Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 6, 2013 at 18:10 comment added Andrej Bauer Ok, thanks, I will have another look. Your comments are helpful.
Jul 6, 2013 at 15:57 history edited Karol Szumiło CC BY-SA 3.0
deleted 57 characters in body
Jul 6, 2013 at 15:54 comment added Karol Szumiło ... Thus the definitions coincide and Lemma 4.3 indeed proves that $X^I \to X \times X$ is a strong fibration in both senses.
Jul 6, 2013 at 15:53 comment added Karol Szumiło Maybe this will clarify things. Actually, it's Cole's definition that is a priori stronger than May's and Sigurdsson's. For Cole a strong fibration is a map with RLP with respect to all acyclic cofibrations, for May and Sigurdsson it is one with RLP with respect to pushout products of arbitrary cofibrations with $\{ 0 \} \to I$. Cole proves that every such pushout product is an acyclic cofibration (Prop. 2.10) and that every acyclic cofibration is a retract of such a pushout product (Prop 2.13)...
Jul 6, 2013 at 15:09 comment added Karol Szumiło I don't understand your remark. In the proof of Lemma 3.4 Cole starts with the case of an arbitrary acyclic cofibration ($g : Z \to W$ in his notation) and then reduces it to "a specific case which is easily related to the geometry of the interval". The reduction itself also heavily uses topology of the interval.
Jul 6, 2013 at 13:32 comment added Andrej Bauer I am sorry but this does not seem very helpful. In my case the starting point is a general cofibration $i: A \to X$, whereas Lemma 3.4 in Cole considers a specific case which is easily related to the geometry of the interval.
Jul 6, 2013 at 8:55 history edited Karol Szumiło CC BY-SA 3.0
added 434 characters in body
Jul 6, 2013 at 8:42 history edited Karol Szumiło CC BY-SA 3.0
added 6 characters in body
Jul 6, 2013 at 8:36 history answered Karol Szumiło CC BY-SA 3.0