1 views

Uploaded by RimonOz

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

- 0708.2067v2
- For Web
- Category Theory for Programmers
- Topoi for an Isomorphism
- Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America
- The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life
- Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It
- Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike
- The Library Book
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
- Yes Please
- John Adams
- Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America
- Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers
- This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate
- A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

You are on page 1of 34

13 February 2015

Abstract

Dwyer and Kan developed a homotopical version of the calculus of

fractions in order to get a handle on simplicial localisations of categories. We use this to show that, for a category of fibrant objects (in the

sense of Brown), Jardines cocycle categories functorially compute the

homotopy type of the hom-spaces in the simplicial localisation. As an

application, we deduce a non-abelian version of Verdiers hypercovering

theorem suggested by Rezk.

Introduction

Given a category C and a subcategory W C, the category C[W 1 ] obtained

from C by freely inverting the morphisms in W is straightforward to construct:

its objects are the objects in C and its morphisms are equivalence classes of

zigzags of arrows in C where the backward-pointing arrows are in W. The

simplicial and hammock localisations introduced by Dwyer and Kan [1980a,b]

are homotopy-theoretic versions of this construction and can be shown to have

the appropriate universal property in the context of (, 1)-categories.

Although the hom-spaces of the hammock localisation already have a fairly

simple explicit description, just as in the case of ordinary localisation, one can

sometimes obtain an even simpler description when the pair (C, W) has good

properties. For instance, Dwyer and Kan [1980c] have shown that it suces

to consider only zigzags of the form

Cambridge, UK. E-mail address: Z.L.Low@dpmms.cam.ac.uk

when C is a closed model category in the sense of Quillen [1967] and W is its

subcategory of weak equivalences. On the other hand, when C is a category

of brant objects in the sense of Brown [1973] (and W is its subcategory of

weak equivalences), it is well known that every morphism in C[W 1 ] can be

represented by what Jardine [2009] calls cocycles, i.e. zigzags of the form

and the main goal of this paper is to show that the hom-spaces of the hammock

localisation of (C, W) have the homotopy type of the nerve of the cocycle

categories.[1]

As an application, we consider the category of (locally brant) simplicial

presheaves on a site. From the point of view of homotopy theory, the central problem of sheaf theory is essentially the determination of the homotopy

type the space of sections (over a given object in the site) of the hypersheaf

associated with a given simplicial presheaf: for example, as Brown [1973, 3]

observed, sheaf cohomology can be paraphrased in these terms via the formula

below,

Rn (, A)

= mn R(, K(A, m))

where A is an abelian (pre)sheaf, K(A, m) is the simplicial (pre)sheaf corresponding (under DoldKan) to the chain complex consisting of just A in degree

m, and m n. Verdiers hypercovering theorem in its classical form is a colimit

formula for sheaf cohomology in terms of generalised ech cochain complexes,

and following a suggestion of Rezk [2014], we derive a non-abelian version

that computes (up to weak homotopy equivalence) R(, X) for any locally

brant simplicial presheaf X in terms of a homotopy colimit of simplicial sets

of generalised sections of X.

Here is a brief outline of what follows:

In 1, we collect some miscellaneous facts about homotopy colimits.

In 2, we review the denitions and fundamental results regarding zigzags in relative categories.

In 3, we introduce a sucient condition for a category with weak equivalences to admit a homotopical calculus of right fractions.

[1] A related claim previously appeared as Proposition 3.23 in [Cisinski, 2010b], but the proof

at loc. cit. has a gap: while it is true that the hammock localisation of C with respect to

weak equivalences is DwyerKan equivalent to the hammock localisation of C with respect

to trivial fibrations, the hypotheses of Proposition 8.1 in [Dwyer and Kan, 1980b] are not

satisfied, so it does not follow that we have a homotopy calculus of right fractions. Instead,

we must use a somewhat more complicated argument.

In 4, we prove that a category of brant objects with functorial path

objects satises the aforementioned sucient condition.

In 5, we dene the notion of a simplicial category of brant objects

and give a homotopy colimit formula for the hom-spaces of its hammock

localisation.

In 6, we apply this theory to the study of simplicial presheaves on a

site.

In A, we extend the result to the case of a category of brant objects

without functorial path objects.

Conventions

It will be convenient to implicitly assume that categories are small, especially

in 25 and A. Since the categories of interest are usually not small, it

is not possible to apply these results as stated literally; one way to work

around this to adopt a suitable universe axiom. Alternatively, because most

of the categories under consideration in 6 are essentially small, one could just

replace them with small skeletons where necessary, thereby avoiding the use

of universes.

Acknowledgements

Discussions with Aaron Mazel-Gee led to the discovery and correction of some

errors in earlier drafts of this paper. His comments also helped improve the

exposition.

The author gratefully acknowledges nancial support from the Cambridge

Commonwealth, European and International Trust and the Department of

Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics.

Homotopy colimits

The following denition is due to Bouseld and Kan [1972].

Definition 1.1. Let X : C op sSet be a small simplicially enriched diagram.

The homotopy colimit holimC op X is the diagonal of the bisimplicial set

a

Bn (X, C, 1) =

X(cn ) C(cn1 , cn ) C(c0 , c1 )

(c0 ,...,cn )

where the disjoint union is indexed over (n + 1)-tuples of objects in C, with

the evident face and degeneracy operators.

Example 1.2. Let X : C op Set be a small diagram and let D be the

category of elements of X, i.e. (1 X)op where (1 X) is the comma category.

Regarding X as a diagram C op sSet, it is not hard to see that holimC X is

We will need some miscellaneous facts about homotopy conality. First, let

us say that a weakly contractible category is a category A such that the

unique morphism N(A) 0 is a weak homotopy equivalence of simplicial

sets. We then make the following denition:

Definition 1.3. A homotopy cofinal functor is a functor F : C D with

the following property: for all objects d in D, the comma category (d F ) is

weakly contractible.

Lemma 1.4. Let P : E B is a Grothendieck fibration. The following are

equivalent:

(i) The (strict) fibres of P are weakly contractible.

(ii) P is a homotopy cofinal functor.

Proof. Let b be an object in B. There is a functor P 1 {b} (b P ) sending

objects e in P 1 {b} to (e, idb ) in (b P ), and it is well known that this functor

has a right adjoint when P : E B is a Grothendieck bration. Since adjoint

functors induce homotopy equivalences of nerves, it follows that P 1{b} is

weakly contractible if and only if (b P ) is weakly contractible.

Lemma 1.5. Let F : C D and G : D E be functors. If GF : C E

is homotopy cofinal and G : D E is fully faithful, then F : C D is also

homotopy cofinal.

Proof. Let d be any object in D. If G : D E is fully faithful, then there

is an isomorphism (d F )

= (G(d) GF ), so F : C D is homotopy conal

when GF : C E is.

Theorem 1.6 (Quillens Theorem A). Homotopy cofinal functors are weak

homotopy equivalences of categories.

