Definition A.3.1.5 of Higher Topos Theory












3












$begingroup$


I am now reading the book Higher Topos Theory. In A.3.1.5, it gives the definition
of a $mathbf{S}$-enriched model category, where $mathbf{S}$ is a monoidal model category. But in the book model structures are introduced only on $mathsf{Set}$-enriched categories.




So, what does a model structure on a $mathbf{S}$-enriched category mean?




Is it supposed to be that $mathbf{S}$ obtains a forgetful functor to $mathsf{Set}$, and the model structure is defined on the category with respect to the $mathsf{Set}$ enrichment, or is it something else?






higher-category-theory model-categories







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Mar 11 at 9:09


















3












$begingroup$


I am now reading the book Higher Topos Theory. In A.3.1.5, it gives the definition
of a $mathbf{S}$-enriched model category, where $mathbf{S}$ is a monoidal model category. But in the book model structures are introduced only on $mathsf{Set}$-enriched categories.




So, what does a model structure on a $mathbf{S}$-enriched category mean?




Is it supposed to be that $mathbf{S}$ obtains a forgetful functor to $mathsf{Set}$, and the model structure is defined on the category with respect to the $mathsf{Set}$ enrichment, or is it something else?






higher-category-theory model-categories







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Mar 11 at 9:09
















3












3








3





$begingroup$


I am now reading the book Higher Topos Theory. In A.3.1.5, it gives the definition
of a $mathbf{S}$-enriched model category, where $mathbf{S}$ is a monoidal model category. But in the book model structures are introduced only on $mathsf{Set}$-enriched categories.




So, what does a model structure on a $mathbf{S}$-enriched category mean?




Is it supposed to be that $mathbf{S}$ obtains a forgetful functor to $mathsf{Set}$, and the model structure is defined on the category with respect to the $mathsf{Set}$ enrichment, or is it something else?






higher-category-theory model-categories







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am now reading the book Higher Topos Theory. In A.3.1.5, it gives the definition
of a $mathbf{S}$-enriched model category, where $mathbf{S}$ is a monoidal model category. But in the book model structures are introduced only on $mathsf{Set}$-enriched categories.




So, what does a model structure on a $mathbf{S}$-enriched category mean?




Is it supposed to be that $mathbf{S}$ obtains a forgetful functor to $mathsf{Set}$, and the model structure is defined on the category with respect to the $mathsf{Set}$ enrichment, or is it something else?






higher-category-theory model-categories




higher-category-theory model-categories






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 11 at 8:58









Francesco Polizzi

48.2k3128210




48.2k3128210










asked Mar 11 at 8:40









Frank KongFrank Kong

385




385












  • $begingroup$
    I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Mar 11 at 9:09




















  • $begingroup$
    I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Mar 11 at 9:09


















$begingroup$
I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
Mar 11 at 9:09






$begingroup$
I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
Mar 11 at 9:09












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

Your guess is correct, indeed. In general, given any monoidal category $(mathbf V, otimes, 1)$, and any $mathbf V$-enriched category $mathbf C$, one can always consider the underlying category $mathbf C_0$ as the ($mathbf{Set}$-)category having as objects the same objects as $mathbf C$, and as hom-sets
$$
mathbf C_0(x,y):= mathbf V(1,mathbf{Hom}_{mathbf C}(x,y))
$$
You can easily work out how to define composition, after checking that $mathbf V(1,-)$ is a lax monoidal functor, as pointed out by Denis in the comments.



Now, if $mathbf S$ is a monoidal model category, and $mathbf A$ is a $mathbf S$-enriched category, "equipping $mathbf A$ with a model structure" just means "equipping $mathbf A_0$ with a model structure", whereas to talk about a $mathbf S$-enriched model category one requires the two extra conditions spelled out in HTT A.3.1.5.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Mar 11 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – Frank Kong
    Mar 11 at 12:04











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325158%2fdefinition-a-3-1-5-of-higher-topos-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5












$begingroup$

Your guess is correct, indeed. In general, given any monoidal category $(mathbf V, otimes, 1)$, and any $mathbf V$-enriched category $mathbf C$, one can always consider the underlying category $mathbf C_0$ as the ($mathbf{Set}$-)category having as objects the same objects as $mathbf C$, and as hom-sets
$$
mathbf C_0(x,y):= mathbf V(1,mathbf{Hom}_{mathbf C}(x,y))
$$
You can easily work out how to define composition, after checking that $mathbf V(1,-)$ is a lax monoidal functor, as pointed out by Denis in the comments.



Now, if $mathbf S$ is a monoidal model category, and $mathbf A$ is a $mathbf S$-enriched category, "equipping $mathbf A$ with a model structure" just means "equipping $mathbf A_0$ with a model structure", whereas to talk about a $mathbf S$-enriched model category one requires the two extra conditions spelled out in HTT A.3.1.5.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Mar 11 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – Frank Kong
    Mar 11 at 12:04
















5












$begingroup$

Your guess is correct, indeed. In general, given any monoidal category $(mathbf V, otimes, 1)$, and any $mathbf V$-enriched category $mathbf C$, one can always consider the underlying category $mathbf C_0$ as the ($mathbf{Set}$-)category having as objects the same objects as $mathbf C$, and as hom-sets
$$
mathbf C_0(x,y):= mathbf V(1,mathbf{Hom}_{mathbf C}(x,y))
$$
You can easily work out how to define composition, after checking that $mathbf V(1,-)$ is a lax monoidal functor, as pointed out by Denis in the comments.



Now, if $mathbf S$ is a monoidal model category, and $mathbf A$ is a $mathbf S$-enriched category, "equipping $mathbf A$ with a model structure" just means "equipping $mathbf A_0$ with a model structure", whereas to talk about a $mathbf S$-enriched model category one requires the two extra conditions spelled out in HTT A.3.1.5.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Mar 11 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – Frank Kong
    Mar 11 at 12:04














5












5








5





$begingroup$

Your guess is correct, indeed. In general, given any monoidal category $(mathbf V, otimes, 1)$, and any $mathbf V$-enriched category $mathbf C$, one can always consider the underlying category $mathbf C_0$ as the ($mathbf{Set}$-)category having as objects the same objects as $mathbf C$, and as hom-sets
$$
mathbf C_0(x,y):= mathbf V(1,mathbf{Hom}_{mathbf C}(x,y))
$$
You can easily work out how to define composition, after checking that $mathbf V(1,-)$ is a lax monoidal functor, as pointed out by Denis in the comments.



Now, if $mathbf S$ is a monoidal model category, and $mathbf A$ is a $mathbf S$-enriched category, "equipping $mathbf A$ with a model structure" just means "equipping $mathbf A_0$ with a model structure", whereas to talk about a $mathbf S$-enriched model category one requires the two extra conditions spelled out in HTT A.3.1.5.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Your guess is correct, indeed. In general, given any monoidal category $(mathbf V, otimes, 1)$, and any $mathbf V$-enriched category $mathbf C$, one can always consider the underlying category $mathbf C_0$ as the ($mathbf{Set}$-)category having as objects the same objects as $mathbf C$, and as hom-sets
$$
mathbf C_0(x,y):= mathbf V(1,mathbf{Hom}_{mathbf C}(x,y))
$$
You can easily work out how to define composition, after checking that $mathbf V(1,-)$ is a lax monoidal functor, as pointed out by Denis in the comments.



Now, if $mathbf S$ is a monoidal model category, and $mathbf A$ is a $mathbf S$-enriched category, "equipping $mathbf A$ with a model structure" just means "equipping $mathbf A_0$ with a model structure", whereas to talk about a $mathbf S$-enriched model category one requires the two extra conditions spelled out in HTT A.3.1.5.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Mar 11 at 9:15









Stefano AriottaStefano Ariotta

33148




33148








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Mar 11 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – Frank Kong
    Mar 11 at 12:04














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Mar 11 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – Frank Kong
    Mar 11 at 12:04








1




1




$begingroup$
Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
$endgroup$
– Theo Johnson-Freyd
Mar 11 at 11:22




$begingroup$
Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
$endgroup$
– Theo Johnson-Freyd
Mar 11 at 11:22












$begingroup$
Thanks for your help!
$endgroup$
– Frank Kong
Mar 11 at 12:04




$begingroup$
Thanks for your help!
$endgroup$
– Frank Kong
Mar 11 at 12:04


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325158%2fdefinition-a-3-1-5-of-higher-topos-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







-

Popular posts from this blog

Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

Image
2 2 I have a Zotero bibliography in Overleaf. I use biblatex . usepackage[backend=biber,citestyle=authoryear]{biblatex} addbibresource{zoteroALH.bib} Bibliography entries look like: @book{de_saint-gervais_uniformization_2016, title = {Uniformization of {Riemann} {Surfaces}}, isbn = {978-3-03719-145-3}, url = {https://www.ems-ph.org/books/book.php?proj_nr=198&srch=series%7Chem}, urldate = {2019-02-03}, author = {de Saint-Gervais, Paul Henri}, year = {2016}, doi = {10.4171/145} } In the bibliography down the paper the reference shows like this: There is the DOI, great, but also the URL which is unnecessary when the DOI is there. How can I remove the URL when the DOI is present? biblatex bibliographies overleaf zote
Read more

ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

Image
2 I'm trying to set the .DisplayMember property of a ComboBox in C#, but I want to bind it to multiple columns in the .DataSouce . My SQL looks like this: SELECT PersNbr, PersFirstName, PersMiddleName, PersLastName FROM Pers WHERE PersNbr = :persNbr; I'm saving this query in a DataTable so each column selected has it's own column in the Datatable . I want to make the .DisplayMember a combination of PersFirstName + PersMiddleName + PersLastName so their full name appears like this: comboBox.DisplayMemeber = "PersFirstName" + "PersMiddleName" + "PersLastName" I know I can just to this on the query: SELECT PersNbr, (PersFirstName || PersMiddleName || PersLastName) PersName and then just do this: comboBox.DisplayMember = "PersName"; but I
Read more

Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?

Image
2 Since I am not eligible for any Railcard, the only available discount/bonus scheme is Nectar Card for me. GWR, SWR, LNER and Virgin Trains allow to collect Nectar points and I have already linked a card to my GWR account. A friend suggested me to use Trainline App, because it can search for bus tickets either. I had a look at the application, but could not see any option for Nectar. Is there a way to collect Nectar points when I buy tickets via Trainline? uk trains loyalty-programs trainline share | improve this question asked Dec 2 '18 at 15:50 ahmedus 3,224 5 19 49
Read more