Timeline for Notion of $\kappa$-sifted categories?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1 at 17:11 | comment | added | Georg Lehner | Just in case you are interested: This question is related to mathoverflow.net/questions/453235/… | |
| Jun 30 at 22:46 | history | edited | Z. M | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 163 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 19:12 | vote | accept | Z. M | ||
| Jun 30 at 20:30 | |||||
| Jun 30 at 18:33 | answer | added | varkor | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 30 at 16:10 | comment | added | Dmitri Pavlov | How do you intend to relate the diagonal functor to the condition of commuting sifted colimits and infinite products? For commuting sifted colimits and finite products, such a relationship is established by a (finite) induction on the number of factors, using the fact that products with a fixed object preserve colimits. | |
| Jun 30 at 14:20 | comment | added | Z. M | @DmitriPavlov Thanks. I am confused what is happening: say, $([m_n])_n\in({\mathbf\Delta}^{\operatorname{op}})^{\mathbb N}$, then Quillen's Theorem A reduces to check the weak contractibility of $\prod_n\Delta^{m_n}$. What's wrong in this argument? | |
| Jun 30 at 14:10 | history | edited | Z. M | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 179 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 14:01 | comment | added | Dmitri Pavlov | Homotopy colimits over Δ^op do not preserve infinite homotopy products (e.g., take the product of countably many copies of the nerve of N(Z,<)), so Δ^op does not satisfy the claimed property. | |
| Jun 30 at 13:49 | history | edited | Z. M | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 637 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 13:16 | history | edited | Z. M | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 96 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 11:51 | history | edited | Z. M | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 288 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 11:28 | history | edited | Z. M | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 137 characters in body
|
| Jun 30 at 11:11 | history | asked | Z. M | CC BY-SA 4.0 |