What is the $infty$-category associated to a model category?
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
It is often said that model categories are but a shadow of an $infty$-category. It is also often said that model categories should give rise to an $infty$-category via their homotopies. In fact, this ought to be the quintessential example of an $infty$-category. Unfortunately I have yet to find a place where the author bothered to give the definition. I am also unable to give the definition myself, as things start to get fuzzy beyond 2-simplices. What is the definition?
Edit: The only place that gets close is Hirschhorn's book on model categories, which defines a simplicial structure on the Hom-sets of a model category. The definition spans multiple chapters, and involves Reedy model structures, cosimplicial approximations, fibrant replacements, and function complexes, none of which I understand. I am certain that this is just another case of making things a thousand times harder than it needs to be.
algebraic-topology category-theory higher-category-theory model-categories
asked Nov 12 at 10:37
I I
22110
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
It is often said that model categories are but a shadow of an $infty$-category. It is also often said that model categories should give rise to an $infty$-category via their homotopies. In fact, this ought to be the quintessential example of an $infty$-category. Unfortunately I have yet to find a place where the author bothered to give the definition. I am also unable to give the definition myself, as things start to get fuzzy beyond 2-simplices. What is the definition?
Edit: The only place that gets close is Hirschhorn's book on model categories, which defines a simplicial structure on the Hom-sets of a model category. The definition spans multiple chapters, and involves Reedy model structures, cosimplicial approximations, fibrant replacements, and function complexes, none of which I understand. I am certain that this is just another case of making things a thousand times harder than it needs to be.
algebraic-topology category-theory higher-category-theory model-categories
asked Nov 12 at 10:37
I I
22110
Maybe the answers here, mathoverflow.net/questions/8663/…, will be interesting to you.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 10:48
Thanks but I'd already seen that question. Everybody seems to know the definition and works from that point on, but really the definition is all I'm concerned about.
– I I
Nov 12 at 10:54
If the model structure is simplicial then you can use the homotopy coherent nerve, I belive. See, for instance, Riehl's "Categorical Homotopy Theory". In any case there is always the simplicial localisation of a model structure, which gives a simplicial category. After taking a suitable fibrant replacement (in the category of simplicial categories) you can then apply the homotopy coherent nerve. I found much of this discussed on the nlab page, and in Barwick's paper with Schommer-Pries "On the Unicity of the Homotopy Theory of Higher Categories".
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:28
So if the model category is not simplicial, then what everybody really means is the simplicial localization of the model category you started out with. Is that correct? If so, what does simplicial localization intuitively do?
– I I
Nov 12 at 11:32
I would suggest following up Barwick's paper. It might be necessary to take fibrant replacements in a suitable sense, so really there might be many choices involved at each stage, and the overall process may be a little more subtle.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:35
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
It is often said that model categories are but a shadow of an $infty$-category. It is also often said that model categories should give rise to an $infty$-category via their homotopies. In fact, this ought to be the quintessential example of an $infty$-category. Unfortunately I have yet to find a place where the author bothered to give the definition. I am also unable to give the definition myself, as things start to get fuzzy beyond 2-simplices. What is the definition?
Edit: The only place that gets close is Hirschhorn's book on model categories, which defines a simplicial structure on the Hom-sets of a model category. The definition spans multiple chapters, and involves Reedy model structures, cosimplicial approximations, fibrant replacements, and function complexes, none of which I understand. I am certain that this is just another case of making things a thousand times harder than it needs to be.
algebraic-topology category-theory higher-category-theory model-categories
asked Nov 12 at 10:37
I I
22110
It is often said that model categories are but a shadow of an $infty$-category. It is also often said that model categories should give rise to an $infty$-category via their homotopies. In fact, this ought to be the quintessential example of an $infty$-category. Unfortunately I have yet to find a place where the author bothered to give the definition. I am also unable to give the definition myself, as things start to get fuzzy beyond 2-simplices. What is the definition?
Edit: The only place that gets close is Hirschhorn's book on model categories, which defines a simplicial structure on the Hom-sets of a model category. The definition spans multiple chapters, and involves Reedy model structures, cosimplicial approximations, fibrant replacements, and function complexes, none of which I understand. I am certain that this is just another case of making things a thousand times harder than it needs to be.
algebraic-topology category-theory higher-category-theory model-categories
algebraic-topology category-theory higher-category-theory model-categories
asked Nov 12 at 10:37
I I
22110
asked Nov 12 at 10:37
I I
22110
edited Nov 12 at 11:15
asked Nov 12 at 10:37
I I
22110
asked Nov 12 at 10:37
I I
22110
asked Nov 12 at 10:37
I I
22110
22110
Maybe the answers here, mathoverflow.net/questions/8663/…, will be interesting to you.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 10:48
Thanks but I'd already seen that question. Everybody seems to know the definition and works from that point on, but really the definition is all I'm concerned about.
