MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose $R$ is a category and $F:R\to Cat$ is a functor (or pseudofunctor). The oplax limit of $F$ is the category whose objects consist of an object $x_r \in F(r)$ for all $r$ together with a morphism $x_s \to F(d)(x_{r})$ for all morphisms $d:r\to s$ in $R$, satisfying obvious compatibility conditions.

I have some vague memory of reading a paper in which, given a functor as above in which $R$ is a Reedy category, each category $F(r)$ is a model category, and probably some other conditions, a "Reedy-type" model structure on the oplax limit (or perhaps some related category) was constructed. However, I have been totally unable to find this paper again; the closest I can find is this paper which considers "injective-type" model structures on lax limits. Can anyone point me to the paper I am thinking of?

(I am not interested in seeing proofs or "it seems like this should work" arguments written out in the answers. I only want the reference.)

share|cite|improve this question
How does having a morphism $x_r \to F(d)(x_s)$ work (typecheck)? Isn't $F(d)$ a functor from $F(r)$ to $F(s)$, while $x_s$ is an object in $F(s)$? – Jason Gross Jul 30 '13 at 18:04
Thanks, fixed. (Sometimes people talk about contravariant functors instead of covariant ones.) – Mike Shulman Jul 31 '13 at 19:02

You may be thinking of

Johnson, Mark W. On modified Reedy and modified projective model structures. Theory Appl. Categ. 24 (2010), No. 8, 179–208.

but his constructions (Definitions 3.3 and 5.2) have a fixed category at each object of $R$ and only the model structures are allowed to vary.

As a side note, a particular instance of this construction is used in these new notes about global homotopy theory, but here the indexing category is not even a Reedy category, but some sort of "enriched generalized Reedy category".

share|cite|improve this answer
I don't think that was the paper I'm thinking of, but thanks for pointing it out; it's certainly closely related! – Mike Shulman Jan 31 '13 at 22:42

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.