Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Question:


Let $D:A\to (X\downarrow C)$ be a $\kappa$-good $S$-tree rooted at $X$ for a collection of morphisms $S$ in $C$, where $\kappa$ is a fixed uncountable regular cardinal. Then according to the proof of Lemma A.1.5.8 of Higher Topos Theory by Lurie, for any $\kappa$-small downward-closed $B\subseteq A$, the colimit of the restricted diagram, $\varinjlim D|_B$ is $\kappa$-compact in $(X\downarrow C)$.

Why is this true? (It is stated without proof.)

Definitions:


For your convenience, here are the definitions:

Recall that an object $X$ in $C$ is called $\kappa$-compact if $h^X(\cdot):=\hom(X,\cdot)$ preserves all $\kappa$-filtered colimits (where $\kappa$-filtered means "$<\kappa$"-filtered, since the terminology is different depending on the source).

Recall that an $S$-tree rooted at $X$ for a collection of morphisms $S$ in $C$ consists of the following data:

  • An object $X$ in C (the root)
  • A partially ordered set $A$ whose order structure is well-founded (the index)
  • A diagram $D:A\to (X\downarrow C)$ such that given any element $\alpha\in A$, the canonical map $$\varinjlim D|_{\{\beta:\beta<\alpha\}}\to D(\alpha)$$ is the pushout of some map $U_\alpha\to V_\alpha\in S$.

We say that an $S$-tree is $\kappa$-good if for all of the morphisms $U_\alpha\to V_\alpha$ above, $U_\alpha$ and $V_\alpha$ are $\kappa$-compact, and such that for any $\alpha\in A$, the subset $\{\beta: \beta < \alpha \}\subseteq A$ is $\kappa$-small.

Edit: It's easy to reduce the proof to showing that $D(\alpha)$ is $\kappa$-compact, since projective limits of diagrams $B\to Set$ are $|Arr(B)|$-accessible (and therefore $\kappa$-accessible since $B$ is $\kappa$-small), we perform the computation for $I$ a $\kappa$-filtered poset, and $F:I\to C$, assuming that $D(\alpha)$ is $\kappa$-compact for all $\alpha\in B$:

$$\begin{matrix}\ \varinjlim_I Hom_C(\varinjlim_B D, F)&\cong&\varinjlim_I\varprojlim_{B^{op}} Hom_C(D,F)\\ &\cong& \varprojlim_{B^{op}}\varinjlim_I Hom_C(D,F)\\ &\cong& \varprojlim_{B^{op}} Hom_C(D,\varinjlim_IF)\\ &\cong& Hom_C(\varinjlim_B D,\varinjlim_IF) \end{matrix}$$

Edit 2: I think the above reduction actually won't work, since it doesn't use the hypothesis that B is downward-closed.

share|improve this question
    
If someone answers this in the next 3 hours, I will gladly award him or her a 500 point bounty as soon as it becomes possible (one must wait two days. It is forced by the system). –  Harry Gindi Jun 20 '10 at 22:17
2  
$\kappa$-compact objects are stable under $\kappa$-small colimits (Cor. 5.3.4.15). Reduction is valid, and $D(\alpha) = D_B$ for $B = \{\beta \leq \alpha\}$, but not helpful. Want transfinite induction on downward-closed subsets. Choose an increasing sequence $B(\gamma)$ as in proof of Lemma A.1.5.11. Base: $B(0) = \emptyset$ and $D_{\emptyset} = X$. Next: $D_{B(\gamma)} \to D_{B(\gamma+1)}$ is a pushout of a pushout of $U_{\alpha_{\gamma+1}} \to V_{\alpha_{\gamma+1}}$. Limit ordinal $\lambda$: $D_{B(\lambda)}$ is a $\lambda < \kappa$-small colim of earlier. (c.f., pf of Lemma A.1.5.6) –  Anatoly Preygel Jun 21 '10 at 3:41
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Does this work?

To prove $D(\alpha)$ is $\kappa$-compact for all $\alpha$ in $A$, assume otherwise, that there exists some counterexample. Then, by the fact $A$ is well-ordered, there is a minimal counterexample (i.e., there is a minimal element $\alpha$ in the set of $\gamma \in A$ such that $D(\gamma)$ is not $\kappa$-compact). This means $D_\beta$ is $\kappa$-compact for all $\beta \lt \alpha$. Since $\{\beta: \beta \lt \alpha\}$ has cardinality less than $\kappa$, we have that

$$colim_{\beta: \beta \lt \alpha} D(\beta)$$

is $\kappa$-compact. Now, given a diagram of the form

$$V_\alpha \leftarrow U_\alpha \to colim_{\{\beta: \beta \lt \alpha\}} D(\beta)$$

in the category of $\kappa$-compact objects, its pushout is also $\kappa$-compact. But the hypothesis is that $D(\alpha)$ is the pushout for some such diagram, so $D(\alpha)$ is $\kappa$-compact, and we have reached a contradiction.

So $D(\alpha)$ is $\kappa$-small for all $\alpha \in A$. It follows that $colim_{\beta \in B} D(\beta)$ is $\kappa$-compact for any subposet $B \subseteq A$ whenever this is a $\kappa$-small colimit. (The restriction to downward-closed $B$ is not much loss of generality, because if $B \subseteq A$ is full, then the colimit over such a $B$ is isomorphic to the colimit over its downward closure, since $B$ is cofinal in its downward closure.)

share|improve this answer
2  
Yeah, I can't find anything wrong with it, so I'm accepting it. –  Harry Gindi Jun 21 '10 at 11:12
2  
I'll give you a 250 point bounty just because you're such a good sport =). –  Harry Gindi Jun 21 '10 at 16:34
2  
That's very, uh, bountiful of you! Thx. –  Todd Trimble Jun 21 '10 at 17:03
2  
The deed is done! (I gave you 300)! –  Harry Gindi Jun 22 '10 at 20:08
1  
Thanks, bro! :-) –  Todd Trimble Jun 23 '10 at 2:33
show 2 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

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.