Proof. See [Quillen, 1973, 1].

E

then L : E E also has a right adjoint.

Proof. Let G : B B be any right adjoint for F : B B, let e1 be an

object in E, let e0 be an object in E , let b1 = e1 , let b0 = P (e0 ), choose a

cartesian morphism e1 : (b1 ) e1 e1 in E such that P (

e1 ) = b1 , where

b1 : F (G(b1 )) b1 is the counit component, and let R(e1 ) be the unique

object in E such that P (R(e1 )) = Gb1 and L(R(e1 )) = (b1 ) e1 . We then

have the following commutative diagram,

L

E (e0 , R(e1 ))

E L e0 , e1

E(L(e0 ), e1 )

B (b0 , G(b1 ))

B(F (b0 ), b1 )

B F b0 , b1

where both squares and the outer rectangle are pullback diagrams; but the

composite of the bottom row is a bijection, so the composite of the top row is

also a bijection. Thus, L : E E indeed has a right adjoint.

Lemma 1.8. Let X : C op sSet be a small simplicially enriched diagram. If

C has cotensor products m c for every standard simplex m and every object

c in C, then (regarding the underlying category C as a simplicially enriched

category with discrete hom-spaces) the canonical comparison morphism

holimC op X holimC op X

Proof. Let Y and Y be the transposes of the bisimplicial sets B (X, C, 1)

and B (X, C, 1), respectively, and for each natural number m, let Cm be the

m-th level of the simplicial category corresponding to C. (Note that C = C0 .)

Then,

a

Ym,n =

X(cn )m Cm (cn1 , cn ) Cm (c0 , c1 )

(c0 ,...,cn )

=

Ym,n

(c0 ,...,cn )

and the canonical comparison morphism holimC X holimC X is simply the

m-fold iterated degeneracy C0 Cm . But, for any c and c in C,

C0 (c , m c)

= Cm (c , c)

so the m-fold iterated degeneracy C0 Cm has a right adjoint. It follows by

lemma 1.7 that the morphisms Ym Ym are nerves of left adjoint functors and

hence are (simplicial) homotopy equivalences a fortiori. Thus, by the homotopy invariance of diagonals,[2] the induced morphism holimC X holimC X

We will also need the following version of the Grothendieck construction:

Definition 1.9. Let X : C op Cat be a small diagram. The oplax colimit

for X is the category limGr

X dened below:

C op

The objects are pairs (c, x) where c is an object in C and x is an object

in X (c).

The morphisms (c , x ) (c, x) are pairs (f, g) where f : c c is a

morphism in C and g : x X (f )(x) is a morphism in X (c ).

Composition and identities are inherited from C and X .

Example 1.10. Let X : C op Set be a small diagram. Regarding X as

a diagram C op Cat, it is not hard to see that limGr

X is the category of

C

elements of X, i.e. (1 X)op .

Theorem 1.11 (Thomasons homotopy colimit theorem). Let X : C op Cat

be a small diagram. There is a weak homotopy equivalence

X

holimC op N X N limGr

C op

Proof. See [Thomason, 1979].

Recall the following denitions from [Barwick and Kan, 2012]:

Definition 2.1.

A relative category is a pair C = (und C, weq C) where und C is a category and weq C is a (usually non-full) subcategory of und C containing

all the objects.

Given a relative category C, a weak equivalence in C is a morphism in

weq C.

The homotopy category of a relative category C is the category Ho C

obtained by freely inverting the weak equivalences in C.

Given relative categories C and D, a relative functor C D is a

functor und C und D that restricts to a functor weq C weq D, and

the relative functor category [C, D]h is the relative category whose

underlying category is the full subcategory of the ordinary functor category [und C, und D] spanned by the relative functors, with the weak

equivalences being the natural transformations whose components are

weak equivalences in D.

Remark 2.2. The 2-category of (small) categories admits several 2-fully faithful embeddings into the 2-category of (small) relative categories; unless otherwise stated, we will regard an ordinary category as minimal relative category where the only weak equivalences are the identity morphisms. In particular, given an ordinary category C and a relative category D, we will often

tacitly identify the ordinary functor category [C, D] with the relative functor

category [C, D]h .

Definition 2.3.

A zigzag type is a nite sequence of non-zero integers (k0 , . . . , kn ),

where n 0, such that for 0 i < n, the sign of ki is the opposite

of the sign of ki+1 .

Given a nite sequence of integers (k0 , . . . , kn ), [k0 ; . . . ; kn ] is the relative

category whose underlying category is freely generated by the graph

0

|k0 | + + |kn |

where (counting from the left) the rst |k0 | arrows point rightward (resp.

leftward) if k0 > 0 (resp. k0 < 0), the next |k2 | arrows point rightward

(resp. leftward) if k1 > 0 (resp. k1 < 0), etc., with the weak equivalences

being generated by the leftward-pointing arrows.

A zigzag in a relative category C of type [k0 ; . . . ; kn ] is a relative functor

[k0 ; . . . ; kn ] C; given a zigzag, its length is m = |k0 | + + |kn |, its

7

domain is the image of the object 0, and its codomain is the image of

the object m.

Example 2.4. For example, [1; 2] denotes the relative category generated

by the following graph,

0

Remark 2.5. For any [k0 ; . . . ; kn ], if |k0 | + + |kn | > 0, then there is a

unique zigzag type (l0 , . . . , lm ) such that [k0 ; . . . ; kn ] = [l0 ; . . . ; lm ]. However,

it is convenient to allow unnormalised notation.

Definition 2.6. Let X and Y be objects in a relative category C and let

(k0 , . . . , kn ) be a nite sequence of integers. The category of zigzags in C

from X to Y of type (k0 ; . . . ; kn ) is the category C [k0 ;...;kn ] (X, Y ) dened below:

The objects are the zigzags in C of type [k0 ; . . . ; kn ] whose domain is X

and whose codomain is Y .

The morphisms are commutative diagrams in C of the form

X

where the top row is the domain, the bottom row is the codomain, and

the vertical arrows are weak equivalences in C.

Composition and identities are inherited from C.

Remark. In other words, the morphisms in C [k0 ;...;kn ] (X, Y ) are certain hammocks of width 1, in the sense of Dwyer and Kan [1980b].

For brevity, let us say that a weak homotopy equivalence of categories

is a functor F : C D such that N(F ) : N(C) N(D) (i.e. the induced

morphism of nerves) is a weak homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets. The

following is a variation on the homotopy calculus of right fractions introduced

in [Dwyer and Kan, 1980b].

Definition 2.7. A relative category C admits a homotopical calculus of

right fractions if it satises the following condition:

For all natural numbers k and all objects X and Y in C, the evident

functor

C [1;k] (X, Y ) C [1;k;1] (X, Y )

dened by inserting an identity morphism is a weak homotopy equivalence of categories.

