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

Background

Recall (from Cisinski's Astérisque volume 308) that given a small category $A$, we define an $A$-localizer to be a class $W$ of morphisms of $\mathrm{Psh}(A)$ satisfying the following axioms:

  • The class $W$ satisfies 2-for-3

  • The class $W$ contains $\mathrm{rlp}(\mathrm{Mono}(A))$, where $\mathrm{Mono}(A)$ denotes the class of all monomorphisms in $Psh(A)$.

  • The class $W\cap \mathrm{Mono}(A)$ is closed under transfinite composition and pushouts.

Given a class $C$ of morphisms in $\mathrm{Psh}(A)$, define $W(C)$, the localizer generated by $C$, to be the intersection of all $A$-localizers containing $C$. We say that a localizer $W$ is accessible if there exists a small set $S$ such that $W=W(S)$.

Let $(A,W)$ be a pair comprising a small category $A$ and an $A$-localizer $W$. We define the simplicial completion of $(A,W)$ to be the pair $(A\times \Delta, W_\Delta)$, where we define the $A\times \Delta$-localizer $W_\Delta$ as follows: The class $W_\Delta$ is the localizer generated by $W^{\Delta^{op}}$, the class of levelwise $W$-equivalences (viewing $\mathrm{Psh}(A\times \Delta)$ as $\mathrm{Psh}(A)^{\Delta^{op}}$, so the levels are indexed by the objects of $\Delta$) together with the class of all maps $T\otimes \Delta^1\to T$ where $T$ is an object of $\mathrm{Psh}(A\times \Delta)$ (given an object $T$ and a simplicial set $X$, we define $(T\otimes X)(a,s)=T(a,s)\times X(s)$ for a pair of objects $a$ in $A$ and $s$ in $\Delta$).

It is a theorem of Cisinski that the functor $pr_1^\ast:\mathrm{Psh}(A)\to \mathrm{Psh}(A\times \Delta)$ obtained from the projection onto the first factor induces an equivalence of categories $W^{-1}Psh(A) \to W_\Delta^{-1}\mathrm{Psh}(A\times \Delta)$. Further, if the $A$-localizer $W$ is accessible, the functor $pr_1^\ast$ is the left Quillen functor of a Quillen equivalence between the model categories $(\mathrm{Psh}(A), \mathrm{Mono}(A), W)$ and $(\mathrm{Psh}(A\times \Delta),\mathrm{Mono}(A\times \Delta), W_\Delta)$.

Recall that the injective (with respect to $\Delta$) model structure on $\mathrm{Psh}(A\times\Delta)\cong \mathrm{Psh}(\Delta)^{A^{op}}=\mathrm{sSet}^{A^{op}}$ is the model structure for which the cofibrations are exactly the monomorphisms and the class of weak equivalences $W_{\mathrm{inj}}$ comprises the levelwise (indexed by the objects of $A$) weak homotopy equivalences.

We will say that an $A$-localizer $W$ is a Bousfield localization of another $A$-localizer $W^\prime$ if $W^\prime \subseteq W$ (because if $W$ and $W^\prime$ are accessible, the model structure associated with $W$ is a left Bousfield localization of the model structure associated with $W'$.

Question:

Given a small category $A$ and an $A$-localizer $W$, is the $A\times \Delta$-localizer $W_\Delta$ a Bousfield localization of the class of levelwise weak homotopy equivalences $W_{\mathrm{inj}}$?

Remarks

I can prove that this is true in the special case that $A$ has the following property:

The category $A$ is a Reedy category such that the Reedy model structure on $sSet^{A^{\mathrm{op}}}$ coincides with the injective model structure. Somewhat surprisingly, this special case happens to include some of the most interesting examples. Cisinski has given an axiomatic characterization of a wide swath of these categories using his formalism of "catégories squelletiques" (Astérisque 308 ch. 8). Also see this MO Question.

share|improve this question
    
Just a note on notation, since this was NOT clear to me: $Psh(A)$ is pre-sheaves over $A$ –  David White Sep 9 '11 at 20:29

1 Answer 1

up vote 17 down vote accepted

Let $A$ be a small category, and $W$ an $A$-localizer. Then we say that $W$ is regular if any presheaf $X$ over $A$ is canonically the homotopy colimit of the representable presheaves above $X$; see Definition 3.4.13 (all references are in Astérisque 308). Except stated otherwise, all the assertions below about regular $A$-localizers are proved in section 3.4.

Given any $A$-localizer $W$, there is a minimal regular $A$-localizer containing $W$. This process of regularization preserves all the interesting properties of $W$ you might expect (namely, being accessible, proper, cartesian, being closed under small filtered colimits, respectively). What is nice is that there is the following

Theorem 3.4.36. An $A$-localizer $W$ is regular if and only if its simplicial completion $W_\Delta$ contains the class $W_{inj}$ of termwise simplicial weak equivalences.

This has useful consequences. For instance, any regular $A$-localizer is closed under small filtered colimits. There is also a kind of internal relative version of Quillen's theorem A. See Corollaries 3.4.41 and 3.4.47.

There is a whole class of squelettique categories $A$ for which any $A$-localizer is regular; see Proposition 8.2.8 (the proof I give relies on the general results of regular localizers, but there is a more elementary proof). However, for this property to hold, you need all the automorphisms of objects of $A$ to be trivial. Indeed, you may find in Proposition 3.4.57 that equivariant homotopy theory (à la Peter May) gives a nice example of a squelettique category $A$ with a nice explicit complete homotopical structure whose associated $A$-localizer $W$ is proper, cartesian, closed under filtered colimits, but not regular (in particular, its simplicial completion does not contain the class of termwise simplicial weak equivalences). This $W$ also has the property that any map between representable presheaves is a weak equivalence, and that, for any representable $a$, the associated $A/a$-localizer is regular (in this example, the objects of $A/a$ have not any non trivial automorphisms). In particular, this shows that the characterization of the $A$-localizer of $\infty$-equivalences for a (local) test category given by Proposition 6.4.26 is the optimal one (at least in this language).

N.B. This kind of question has also applications in comparing the various notions of $\infty$-categories. For instance, the Quillen equivalence between Joyal's model category for quasi-categories and Rezk's model category for complete Segal spaces can be explained rather immediately from the correspondance $W\mapsto W_\Delta$ and from the fact that any $\Delta$-localizer is regular (and using Theorem 3.4.36 above). The same thing will happen for the analogs for $(\infty,n)$-categories by the same argument.

share|improve this answer

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.