Timeline for What do we mean by contractible for simplicial objects in a category?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 7, 2023 at 5:54 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | Prof May, you may be interested to see the reference in the other answer, which shows the question was not entirely trivial after all. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 22:05 | vote | accept | David Roberts♦ | ||
| Jun 20, 2012 at 22:05 | comment | added | David Roberts♦ | My question is partly sociological, in that calling a simplicial object contractible when there is no model structure (of any flavour) is perhaps stretching the imagination. One can of course write down these definitions. If it is well-accepted such things can be called contractible, then I am satisfied. I can only guess that we think of them as being contractible as objects in some category with a class of weak equivalences. And you are right about all the stupid terminology - there was a second more complicated question in there that didn't quite make it out, and I should have cleaned up. | |
| Jun 20, 2012 at 11:00 | history | answered | Peter May | CC BY-SA 3.0 |