4
$\begingroup$

It is an elementary fact that a map $f:X \to Y$ between spaces induces a chain complex morphism $f_* : C_*(X) \to C_*(Y) $. This allows one to transfer 1-category theoretic arguments from spaces to associated chain complexes.

When dealing with $\infty$ stuff, sometimes a bit more is needed. Let $\textrm{Sing}(\textrm{Top})$ be the simplicially enriched category of topological spaces with

$$Map_{\textrm{Top}}(X, Y) _n = Hom_{\textrm{Top}}(X \times \Delta^n, Y) $$

And let $\textrm{Ch}(\mathbb{Z}) $ be the simplicially enriched category of chain complexes with

$$Map_{\textrm{Ch}(\mathbb{Z})}(C, D) = Hom_{\textrm{Ch}(\mathbb{Z})}(C \otimes \mathbb{Z}[\Delta^n], D) $$

where $\mathbb{Z}[\Delta^n]$ is the simplicially chain complex of $\Delta^n$: it has in degree $k$ the span of its $k$ dimensional faces.

Is it true that $C_*$ is a simplicial functor from $\textrm{Top}$ to $\textrm{Ch}(\mathbb{Z})$?

I thought this was almost tautological, but there are some Alexander Whitney and Eilenberg-Zilber maps involved that are not straightforward. A reference would be highly appreciated. I couldn't find this in HTT, but maybe it's me. As a remark, let me say the above functor factors explicitly through simplicial abelian complexes, so the crucial point is probably in the Dold-Kan part.

In case this is not true:

Informally, how one can transfer $\infty$ arguments from spaces to chain complexes? For example, is there a quasi-isomorphic functor to $C_*$ that becomes simplicial?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As a remark, in some cases it is better to not try to use a simplicial enrichment on $Ch$. Namely, $Ch(\Bbb Z)$ has a quasicategory associated to it (the differential graded nerve, section 1.3.1 in Higher Algebra) and $C_*$ extends directly to a functor $\mathcal{N}(Spaces) \to \mathcal{N}^{dg}(Ch(\Bbb Z))$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 10, 2021 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ That's a good alternative also. Thanks! I thought passing to a more concrete model (simplicial) made explicit functors easier to define, but actually quasicategories offer the right flexibility in this case. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 11, 2021 at 11:16
  • $\begingroup$ Would you mind to elaborate? Actually I am using the topological nerve model for spaces, and not the "localize-at-homotopy-equivalences" one, so I'd be happy to see this direct map. As far as I see such functor would give in components a simplicial map $Top(X \times \Delta^n, Y) \to DK_n(\tau_{\ge 0} Map(C_* X, C_*Y)) $, which maybe is straightforward but not to a newbie like me :) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 11, 2021 at 15:44

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Be careful with this "simplicial structure on chain complexes". It's not really well-defined, as discussed in the comments below my answer here. Also see my remark at the end of this post.

In particular, the answer to your question, as stated, is "not really".

But that's not an issue : the point is that for simplicial model categories, you can either take the homotopy coherent nerves on the subcategory of fibrant-cofibrant objects, or take the underlying ordinary model category and invert its weak equivalences (as an $\infty$-category).

The two processes yield canonically equivalent things (1.3.4.20. in Higher Algebra).

In particular you don't need a simplicial structure to talk about underlying $\infty$-categories of model categories, nor for induced functors.

Indeed, $C_* : Top\to Ch(\mathbb Z)$ sends weak equivalences to quasi-isomorphisms, so it induces a functor from the localized $\infty$-category $Top[weq^{-1}]$ to the localized $\infty$-category $Ch(\mathbb Z)[qis^{-1}]$. These are respectively the $\infty$-category of spaces and the derived $\infty$-category of $\mathbb Z$.

If one wants the stronger statement of having a simplicial functor, one can instead proceed as follows: notice that $C_*$ actually factors as the Dold-Kan correspondance precomposed with $X\mapsto\mathbb Z[Sing(X)]$ as a functor $Top\to sAb$. Now $sAb$ (simplicial abelian groups) is a simplicial model category and $sAb\to Ch_{\geq 0}(\mathbb Z)$ is an equivalence of categories, and now this functor $\mathbb Z[-]$ is also a composite of $Top\to sSet \to sAb$.

The second functor, $sSet\to sAb$ is simplicial by design and $Top\to sSet$ is a Quillen equivalence (in particular an equivalence on underlying $\infty$-categories), but it's also a simplicial functor. So up to replacing $Ch_{\geq 0}(\mathbb Z)$ by $sAb$, you can get a simplicial functor.

Remark: Of course, $Ch_{\geq 0}(\mathbb Z)\simeq sAb$ so you can transport the simplicial model structure on $sAb$ to one on $Ch_{\geq 0}(\mathbb Z)$. What I mean is that the simplicial structure on $Ch_{\geq 0}(\mathbb Z)$ looks slightly weird from this perspective, e.g. it is not compatible with the monoidal structure or the internal hom's of $Ch_{\geq 0}(\mathbb Z)$. In particular I'm not sure you can get away with such a thing over all chain complexes $Ch(\mathbb Z)$. Hence the warning.

Note that this second approach might be needed, or at the very least make things easier if you want to prove some basic properties of the induced $\infty$-functor : e.g. that it is a left adjoint (and in particular preserves all (homotopy, but this is implicit when talking about $\infty$-categories) colimits)

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you Maxime! Your answers are always precious. The (hammock?) localization is a neat approach that works on the nose for chains. As for simplicial abelian groups, I agree that the functor from spaces to $sAb$ is simplicial, but I am really interested in getting chains at the end. As I remarked in the text, I think the problem is from $sAb$ to chains, and this is tautologically solved if one equips chains with the transferred simplicial structure. It's a pity however that the simplicial structure induced by $\mathbb{Z}[\Delta^n]$ behaves so badly! It should be better remarked in school. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 11, 2021 at 11:20
  • $\begingroup$ I am not anymore convinced of the two approaches. About the first approach, using the infinity localization of a plain model category, I feel like we are not capturing the higher homotopy contained in the topology of hom-spaces in $Top$. I'd say the category of spaces is rather $N_{coh}(Sing(Top))$, or if you like weak equivalences maybe $RN_{coh}(L^H(Sing(Top), Weq))$. Formally, how do you show that $Top[weq^{-1}]$ is equivalent to the quasicategory of Kan complexes? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 14:20
  • $\begingroup$ Well, the point of this result 1.3.4.20 from Higher algebra is that it is capturing the higher homotopies. In other words, these higher homotopies just exist because you're killing contractible things : and it makes sense, a higher homotopy is just something that looks like $X\times |\Delta^n|\to Y$. So what you want to call the category of spaces is the same thing. For your question, you simply have to show that $Top$ and $sSet$ are Quillen equivalent, which is a famous result due to Quillen $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ About the second approach, the aim of taking chains (for me) is doing homological algebra thereafter, whose higher version is stable infinity categories. For this to happen, my model for chain complexes is the $\infty$-derived category as introduced in Lurie, that is the $\infty$ localization of right bounded chain complexes at quasi isomorphism (the one you cited in first approach). But as far as I can see $sAb \simeq Ch_{\ge 0}(\mathbb{Z})$ is not stable because you can't (de)suspend! Is this a minor issue? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ It is a minor issue, the underlying $\infty$-category of $Ch_{\geq 0}(\mathbb Z)$ embeds fully faithfully in the underlying $\infty$-category of $Ch(\mathbb Z)$, which is stable $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 16, 2021 at 14:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .