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

Let $M$ and $N$ be "nice" model categories. I'm happy to have "nice" mean combinatorial model category. Consider a Quillen pair $$ L: M\rightleftarrows N: R.$$ I want the following result:

There exists a set of maps $S$ in $M$, such that $L$ and $R$ descend to a Quillen pair $$ L: S^{-1}M \rightleftarrows N: R,$$ with the property that a map $f:X\to Y$ between cofibrant objects in $M$ is a weak equivalence in $S^{-1}M$ if and only if $L(f)$ is a weak equivalence in $N$.

Here $S^{-1}M$ denotes the model category with the same underlying category $M$ obtained by localizing $M$ with respect to the set of maps $S$.

This result seems to encode a standard technique; in fact, the very first example of a localized model category (Bousfield's localization of spaces with respect to a homology theory) can be viewed (in retrospect) of a special case of this.

I think I could prove this result if I need to. But I would rather have a reference. I've looked in the usual places, but I can't seem to find anything exactly like it. I expected to find something like this in one of Dugger's papers on presentable model categories, but I don't find it there; he proves that under an additional condition, you can get a Quillen equivalence $S^{-1}M\rightleftarrows N$, but his construction of the set $S$ does not apply in my case.

share|cite|improve this question
Hello! I am interested in the case where one gets a Quillen equivalence $S^{-1} M\rightleftarrows N$ - could you give a reference? Thank you! – Hanno Becker Feb 6 '12 at 12:32
up vote 11 down vote accepted

I suspect that you already have one, but here is a proof. I will assume that $M$ and $N$ are combinatorial and that $M$ is left proper (otherwise, I don't think that the literature contains a general construction of the left Bousfield localizations of $M$ by any small set of maps). Everything needed for a quick proof is available in Appendix A of

J. Lurie, Higher topos theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 170, Princeton University Press, 2009.

First, there exists a cofibrant resolution functor $Q$ in $M$ which is accessible: the one obtained by the small object argument (as accessible functors are closed under colimits, it is sufficient to know that $Hom_M(X,-)$ is an accessible functor for any object $X$ in $M$, which is true, as $N$ is combinatorial). Let $W$ be the class of maps $f$ of $M$ such that $L(Q(f))$ is a weak equivalence in $N$. As $N$ is combinatorial, the class of weak equivalences of $N$ is accessible see Corollary A.2.6.9 in loc. cit. Therefore, by virtue of Corollary A.2.6.5 in loc. cit, the class $W$ is accessible. To Prove what you want, it is sufficient to check that $M$, $W$ and $C=${cofibrations of $M$} satisfy the conditions of Proposition A.2.6.8 in loc. cit. The only non trivial part is the fact that the class $C\cap W$ satisfies all the usual stability properties for a class of trivial cofibrations (namely: stability by pushout, transfinite composition). That is where we use the left properness. For instance, if $A\to B$ is in $W$ and if $A\to A'$ is a cofibration of $M$, we would like the map $A'\to B'=A'\amalg_A B$ to be in $W$ as well. This is clear, by definition, if $A$, $A'$ and $B$ are cofibrant. For the general case, as $M$ is left proper, $B'$ is (weakly equivalent to) the homotopy pushout $A'\amalg^h_A B$, and as left derived functors of left Quillen functors preserve homotopy pushouts, we may assume after all that $A$, $A'$ and $B$ are cofibrant (by considering the adequate cofibrant resolution to construct the homotopy pushout in a canonical way), and we are done. The case of transfinite composition is similar.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, that is pretty much the proof I had in mind, though the use of the language of accessible functors (as in Lurie) makes it much cleaner that I could have said it. – Charles Rezk Oct 20 '10 at 21:43

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.