Skip to main content
8 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Sep 15, 2015 at 13:32 comment added Chris Schommer-Pries The Barwick-Kan model structure on relative categories is lifted from bisimplicial sets using the functor $N_\xi$. So $N_\xi$ (and hence $N$) is automatically a relative functor (aka homotopical). It preserves all weak equivalences (not just between fibrant objects). In fact that is how the weak equivalences between relative categories are defined.
Sep 15, 2015 at 3:41 comment added Aaron Mazel-Gee @ChrisSchommer-Pries I might be missing something, but I don't quite follow: we only know that $N_\xi$ (and hence $N$) has the correct behavior on fibrant relative categories. Or perhaps is $N$ itself known to itself be a relative functor?
Apr 4, 2012 at 19:10 comment added Chris Schommer-Pries @Mike: "Does this approach extend to "relative quasicategories" as well?" I imagine it will, but it won't be out-of-the-box like your original question. I know that in one of their papers Barwick and Kan consider an analog of some of this structure for relative simplicial categories.
Apr 4, 2012 at 17:50 comment added Mike Shulman Hmm, and in fact the statement I wanted is more or less explicit in a 2009 draft of Barwick-Kan that I had sitting around, but which doesn't seem to be available any more, called "Relative categories; another model for the homotopy theory of homotopy theories part II: the weak equivalences".
Apr 4, 2012 at 17:33 comment added Mike Shulman Does this approach extend to "relative quasicategories" as well?
Apr 4, 2012 at 17:33 comment added Mike Shulman Ah, excellent! I had thought of using Toen's result, but I didn't realize that Barwick-Kan had also proved that hammock localization was an equivalence of homotopy theories. Too bad I can only accept one answer.
Apr 4, 2012 at 16:18 history edited Chris Schommer-Pries CC BY-SA 3.0
Added summary.
Apr 4, 2012 at 16:03 history answered Chris Schommer-Pries CC BY-SA 3.0