}$ and $partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (Delta^1)^n$ is the inclusion of the boundary of the $n$-cube inside the full $n$-cube.
answered 2 days ago
Yonatan Harpaz
6,1861840
6,1861840
1
I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
1
1
I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
– Harry Gindi
2 days ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f316393%2ftheorem-2-1-2-2-higher-topos-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
– Watson
2 days ago
1
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
– Denis Nardin
2 days ago