Timeline for Replacing functors by topologically or simplicially enriched functors
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 25, 2022 at 18:02 | answer | added | Gregory Arone | timeline score: 2 | |
| Dec 19, 2019 at 18:46 | answer | added | Gregory Arone | timeline score: 3 | |
| S Mar 15, 2015 at 0:23 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| S Mar 15, 2015 at 0:23 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Mar 12, 2015 at 17:01 | comment | added | Gustavo Granja | A related quote from "Cellular spaces, Null spaces and Homotopy Localizations" by E Dror-Farjoun (p.22): "A functor that preserves weak equivalences has been shown to be 'essentially continuous' by the work of Dwyer-Kan about computing the homotopy function complexes using only the model category structure via simplicial localizations" | |
| Mar 7, 2015 at 19:03 | comment | added | Mariano Suárez-Álvarez | «Do you really care about Top?» is a great line :-) | |
| Mar 7, 2015 at 17:27 | history | edited | Tom Goodwillie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 846 characters in body
|
| Mar 6, 2015 at 23:39 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | Re: question 3: it seems like the question is whether you only care about mapping spaces as weak homotopy types (in which case modeling them as simplicial sets is fine) or whether you actually care about them as topological spaces (in which case the singular simplicial set functor loses information about topological spaces). That is, is $\text{Top}$ here intended as a model of the $(\infty, 1)$-category of $\infty$-groupoids, or do you really care about $\text{Top}$? | |
| S Mar 6, 2015 at 22:54 | history | bounty started | Tom Goodwillie | ||
| S Mar 6, 2015 at 22:54 | history | notice added | Tom Goodwillie | Draw attention | |
| Mar 4, 2015 at 19:01 | history | asked | Tom Goodwillie | CC BY-SA 3.0 |