Remark 2.8. Let C be a relative category and let W be weq C considered

as a relative category where all morphisms are weak equivalences. Then the

following are equivalent:

(i) C admits a homotopy calculus of right fractions in the sense of Dwyer

and Kan [1980b].

(ii) Both C and W admit a homotopical calculus of right fractions in the

sense of the above denition.

Moreover, if the weak equivalences in C have the 2-out-of-3 property, then W

admits a homotopical calculus of right fractions if C does.

Remark 2.9. If a relative category C admits a homotopical calculus of right

fractions, then C also admits a homotopical three-arrow calculus. In particular, the results of [Low and Mazel-Gee, 2014] apply, i.e. any Reedy-brant

[ of the Rezk classication diagram N(C) is a Segal space,

replacement N(C)

[ is a complete Segal space if C is a saturated relative category.

and N(C)

Theorem 2.10 (Dwyer and Kan). Let C be a relative category and let LH C be

the hammock localisation.

(i) If C admits a homotopical calculus of right fractions, then the reduction

morphism N C [1;1] (X, Y ) LH C(X, Y ) is a weak homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets.

(ii) The reduction morphism N C [1;1] (X, Y ) LH C(X, Y ) is natural in the

following sense: given any weak equivalence X X and any morphism

Y Y in C, the following diagram commutes in sSet,

N C [1;1] (X, Y )

LH C(X, Y )

N C [1;1] (X , Y )

LH C(X , Y )

where the left vertical arrow is defined by composition and the right vertical arrow is defined by concatenation.

9

Proof. (i). This is Proposition 6.2 in [Dwyer and Kan, 1980b]. Note that the

second half of the homotopy calculus of right fractions condition is not used,

so it does indeed suce to have a homotopical calculus of right fractions.

(ii). Obvious.

calculus of right fractions, then for any weak equivalences X X and Y Y

in C, the induced functor

C [1;1] (X, Y ) C [1;1] (X , Y )

is a weak homotopy equivalence of categories.

Proof. Use naturality (as in theorem 2.10) and Proposition 3.3 in [Dwyer and

Kan, 1980b].

The following notion of cocycle is originally due to Jardine [2009].

Definition 3.1. Let C be a relative category and let V weq C be a subcategory that contains all identity morphisms.

Given objects X and Y in C, a V-cocycle (f, v) : X [ Y in C is a

diagram in C of the form below,

X

X is a morphism in V.

where v : X

[1;1]

We write CV

(X, Y ) for the full subcategory of C [1;1] (X, Y ) spanned

by the V-cocycles.

If V = weq C, then we may simply say cocycle instead of V-cocycle.

Remark 3.2. In other words, a cocycle in C is a zigzag of type [1; 1].

Proposition 3.3. Let C be a relative category and let : C Ho C be the

localising functor. If C admits a homotopical calculus of right fractions, then:

(i) Every morphism X Y in Ho C can be factored as (f ) (w)1 for

some cocycle (f, w) : X

[ Y in C.

(ii) Two cocycles X

[ Y represent the same morphism X Y in Ho C if

and only if they are in the same connected component of C [1;1] (X, Y ).

10

Proof. This is an immediate consequence of Proposition 3.1 in [Dwyer and

Kan, 1980b] and theorem 2.10.

Recall that a category with weak equivalences is a relative category

in which the weak equivalences have the 2-out-of-3 property and include all

isomorphisms.

Heuristically, a homotopical calculus of cocycles for a category with weak

equivalences consists of three pieces of data: a class of good weak equivalences, a category of enhanced cocycles, and a forgetful functor from the

category of enhanced cocycles to the category of cocycles, such that:

The class of good weak equivalences is closed under composition and

pullback.

Enhanced cocycles can be pulled back along pairs of weak equivalences.

The underlying cocycle of an enhanced cocycle is a V-cocycle.

Every cocycle can be replaced with an enhanced cocycle in a homotopically unique way.

More precisely, we make the following denition.

Definition 3.4. Let C be a category with weak equivalences. A homotopical

calculus of cocycles for C consists of a subcategory V weq C containing

all isomorphisms, a category C fun , and a functor U : C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h

satisfying the following conditions:

V is closed under pullback in C in the sense that, for any morphism

v : X Y in V and any morphism g : Y Y in C, there is a pullback

diagram in C of the form below,

X

X

v

The composite

C fun

hdom, codomi

weq C weq C

weq [[1; 1], C]h weq C sending a cocycle X [ Y to X (resp. Y ), and

U : C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h preserves cartesian morphisms.

11

For each object E in C fun , the leftward-pointing arrow of the cocycle UE

is a morphism in V.

For each pair (X, Y ) of objects in C, writing C fun (X, Y ) for the strict

bre of the above functor C fun weq C weq C, the induced functor

UX,Y : C fun (X, Y ) C [1;1] (X, Y )

is homotopy conal.

Remark 3.5. Morphisms in V can be pulled back along arbitrary morphisms

[1;1]

in C, so the V-cocycle category CV

(X, Y ) is contravariantly pseudofunctorial

in X and strictly functorial in Y .

Remark 3.6. We do not require hdom, codomi : weq [[1; 1], C]h weq C

weq C to be a Grothendieck bration. Nonetheless, it still makes sense to talk

about cartesian morphisms in weq [[1; 1], C]h . For example, consider a cocycle

in C,

X

can form the following commutative diagram in C,

X

verify that the corresponding morphism (f , v ) (f, v) is a cartesian morphism in weq [[1; 1], C]h .

The primary example of a homotopical calculus of cocycles is the case where

C is a category of brant objects, V is the subcategory of trivial brations

in C, C fun is a certain full subcategory of weq [[1; 1], C]h , and the functor

U : C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h is the inclusion. The details of this are deferred to

the following sections.

For the remainder of this section, let C be a category with weak equivalences

and let V weq C, C fun , and U : C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h be the data of a

homotopical calculus of cocycles in C.

Lemma 3.7. Let D be a full subcategory of C (regarded as a relative category

with the same weak equivalences) and let U : D fun weq [[1; 1], D]h be defined

12

U

D fun

C fun

weq [[1; 1], C]h

D fun weq [[1; 1], D]h define a homotopical calculus of cocycles in D.

Proof. Since D is a full and homotopically replete subcategory of C, V D is

closed under pullback in D. It is not hard to verify that the following diagram

is a pullback square in Cat,

weq [[1; 1], D]h

weq [[1; 1], C]h

hdom, codomi

hdom, codomi

weq D weq D

weq C weq C

so by the pullback pasting lemma, the outer rectangle in the diagram below is

also a pullback diagram in Cat:

D fun

C fun

weq [[1; 1], C]h

hdom, codomi

weq D weq D

hdom, codomi

weq C weq C

in Cat, we deduce that the composite of the top row is a Grothendieck

bration, as required. Moreover, any morphism in weq [[1; 1], D]h that is a

cartesian morphism in weq [[1; 1], C]h is automatically a cartesian morphism

in weq [[1; 1], D]h , so U : D fun weq [[1; 1], D]h preserves cartesian morphisms. Since the remaining axioms can be checked brewise, this completes the

proof.

