7
$\begingroup$

Consider a category $C$ enriched in categories. Here we have a natural class $W$ of equivalences, namely those morphisms having inverses up to 2-isomorphisms. One can take the hammock localization $L^H(C,W)$ and get a simplicial category.

On the other hand one can take the maximal subgroupoid of each $hom$-category (or simply suppose that the hom-categories were groupoids from the start, this wouldn't change the above notion of equivalence), apply the nerve functor $hom$-wise and get another simplicial category.

Are these two simplicial categories Dwyer-Kan equivalent?

[I am also interested in a particular case of this question, which would take too long to expose here, which has the feature that the $hom$-categories are preorders, and hence the maximal subgroupoids are simply equivalence relations on the sets of morphisms (i.e. the sets of objects of the hom-categories). Yet I couldn't see by hand that the hom-simplicial sets of the hammock localization are homotopy discrete...]

$\endgroup$
5
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If $C$ has one object and one 1-morphism, the first construction forgets about all the 2-morphisms but the second does not. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2014 at 23:06
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ More precisely, if we have an abelian group $A$, then we can form a 2-category $\mathbb{B}^2 A$ with a unique object $*$, unique 1-cell $\mathrm{id}_*$, and elements of $A$ as 2-cells. The hammock localisation cannot see the automorphisms of the 1-cell in this case, so the two simplicial categories are Dwyer–Kan equivalent if and only if $A$ is trivial. $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Mar 30, 2014 at 23:50
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for this example! You are right that the hammock localization cannot distinguish different 2-isomorphisms. Now if the hom-categories are preorders, the answer could still be affirmative. Any thoughts on this? $\endgroup$ Mar 31, 2014 at 0:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @PeterArndt There are some further necessary conditions. For instance, we need $\mathcal{C} [\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$ to be isomorphic to the category obtained by identifying isomorphic 1-cells. This fails for e.g. the 2-category with a unique object, a non-trivial involution, and 2-cells making the two 1-cells isomorphic. You could probably get around this by introducing some kind of path or cylinder object. $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Mar 31, 2014 at 9:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Zhen Lin : This helped me. Thanks again! $\endgroup$ Mar 31, 2014 at 9:46

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.