Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 25, 2018 at 1:13 vote accept Dmitry Vaintrob
Jun 21, 2018 at 2:31 comment added Dmitri Pavlov @DavidWhite: She says there: “In practice, when the conditions of this theorem cannot be verified, we can still use the original levelwise model structure on L_D X and simply restrict to the appropriate subcategory when we want to require u and v to be weak equivalences.” I fail to see how such a claim could possibly solve the problem of constructing the pullback as a model category.
Jun 21, 2018 at 2:26 comment added Dmitri Pavlov @DmitryVaintrob: u and v are forced to be weak equivalences once we pass to cofibrant objects.
Jun 21, 2018 at 0:57 comment added David White @DmitriPavlov: She gives the indications about existence directly after finishing the proof of Theorem 3.2. Her first sentence there is "Of course, the di±culty in using this theorem lies in the difficulty in establishing that the model category $L_DX$ is right proper."
Jun 21, 2018 at 0:56 history edited David White CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1024 characters in body
Jun 20, 2018 at 19:05 comment added Dmitry Vaintrob This is a little surprising: it sounds like you're describing the Grothendieck construction, which is some kind of (infinity, 2)-categorical pullback, and not the (infinity, 1) categorical pullback. Are you sure your u, v are not required to be weak equivalences of some kind?
Jun 20, 2018 at 17:40 comment added Dmitri Pavlov Where exactly in her paper does Julie Bergner prove that “This category M can be given a model structure where the weak equivalences and cofibrations are levelwise (on each x_i)”? In Theorem 3.2 she assumes that “L_D X has the structure of a right proper model category” without giving any indications as to its existence.
Jun 20, 2018 at 2:04 history answered David White CC BY-SA 4.0