Lemma 3.8. For each object Y in C, there exist an object IY in C fun and a

commutative diagram in W of the form below,

id

id

p1

Path(Y )

p0

[3] i.e. for any weak equivalence w : X Y in C, if either X or Y is in D, then X, Y , and

w : X Y are all in D.

13

Proof. Let Z be the cocycle (idY , idY ) : Y [ Y in C. By denition, UY,Y :

C fun (Y, Y ) C [1;1] (Y, Y ) is a homotopy conal functor, so the comma category (Z UY,Y ) is weakly contractible. In particular, it is inhabited, so there

indeed exist an object IY in C fun and a commutative diagram of the required

form.

Lemma 3.9. For any pair (X, Y ) of objects in C, in the following commutative

diagram,

[1;1]

C fun (X, Y )

C fun (X, Y )

CV

UX,Y

(X, Y )

C [1;1] (X, Y )

Proof. The bottom horizontal arrow is a homotopy conal functor and the

right vertical arrow is fully faithful. By lemma 1.5, the top horizontal arrow

is also a homotopy conal functor, so by Quillens Theorem A (1.6) and the

2-out-of-3 property, the inclusion is indeed a weak homotopy equivalence of

categories.

Lemma 3.10. Let W = weq C, let Y be an object in C, and let R be the

following category:

The objects are tuples (E, w, u), where E is an object in C fun , and w

and u are weak equivalences in C making the diagram in C shown below

commute,

Y

Y

u

id

The morphisms are morphisms k in C fun such that the morphism Uk

in weq [[1; 1], C]h makes the evident diagram commute. (In particular,

(codom U )k = idY in C.)

Composition and identities are inherited from C fun .

Then the functor P : R Y / W defined by sending (E, w, u) to w is a Grothendieck fibration whose (strict) fibres are weakly contractible.

14

Proof. Let (E, w, u) be an object in R and suppose UE is the following cocycle:

v

diagram below commutes:

Y

Y

w

a cartesian morphism k : E E in C fun such that Uk is of the form below:

X

id

there is a weak equivalence u : Y Z in C making the following diagram

commute:

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

u

Y

id

r

g

id

id

(E , w , u) (E, w, u) in R.

We now show that k : (E , w , u ) (E, w, u) is a cartesian morphism in

R. Suppose we have a morphism h : (E , w , u) (E, w, u) in R and a

commutative diagram in W of the form below,

Y

Y

w

w

x

15

where f x : X X is the underlying morphism in C of P h : w

w. Since k : E E is a cartesian morphism in C fun , there is a unique

morphism h : E E such that k h = h with (dom U )h = x and

(codom U )h = idY . A similar argument using the fact that Uk : UE UE

is a cartesian morphism in weq [[1; 1], C]h shows that k denes a morphism

(E , w , u ) (E , w , u) in R. Hence, k : (E , w , u) (E, w, u) is indeed a

cartesian morphism in R.

Finally, it remains to be shown that the (strict) bres of P : R Y / W

are weakly contractible. But for any object w : Y X in Y / W, the corresponding bre of P is isomorphic to the comma category ((idY , w) UX,Y ),

and since UX,Y : C fun (X, Y ) C [1;1] (X, Y ) is a homotopy conal functor,

((idY , w) UX,Y ) is weakly contractible, as required.

Lemma 3.11. Let W = weq C and let (X, Y ) be a pair of objects in C, let k

be a natural number, let H0 (X, Y ) = C [1;k] (X, Y ), let H1 (X, Y ) = C [1;k;1] ,

and let H2 (X, Y ) be defined by the following pullback diagram in Cat,

Q

H2 (X, Y )

R

P

d

Y/

H1 (X, Y )

Grothendieck fibration defined in lemma 3.10.

Y/

W is the

of categories.

(ii) There is a weak homotopy equivalence s2 : H0 (X, Y ) H2 (X, Y ) such

that the composite d s2 : H0 (X, Y ) H1 (X, Y ) is the functor s :

H0 (X, Y ) H1 (X, Y ) defined by inserting an identity morphism.

Proof. (i). Lemma 3.10 says P : R Y / W is a Grothendieck bration with

weakly contractible (strict) bres, and these properties are preserved by pullback, so d : H2 (X, Y ) H1 (X, Y ) is also a Grothendieck bration with

weakly contractible (strict) bres. Hence, by lemma 1.4 and Quillens Theorem A (1.6), d : H2 (X, Y ) H1 (X, Y ) is a weak homotopy equivalence of

categories.

(ii). Let s2 : H0 (X, Y ) H2 (X, Y ) be the unique functor such that d s2 = s

and Q s2 is the constant functor with value IY , where IY is an object in R as

in lemma 3.8. We will construct a functor r 2 : H2 (X, Y ) H0 (X, Y ) making

16

the following diagram commute in Ho sSet,

N(H0 (X, Y ))

N s2

N(H2 (X, Y ))

N r2

id

N(d)

N(H0 (X, Y ))

N(s)

N(H1 (X, Y ))

and (by the 2-out-of-6 property) it will follow that s2 : H0 (X, Y ) H2 (X, Y )

is indeed a weak homotopy equivalence of categories.

First, observe that every object in H2 (X, Y ) has an underlying commutative diagram in C of the form below:

Y

id

X

k

vk

0

X

k1

X

fk1

k

X

j X

j+1 in the above diagram.

For 0 j < k, write fj for the morphism X

X

k is in V, we may functorially construct the following

Since vk : X

k

commutative diagram in C,

X

0

X

k1

X

k

vk1

v0

0

X

fk1

k1

X

vk

fk1

k

X

C shown below,

X

X

0

X

k1

id

X

0

X

k1

vk1

v0

0

X

fk1

k1

X

X

k

vk

fk1

k

X

arrow in the top row gives an object in H0 (X, Y ), so this construction denes

a functor r 2 : H2 (X, Y ) H0 (X, Y ) equipped with a zigzag of natural weak

equivalences connecting d and s r 2 .

17

k = Y and w = idY . Then, for 0 j < k, there is a unique

Now suppose X

j X

in C making the diagram below commute,

morphism uj : X

j

j

X

fj

j+1

X

uj

id

X

j

uj+1

fj

X

j+1

vj

j

X

vj+1

fj

j+1

X

following commutative diagram in C,

X

0

X

X

0

fk1

uk1

u0

k1

X

X

k1

q fk1

weak equivalence idH0 (X,Y ) r 2 s2 . This completes the proof of the claim.

Theorem 3.12. Let C be a category with weak equivalences, let LH C be the

hammock localisation, and let X and Y be objects in C. If C admits a homotopical calculus of cocycles with distinguished subcategory V weq C, then:

[1;1]

(i) The reduction morphism N CV

(X, Y ) LH C(X, Y ) is a weak homotopy equivalence.