– I I
Nov 12 at 10:54
If the model structure is simplicial then you can use the homotopy coherent nerve, I belive. See, for instance, Riehl's "Categorical Homotopy Theory". In any case there is always the simplicial localisation of a model structure, which gives a simplicial category. After taking a suitable fibrant replacement (in the category of simplicial categories) you can then apply the homotopy coherent nerve. I found much of this discussed on the nlab page, and in Barwick's paper with Schommer-Pries "On the Unicity of the Homotopy Theory of Higher Categories".
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:28
So if the model category is not simplicial, then what everybody really means is the simplicial localization of the model category you started out with. Is that correct? If so, what does simplicial localization intuitively do?
– I I
Nov 12 at 11:32
I would suggest following up Barwick's paper. It might be necessary to take fibrant replacements in a suitable sense, so really there might be many choices involved at each stage, and the overall process may be a little more subtle.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:35
add a comment |
Maybe the answers here, mathoverflow.net/questions/8663/…, will be interesting to you.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 10:48
Thanks but I'd already seen that question. Everybody seems to know the definition and works from that point on, but really the definition is all I'm concerned about.
– I I
Nov 12 at 10:54
If the model structure is simplicial then you can use the homotopy coherent nerve, I belive. See, for instance, Riehl's "Categorical Homotopy Theory". In any case there is always the simplicial localisation of a model structure, which gives a simplicial category. After taking a suitable fibrant replacement (in the category of simplicial categories) you can then apply the homotopy coherent nerve. I found much of this discussed on the nlab page, and in Barwick's paper with Schommer-Pries "On the Unicity of the Homotopy Theory of Higher Categories".
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:28
So if the model category is not simplicial, then what everybody really means is the simplicial localization of the model category you started out with. Is that correct? If so, what does simplicial localization intuitively do?
– I I
Nov 12 at 11:32
I would suggest following up Barwick's paper. It might be necessary to take fibrant replacements in a suitable sense, so really there might be many choices involved at each stage, and the overall process may be a little more subtle.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:35
Maybe the answers here, mathoverflow.net/questions/8663/…, will be interesting to you.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 10:48
Maybe the answers here, mathoverflow.net/questions/8663/…, will be interesting to you.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 10:48
Thanks but I'd already seen that question. Everybody seems to know the definition and works from that point on, but really the definition is all I'm concerned about.
– I I
Nov 12 at 10:54
Thanks but I'd already seen that question. Everybody seems to know the definition and works from that point on, but really the definition is all I'm concerned about.
– I I
Nov 12 at 10:54
If the model structure is simplicial then you can use the homotopy coherent nerve, I belive. See, for instance, Riehl's "Categorical Homotopy Theory". In any case there is always the simplicial localisation of a model structure, which gives a simplicial category. After taking a suitable fibrant replacement (in the category of simplicial categories) you can then apply the homotopy coherent nerve. I found much of this discussed on the nlab page, and in Barwick's paper with Schommer-Pries "On the Unicity of the Homotopy Theory of Higher Categories".
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:28
If the model structure is simplicial then you can use the homotopy coherent nerve, I belive. See, for instance, Riehl's "Categorical Homotopy Theory". In any case there is always the simplicial localisation of a model structure, which gives a simplicial category. After taking a suitable fibrant replacement (in the category of simplicial categories) you can then apply the homotopy coherent nerve. I found much of this discussed on the nlab page, and in Barwick's paper with Schommer-Pries "On the Unicity of the Homotopy Theory of Higher Categories".
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:28
So if the model category is not simplicial, then what everybody really means is the simplicial localization of the model category you started out with. Is that correct? If so, what does simplicial localization intuitively do?
– I I
Nov 12 at 11:32
So if the model category is not simplicial, then what everybody really means is the simplicial localization of the model category you started out with. Is that correct? If so, what does simplicial localization intuitively do?
– I I
Nov 12 at 11:32
I would suggest following up Barwick's paper. It might be necessary to take fibrant replacements in a suitable sense, so really there might be many choices involved at each stage, and the overall process may be a little more subtle.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:35
I would suggest following up Barwick's paper. It might be necessary to take fibrant replacements in a suitable sense, so really there might be many choices involved at each stage, and the overall process may be a little more subtle.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:35
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Most model categories of interest are Quillen equivalent to a combinatorial model category, each of which is in turn Quillen equivalent to a simplicial model category by a fundamental theorem of Dugger. So in practice one is most often thinking of the homotopy coherent nerve of the category of fibrant-cofibrant objects.
