Timeline for How canonical is cofibrant replacement?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 20, 2013 at 14:07 | comment | added | Boris Chorny | Here is a recent attempt to construct functorial factorizations in a pro-category arxiv.org/abs/1305.4607 by Ilan Barnea and Tomer Schlank | |
| Feb 7, 2011 at 5:22 | answer | added | Richard Garner | timeline score: 11 | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 22:55 | answer | added | Peter May | timeline score: 15 | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 21:12 | history | edited | Tyler Lawson | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
cut out boring part of question
|
| Feb 6, 2011 at 20:56 | comment | added | Tyler Lawson | @Theo: Thanks for the link, it definitely seems to point out that we don't know the answer for these pro-objects. | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 19:34 | answer | added | Emily Riehl | timeline score: 23 | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 8:19 | comment | added | Theo Buehler | According to B. Chorny arxiv.org/abs/math.AT/0401424 it is not known whether Isaksen's strict model structure on the pro-objects in a proper model category (and some generalizations) admit functorial factorizations. In the cited article [23] Isaksen makes a statement after theorem 1.1 that could be construed as stronger, but he probably only means to say that his construction of factorizations isn't functorial. Google doesn't let me read the relevant pages, so I can't verify this at the moment. | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 7:45 | answer | added | Tom Leinster | timeline score: 10 | |
| Feb 6, 2011 at 6:33 | history | asked | Tyler Lawson | CC BY-SA 2.5 |