[1;1]

(ii) The reduction morphism N CV

(X, Y ) LH C(X, Y ) is natural in

the following sense: for any morphisms X X and Y Y in C, the

following diagram commutes in Ho sSet,

[1;1]

N CV

(X, Y )

LH C(X, X)

[1;1]

N CV

(X , Y )

LH C(X , Y )

where the left vertical arrow is defined as in remark 3.5 and the right

vertical arrow is defined by concatenation.

(iii) There is an isomorphism

[1;1]

N CV

(, )

= LH C(, )

of functors Ho C op Ho C Ho sSet.

18

Proof. (i). Combine theorem 2.10 with lemmas 3.9 and 3.11.

(ii). Straightforward.

(iii). This is an immediate consequence of (i) and (ii).

The following denition is due to Brown [1973].

Definition 4.1. A category of fibrant objects is a category C with nite

products and equipped with a pair (W, F ) of subclasses of mor C satisfying

these axioms:

(A) (C, W) is a category with weak equivalences.

(B) Every isomorphism is in F , and F is closed under composition.

(C) Pullbacks along morphisms in F exist in C, and the pullback of a morphism that is in F (resp. W F ) is also a morphism that is in F (resp.

W F ).

(D) For each object X in C, there is a commutative diagram of the form

below,

X

Path(X)

X X

where : X X X is the diagonal morphism, i : X Path(X) is

in W, and Path(X) X X is in F .

(E) For any object X in C, the unique morphism X 1 is in F .

In a category of brant objects as above,

a weak equivalence is a morphism in W,

a fibration is a morphism in F , and

a trivial fibration (or acyclic fibration) is a morphism in W F .

Example 4.2. Of course, the full subcategory of brant objects in a model

category is a category of brant objects, with weak equivalences and brations

inherited from the model structure.

19

Example 4.3. Let M be a right proper model category, let W be the class of

weak equivalences, and let F be the class of morphisms p : X Y with the

following property: every pullback square in M of the form below

X

X

p

sharp maps in M in the sense of Rezk [1998].) Let E be the full subcategory

of M spanned by those objects X such that the unique morphism X 1 is

in F . Then E is a category of brant objects, with weak equivalences W and

brations F .

Definition 4.4. Let C be a category of brant objects and let (X, Y ) be a pair

of objects in C. A functional correspondence (p, v) : X [ Y is a cocycle,

v

Y X is a bration.

such that hp, vi : X

fun

We write C (resp. C fun (X, Y )) for the full subcategory of weq [[1; 1], C]h

(resp. C [1;1] (X, Y )) spanned by the functional correspondences.

Remark 4.5. Since product projections in a category of brant objects are

X is a trivial bration and p : X

Y is a

brations, it follows that v : X

bration. However, the converse is not true: for instance, (idY , idY ) : Y [ Y

is rarely a functional correspondence.

Lemma 4.6. Let C be a category of fibrant objects and let W = weq C.

(i) The functor C fun W W sending functional correspondences X [ Y

to the pair (X, Y ) is a Grothendieck fibration.

(ii) The inclusion C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h preserves cartesian morphisms.

Proof. Consider a functional correspondence in C, say:

v

may form the following pullback diagram in C:

hp , v i

Y X

X

hp, vi

gf

20

Y X

By considering the cases f = id and g = id separately and using the pullback

X is a trivial bration, and

pasting lemma, we may deduce that v : X

hence that (p , v ) : X [ Y is a functional correspondence in C. It is then

straightforward to verify that the commutative diagram

v

Y

g

denes a cartesian morphism in both C fun and weq [[1; 1], C]h .

Definition 4.7. A path object functor for a category of brant objects C

consists of the following data:

A functor Path : C C.

Natural transformations i : idC Path and p0 , p1 : Path idE such

that (Path(C), iX , (p0 )X , (p1 )X ) is a path object for every object X in C,

i.e. h(p0 )X , (p1 )X i : Path(X) X X is a bration and (p0 )X iX =

(p1 )X iX = idX .

We say C has functorial path objects if it admits a path object functor.

Lemma 4.8 (Factorisation lemma). Let f : X Y be a morphism in a

category of fibrant objects C.

(i) There exists a commutative diagram in C of the form below,

X

id

Ef

(ii) Moreover, if C has functorial path objects, then u, v, and p can be chosen

functorially (with respect to f ).

Proof. See (the proof of) the factorisation lemma in [Brown, 1973].

Lemma 4.9. Let C be a category of fibrant objects and let (X, Y ) be a pair

of objects in C. If C has functorial path objects, then the inclusion UX,Y :

C fun (X, Y ) C [1;1] (X, Y ) is homotopy cofinal.

21

Proof. Let (f, w) : X [ Y be a cocycle in C. We must show that the comma

category ((f, w) UX,Y ) is weakly contractible. By lemma 4.8, we may factor

Y X as a weak equivalence followed by a bration, yielding an

hf, wi : X

object in ((f, w) UX,Y ). We may then use the functoriality of this factorisation to construct a zigzag of natural weak equivalences between id((f,w)UX,Y )

and a constant endofunctor, and it follows that ((f, w) UX,Y ) is weakly contractible.

Remark 4.10. The argument in the proof above is essentially the same as

the proof of Theorem 14.6.2 in [Hirschhorn, 2003], but applied in a dierent

context.

Theorem 4.11. Let C be a category of fibrant objects and let V be the subcategory of trivial fibrations in C. If C has functorial path objects, then V weq C,

C fun , and C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h constitute a homotopical calculus of cocycles

in C.

Proof. Combine lemmas 4.6 and 4.9.

To extend the above result to the case where C is not assumed to have functorial path objects, we would have to prove lemma 4.9 without using functorial

factorisations. We will do this in the appendix.

One way of getting a category of brant objects with functorial path objects

is to take the full subcategory of brant objects in a simplicial closed model

category. We may treat these axiomatically as follows:

Definition 5.1. A simplicial category of fibrant objects is a simplicially

enriched category C with simplicially enriched nite products and equipped

with a pair (W, F ) of subclasses of mor C satisfying axioms A, B, C, E, and

these additional axioms:

(C ) Simplicially enriched pullbacks along morphisms in F exist in C.

(F) For any nite simplicial set K and any object X in C, there exists an

object K X in C equipped with a (simplicially enriched natural) isomorphism

sSet(K, C(, X))

= C(, K X)

of simplicially enriched functors C op sSet.

22

(G) For any monomorphism i : K L of nite simplicial sets and any

bration p : X Y in C, the morphisms

i idY : L Y K Y

idK p : K X K Y

i p : L X (K X) KY (L Y )

induced by the commutative diagram in C shown below

idL p

LX

LY

i idX

i idY

K X

idK p

KY

bration), then both i idY (resp. idK p) and i p are trivial brations.