The simplicial localization doesn't use the model category structure, and instead just builds the simplicial set of maps between two objects out of zigzags of maps and weak equivalences of arbitrarily large length. It's essentially impossible to compute anything directly with the simplicial localization. One can use the model category structure to more straightforwardly construct the mapping spaces, via the admittedly complex work of Hirschhorn you cite, but there is no currently known method to leverage this into a construction of the whole $infty$-category.
answered Nov 12 at 16:41
Kevin Carlson
31.7k23270
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Most model categories of interest are Quillen equivalent to a combinatorial model category, each of which is in turn Quillen equivalent to a simplicial model category by a fundamental theorem of Dugger. So in practice one is most often thinking of the homotopy coherent nerve of the category of fibrant-cofibrant objects.
The simplicial localization doesn't use the model category structure, and instead just builds the simplicial set of maps between two objects out of zigzags of maps and weak equivalences of arbitrarily large length. It's essentially impossible to compute anything directly with the simplicial localization. One can use the model category structure to more straightforwardly construct the mapping spaces, via the admittedly complex work of Hirschhorn you cite, but there is no currently known method to leverage this into a construction of the whole $infty$-category.
answered Nov 12 at 16:41
Kevin Carlson
31.7k23270
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
Most model categories of interest are Quillen equivalent to a combinatorial model category, each of which is in turn Quillen equivalent to a simplicial model category by a fundamental theorem of Dugger. So in practice one is most often thinking of the homotopy coherent nerve of the category of fibrant-cofibrant objects.
The simplicial localization doesn't use the model category structure, and instead just builds the simplicial set of maps between two objects out of zigzags of maps and weak equivalences of arbitrarily large length. It's essentially impossible to compute anything directly with the simplicial localization. One can use the model category structure to more straightforwardly construct the mapping spaces, via the admittedly complex work of Hirschhorn you cite, but there is no currently known method to leverage this into a construction of the whole $infty$-category.
answered Nov 12 at 16:41
Kevin Carlson
31.7k23270
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Most model categories of interest are Quillen equivalent to a combinatorial model category, each of which is in turn Quillen equivalent to a simplicial model category by a fundamental theorem of Dugger. So in practice one is most often thinking of the homotopy coherent nerve of the category of fibrant-cofibrant objects.
The simplicial localization doesn't use the model category structure, and instead just builds the simplicial set of maps between two objects out of zigzags of maps and weak equivalences of arbitrarily large length. It's essentially impossible to compute anything directly with the simplicial localization. One can use the model category structure to more straightforwardly construct the mapping spaces, via the admittedly complex work of Hirschhorn you cite, but there is no currently known method to leverage this into a construction of the whole $infty$-category.
answered Nov 12 at 16:41
Kevin Carlson
31.7k23270
Most model categories of interest are Quillen equivalent to a combinatorial model category, each of which is in turn Quillen equivalent to a simplicial model category by a fundamental theorem of Dugger. So in practice one is most often thinking of the homotopy coherent nerve of the category of fibrant-cofibrant objects.
The simplicial localization doesn't use the model category structure, and instead just builds the simplicial set of maps between two objects out of zigzags of maps and weak equivalences of arbitrarily large length. It's essentially impossible to compute anything directly with the simplicial localization. One can use the model category structure to more straightforwardly construct the mapping spaces, via the admittedly complex work of Hirschhorn you cite, but there is no currently known method to leverage this into a construction of the whole $infty$-category.
answered Nov 12 at 16:41
Kevin Carlson
31.7k23270
answered Nov 12 at 16:41
Kevin Carlson
31.7k23270
answered Nov 12 at 16:41
Kevin Carlson
31.7k23270
answered Nov 12 at 16:41
Kevin Carlson
31.7k23270
31.7k23270
add a comment |
add a comment |
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2995145%2fwhat-is-the-infty-category-associated-to-a-model-category%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
Maybe the answers here, mathoverflow.net/questions/8663/…, will be interesting to you.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 10:48
Thanks but I'd already seen that question. Everybody seems to know the definition and works from that point on, but really the definition is all I'm concerned about.
– I I
Nov 12 at 10:54
If the model structure is simplicial then you can use the homotopy coherent nerve, I belive. See, for instance, Riehl's "Categorical Homotopy Theory". In any case there is always the simplicial localisation of a model structure, which gives a simplicial category. After taking a suitable fibrant replacement (in the category of simplicial categories) you can then apply the homotopy coherent nerve. I found much of this discussed on the nlab page, and in Barwick's paper with Schommer-Pries "On the Unicity of the Homotopy Theory of Higher Categories".
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:28
So if the model category is not simplicial, then what everybody really means is the simplicial localization of the model category you started out with. Is that correct? If so, what does simplicial localization intuitively do?
– I I
Nov 12 at 11:32
I would suggest following up Barwick's paper. It might be necessary to take fibrant replacements in a suitable sense, so really there might be many choices involved at each stage, and the overall process may be a little more subtle.
– Tyrone
Nov 12 at 11:35