Example 5.2. Of course, if M is a simplicial closed model category and

Mf is the simplicially enriched full subcategory of brant objects, then Mf

admits the structure of a simplicial category of brant objects with the weak

equivalences and brations inherited from M.

Proposition 5.3. Let C be a simplicial category of fibrant objects. Then the

underlying ordinary category C (satisfies axiom D and) is a category of fibrant

objects with functorial path objects.

Proof. It straightforward to verify that 1 () is (the functor part of) a path

object functor for C.

Lemma 5.4. Let C be a simplicial category of fibrant objects, let X be an object

in C, let Q be the full subcategory of the simplicially enriched slice category

C /X spanned by the trivial fibrations, and let p : U X be an object in Q, i.e.

a trivial fibration in C.

(i) For any finite simplicial set K, the cotensor product K X p : K X U

X exists in Q.

(ii) For any monomorphism i : K L of finite simplicial sets, the induced

morphism i X U : L X U K X U is a trivial fibration in C.

Proof. (i). Dene the object K X p : K X U X in C/X by the following

pullback diagram in C,

K X U

K U

K X p

idK p

K X

X

23

where the bottom arrow is the morphism induced by the unique morphism

K 0 . By axiom G, idK p : K U K X is a trivial bration in C,

so by axiom C, K X p : K X U X is also a trivial bration in C, hence

is an object in Q. It is straightforward to verify that K X p has the required

simplicially enriched universal property in Q.

(ii). By axiom G, we have a trivial bration

i p : L U (K U ) KX (L X)

induced by the commutative diagram in C shown below:

LU

idL p

LX

i idU

i idX

K U

idK p

KX

diagram in C,

L X U

LU

K X U

i idU

ip

i X U

(K U) KX (L X)

Z X p

K U

idK p

LX

i idX

K X

C, i X U : L X U K X U is indeed a trivial bration in C.

Lemma 5.5. With notation as in lemma 5.4:

(i) Q has simplicially enriched finite products.

(ii) Given any monomorphism i : K L of finite simplicial sets and any

pair (p , p) of objects in Q, for each morphism f : K Q(p , p), there

exist a morphism v : p p in Q and a morphism g : L Q(p , p)

making the following diagram commute:

K

Q(v, p)

Q(p , p)

24

Q(p , p)

Proof. (i). It is clear that Q has a simplicially enriched terminal object, and

the existence of simplicially enriched binary products is an immediate consequence of axioms C and C .

(ii). By lemma 5.4, f : K Q(p , p) corresponds to a morphism f : p

K X p in Q, and by axiom C, we may form the following pullback diagram

in Q,

p

L X p

i X p

f

K X p

Then g : p L X p corresponds to a morphism g : L Q(p , p), and it is

straightforward to see that diagram in question commutes.

Corollary 5.6. Let C be a simplicial category of fibrant objects, let X be

an object in C, let Q be the full subcategory of the simplicially enriched slice

category C /X spanned by the trivial fibrations, and let 0 [Q] be the category

obtained by applying 0 to the hom-spaces of Q. Then 0 [Q]op is a filtered

category.

Proof. Recalling lemma 5.5, it suces to show that, for any parallel pair f0 , f1 :

p p in Q, there is a morphism v : p p in Q such that f0 v = f1 v in

0 [Q]. But (f0 , f1 ) dene a morphism f : 1 Q(p , p), so the lemma implies

there exist a morphism v : p p in Q and a morphism g : 1 Q(p , p)

making the diagram below commute,

1

Q(p , p)

Q(v, p)

Q(p , p)

in [Brown, 1973], which describes the hom-sets in the homotopy category of a

category of brant objects. Indeed, we will derive a closely related result as a

corollary.

Theorem 5.7. Let C be a simplicial category of fibrant objects, let LH C be the

hammock localisation, let X be an object in C, let Q be the full subcategory

25

and let U : Q C be the evident projection. Then,

holimQop C(U , ) LH C(X, )

holimQop C(U, ) : C sSet

Proof. Let Q be the underlying ordinary category of Q. By lemmas 1.8 and 5.4,

holimQop C(U, ) holimQop C(U, )

holimQop C(U, ) LH C(X, )

Moreover, recalling theorem 4.11 and proposition 5.3, we may apply theorem 2.10

and lemma 3.9 to reduce the problem to showing that

[1;1]

holimQop C(U, ) N CV

(X, )

colimit theorem (1.11), it is not hard to see that there is a weak equivalence

[1;1]

holimQop disc C(U, ) N CV

(X, )

In particular,

[1;1]

holimop holimQop disc C(U, ()) holimop N CV

(X, ())

[1;1]

[1;1]

N CV

(X, ) holimop N CV

(X, ())

holimop disc C(U, ) C(U, )

[4] See paragraph 4.3 in [Bousfield and Kan, 1972, Ch. XII] or Theorem 18.7.4 in [Hirschhorn,

2003].

26

lim [Q]op 0 C(U , )

= Ho C(X, )

0

as functors C Set.

Proof. Since 0 : sSet Set is a simplicially enriched left Quillen functor,

it takes homotopy colimits in sSet to homotopy colimits in Set. Homotopy

colimits in Set are the same as (simplicially enriched) colimits, thus,

limQop 0 C(U, )

= 0 LH C(X, )

= Ho C(X, )

the category of simplicially enriched diagrams Qop Set and the category of

(ordinary) diagrams 0 [Q]op Set, so

C(U , )

lim [Q]op 0 C(U , )

= lim

0

Qop 0

and we are done.

Throughout this section, let C be a small category with a Grothendieck topology J, let M be the category of simplicial presheaves on C, equipped with

the J-local model structure of Joyal [1984] and Jardine [1987], and for each

regular cardinal , let M< be the full subcategory of -presentable objects

in M.

Proposition 6.1. For arbitrarily large regular cardinals , M< inherits the

structure of a simplicial closed model category from M, including functorial

factorisations.

Proof. Use Propositions 1.17, 5.9, and 5.20 in [Low, 2014a].

in the case where (C, J) is a site with enough points, a morphism of simplicial

presheaves on C is a J-local bration if and only if all its stalks are Kan

brations. Let E be the full subcategory of M spanned by the J-locally brant

simplicial presheaves on C and let E< = E M< .

Proposition 6.2. For arbitrarily large regular cardinals , E< is a simplicial category of fibrant objects, with weak equivalences being the J-local weak

equivalences and fibrations being the J-local fibrations.

27

Proof. Let be any uncountable regular cardinal such that |mor C| < . It is

clear that axioms A, B, and E are satised, and a cardinality argument can

be used to verify axiom C and C . (Under our hypothesis on , a simplicial

presheaf on C is in M< if and only if it has < elements.) A similar argument

shows that the cotensor products K X are in M< if K is a nite simplicial

set and X is in M< , so it suces to verify that E satises axioms F and

G; for this, we may use the same method as the proof of Lemma 1.15 in

[Low, 2014b], i.e. rst reduce to the case of simplicial sheaves, and then apply

Barrs embedding theorem to reduce to the case of simplicial sets, which is

well known.[5]

Henceforth, x an innite regular cardinal such that M< and E< satisfy

the conclusions of propositions 6.1 and 6.2.

Lemma 6.3. Let : C op M sSet be the functor defined by the following

formula:

(C, X) = X(C)

Then, for each object C in C:

(i) Let hC be the simplicial presheaf represented by C. There is an isomorphism

(C, )

= M hC ,

of functors M sSet, where the RHS is the simplicial hom-functor.

(ii) (C, ) : M sSet is a right Quillen functor. In particular, it has a

total right derived functor R(C, ) : Ho M Ho sSet.

(iii) Let LH M< be the hammock localisation of M< . There is an isomorphism

R(C, )

= LH M< hC ,

of functors Ho M< Ho sSet.

Proof. (i). Use the Yoneda lemma.

(ii). M hC , is a right Quillen functor because M is a simplicial closed model

category where all objects are cobrant, so (C, ) is also a right Quillen

functor. The existence of a total right derived functor is then a standard

result.[6]

(iii). Apply either Remark 5.2.10 in [Hovey, 1999] or Proposition 16.6.23 in

[Hirschhorn, 2003] to Theorem 3.8 in [Low, 2014c].

[5] See e.g. Theorem 3.3.1 in [Hovey, 1999].

[6] See e.g. Theorem 8.5.8 in [Hirschhorn, 2003].

28

LH E< (X, Y ) LH M< (X, Y )

induced by the inclusion E< M< is a weak homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets.

Proof. Use Proposition 3.5 in [Dwyer and Kan, 1980b].

[2012] and Rezk [2014].

Proposition 6.5. Let C be an object in C and let V be the subcategory of

J-local trivial fibrations in E< . Then there are isomorphisms

[1;1]

[1;1]

H

R(C, )

L

E

h

,

N

(E

)

h

,

N

(E

)

h

,

=

=

=

< C

<

C

< V

C

of functors Ho E< Ho sSet.

Proof. Combine theorem 2.10 and lemmas 3.9, 6.3, and 6.4.

One may then derive a homotopy colimit formula for R(C, ) analogous

to Verdiers original colimit formula (cf. Thorme 7.4.1 in [SGA 4b, Expos V]

or Theorem 8.16 in [Artin and Mazur, 1969]):

Proposition 6.6. Let C be an object in C, let Q be the simplicially enriched

full subcategory of the simplicially enriched slice category (E< )/hC spanned by

the J-local trivial fibrations, and let U : Q E< be the evident projection

functor. Then there is an isomorphism

E (U , )

R(C, )

= holim

Qop <

of functors Ho E< Ho sSet.

Proof. Apply theorem 5.7 and proposition 6.5.

Corollary 6.7. Let K be a Kan complex of cardinality < and let K be the

constant simplicial presheaf on C with value K. With other notation as above,

we have

R(C, K)

lim

U,

K

sSet

= holim

C op

Qop

as objects in Ho sSet, and this is natural in K.

Proof. As usual, we have the following isomorphism of simplicially enriched

functors Qop sSet:

sSet limC op U, K

= E< (U, K)

29

The following is what Cisinski [2010a] calls a catgorie drivable gauche:

Definition A.1. A Cisinski fibration category is a category C equipped

with a pair (W, F) of subclasses of mor C satisfying these axioms:

D0. C has a terminal object 1. A fibrant object in C is an object X such

that the unique morphism X 1 in C is in F . Any object isomorphic

to a brant object is brant, and 1 is brant.

D1. (C, W) is a category with weak equivalences.

D2. F is closed under composition and every isomorphism between brant

objects in C is in F . If p : X Y is in F and g : Y Y a morphism

between brant objects in C, then the pullback of p along g exists in C

and is a morphism that is in F .

D3. If p : X Y is in W F and g : Y Y is a morphism between

brant objects in C, then the pullback of p along f (exists in C and) is a

morphism that is in W F .

D4. If f : X Y is a morphism in C and Y is brant, then there exist a

in W and a morphism p : X

Y in F such that

morphism i : X X

f = p i.

In a Cisinski bration category as above,

a weak equivalence is a morphism in W,

a fibration is a morphism in F , and

a trivial fibration (or acyclic fibration) is a morphism in W F .

We will often abuse notation and say C is a Cisinski bration category, without

mentioning the data W and F .

Example A.2. Every category of brant objects is a Cisinski bration category in the obvious way. Moreover, if C is a category of brant objects and

Y is an object in C, then the slice category C/Y is Cisinski bration category

where the brant objects are the brations with codomain Y .

The following result (due to Denis-Charles Cisinski) will appear in [BHH];

we thank Georoy Horel for sharing it with us.

Theorem A.3 (Cisinski). Let C be a Cisinski fibration category and let C

be the full subcategory of C spanned by the fibrant objects. Then the inclusion

weq C weq C is a homotopy cofinal functor.

30

Proof. Let X be an object in C. We must show that the comma category

(X U) is weakly contractible. By the asphericity lemma (1.6) in [Cisinski,

2010b], it suces to verify the following: for any nite poset J and any diagram F : J (X weq C ), there is a zigzag of natural transformations

connecting F to a constant diagram.

First, observe that diagrams F : J (X weq C ) are the same as

diagrams functors Y : J weq C equipped with a cone : X Y .

By Thorme 1.30 in [Cisinski, 2010a], there is a natural weak equivalence

: Y Y where Y is brant over the boundaries (brant sur les bords), so

by Proposition 1.18 in op. cit., the limit limJ Y exists in C and brant. Thus,

Y , where X

is a brant object in C, and

in C followed by a cone : X

hence, we have the following diagram in [J , weq C]:

X

diagram.

Corollary A.4. Let C be a category of fibrant objects, let (X, Y ) be a pair of

objects in C, and let C fun (X, Y ) be the category of functional correspondences

X [ Y . Then the inclusion UX,Y : C fun (X, Y ) C [1;1] (X, Y ) is homotopy

cofinal.

Proof. Let (f, w) : X [ Y be a cocycle in C. We must show that the comma

category ((f, w) UX,Y ) is weakly contractible. Let D be the slice category

C/Y X considered as a Cisinski bration category in the obvious way. It is not

hard to see that C fun (X, Y ) is isomorphic to a full subcategory of weq C/Y X ,

contained in the full subcategory weq C/Y X spanned by the brant objects

(i.e. brations in C with codomain Y X). Moreover, the comma category

((f, w) UX,Y ) is isomorphic to the comma category hf, wi weq C/Y X ,

so by theorem A.3, ((f, w) UX,Y ) is weakly contractible.

As promised, we obtain the following generalisation of theorem 4.11:

Theorem A.5. Let C be a category of fibrant objects, let V be the subcategory

of trivial fibrations in C, and let C fun be the category of all functional correspondences in C. Then V weq C, C fun , and C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h constitute

a homotopical calculus of cocycles in C.

Proof. Combine lemma 4.6 and corollary A.4.

31

References

Artin, Michael, Alexander Grothendieck and Jean-Louis Verdier

[SGA 4b] Thorie des topos et cohomologie tale des schmas. Tome 2. Lecture

Notes in Mathematics 270. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1972. iv+418. isbn:

3-540-06012-X.

Artin, Michael and Barry Mazur

[1969] Etale homotopy. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 100. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,

1969. iii+169.

Barnea, Ilan, Yonatan Harpaz and Geoffroy Horel

[BHH] On the pro-category of a weak fibration category. In preparation.

Barwick, Clark and Daniel M. Kan

[2012] Relative categories: another model for the homotopy theory of homotopy

theories. In: Indag. Math. (N.S.) 23.1-2 (2012), pp. 4268. issn: 0019-3577.

doi: 10.1016/j.indag.2011.10.002.

Bousfield, A. K. and Daniel M. Kan

[1972] Homotopy limits, completions and localizations. Lecture Notes in

Mathematics 304. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1972. v+348.

Brown, Kenneth S.

[1973] Abstract homotopy theory and generalized sheaf cohomology. In: Trans.

Amer. Math. Soc. 186 (1973), pp. 419458. issn: 0002-9947.

Cisinski, Denis-Charles

[2010a] Catgories drivables. In: Bull. Soc. Math. France 138.3 (2010),

pp. 317393. issn: 0037-9484.

[2010b] Invariance de la K-thorie par quivalences drives. In: J. K-Theory 6.3

(2010), pp. 505546. issn: 1865-2433. doi: 10.1017/is009010008jkt094.

Dwyer, William G. and Daniel M. Kan

[1980a] Simplicial localizations of categories. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra 17.3

(1980), pp. 267284. issn: 0022-4049. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(80)90049-3.

[1980b] Calculating simplicial localizations. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra 18.1 (1980),

pp. 1735. issn: 0022-4049. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(80)90113-9.

[1980c] Function complexes in homotopical algebra. In: Topology 19.4 (1980),

pp. 427440. issn: 0040-9383. doi: 10.1016/0040-9383(80)90025-7.

Hirschhorn, Philip S.

[2003] Model categories and their localizations. Mathematical Surveys and

32

xvi+457. isbn: 0-8218-3279-4.

Hovey, Mark

[1999] Model categories. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 63. Providence,

RI: American Mathematical Society, 1999. xii+209. isbn: 0-8218-1359-5.

Jardine, John F.

[1987] Simplicial presheaves. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra 47.1 (1987), pp. 3587.

issn: 0022-4049. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(87)90100-9.

[2009] Cocycle categories. In: Algebraic topology. Vol. 4. Abel Symp. Berlin:

Springer, 2009, pp. 185218. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-01200-6_8.

[2012] The Verdier hypercovering theorem. In: Canad. Math. Bull. 55.2 (2012),

pp. 319328. issn: 0008-4395. doi: 10.4153/CMB-2011-093-x.

Joyal, Andr

[1984] Letter to Grothendieck. 16th Apr. 1984.

Low, Zhen Lin

[2014a] The heart of a combinatorial model category. 28th Nov. 2014.

arXiv:1402.6659v2.

[2014b] Internal and local homotopy theory. 30th Apr. 2014. arXiv:1404.7788v1.

[2014c] Revisiting function complexes and simplicial localisation. 29th Sept. 2014.

arXiv:1409.8062v1.

Low, Zhen Lin and Aaron Mazel-Gee

[2014] From fractions to complete Segal spaces. 29th Sept. 2014. arXiv:1409.8192.

Quillen, Daniel G.

[1967] Homotopical algebra. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 43. Berlin:

Springer-Verlag, 1967. iv+156.

[1973] Higher algebraic K-theory. I. In: Algebraic K-theory, I: Higher K-theories

(Proc. Conf., Battelle Memorial Inst., Seattle, Wash., 1972). Lecture Notes in

Mathematics 341. Springer, Berlin, 1973, pp. 85147.

Rezk, Charles

[1998] Fibrations and homotopy colimits of simplicial sheaves. 9th Nov. 1998.

arXiv:math/9811038v2.

[2014] Modern versions of the Verdier hypercovering theorem? 6th May 2014. url:

http://mathoverflow.net/a/165324.

Thomason, Robert W.

[1979] Homotopy colimits in the category of small categories. In: Math. Proc.

33

Cambridge Philos. Soc. 85.1 (1979), pp. 91109. issn: 0305-0041. doi:

10.1017/S0305004100055535.

34

- Assignment for Group theoryUploaded byAadil Aman
- Lawvere - Quantifiers and SheavesUploaded byLuke Fraser
- Etale Cohomology of Rigid Analytic Varieties and Adic Spaces PDFUploaded byJennifer
- KnigaUploaded byhristina11
- Free Encylopedia of Mathematics-Vol 2Uploaded bydervis
- Lawvere F W Functorial Semantics of Algebraic Theories PhD Thesis 1963Uploaded byLBrouwer
- Foundations of Algebraic GeometryUploaded byMichael Pearson
- barbara bolognese cvUploaded byapi-298983729
- On Formulae of Thom and WuUploaded byblexim
- Math31_QnAUploaded byMohamad Abdallah
- group theoryUploaded byMeme Doll
- Abstract Algebra - Chapter 7 Group StructureUploaded byapi-3732398
- Parvati Shastri - Lectures on Modules Over Principal Ideal DomainsUploaded byClaribel Paola Serna Celin
- Notes LiveUploaded byAmir Kumar
- [Simson, Skowronski] Elements of the Representation Theory of Associative Algebras - Vol. 2Uploaded byAlexandre Carissimi
- A Topological Approach to MTL-AlgebrasUploaded byYork Zeng
- Turei to the RilUploaded bymikey12345452863879
- ab2Uploaded byMohammad Umar Rehman
- FW Lawvere - State Categories and Response Functors 1986Uploaded bymatt
- alg3Uploaded bythecrowe
- Math202hw9asolsUploaded byMorvaridYi
- Commutative Algebra Notes PDFUploaded byStephanie
- Absolute Anabelian GeometryUploaded byVincent Lin
- Dominic Verity- Weak Complicial Sets A Simplicial Weak omega-Category Theory Part II: Nerves of Complicial Gray-CategoriesUploaded byCore0932
- Homotopy Groups and Exact SequencesUploaded byParampreetWalia
- Fillion, Mathematical Truth, Ontology and Structures Category TheoryUploaded byflores3831_814460512
- Proofs Involving Normal SubgroupsUploaded byHaq
- Schmidt SubgroupLatticesOfGroupsUploaded byAnonymous UTq3kQPK
- liealgebrasUploaded byapi-3796896
- Longo, Lambda CalculusUploaded byflores3831_814460512