I'm just trying to understand the following definition:

Definition in Higher Algebra by J. Lurie defines the $\infty$-operad of $O$-module objects, and says the following:

Let $O^\otimes$ be a unital $\infty$-operad and $C^\otimes \to O^\otimes$ a fibration of generalized $\infty$-operads. We let $Mod^O(C)^\otimes$ denote the fiber product $$\overline{Mod}^O(C)^\otimes \times_{^p Alg_{/O}(C)} (O^\otimes \times Alg_{/O}(C))$$

My question is what does an object in here look like?

Here is my rough attempt at understanding what is going on: First an object of $\overline{Mod}^{O}(C)^\otimes$ consists of the data $(v, F)$ of an object $v \in O^\otimes$ and a functor $F:$ $ _{v}K_O \to C^\otimes$ (where $_{v}K_O$ denote those semi-inert maps in $O^\otimes$ that start at $v$) sending a semi-inert map $f:v \to y$ in $O^\otimes$ to an object $F(f$) of $C^\otimes_y$, such that if $y \to z$ is inert, then $F(f) \to F(v \to z)$ is inert in $C^\otimes$.

So my guess is that an object of $Mod^O(C)^\otimes$ is a pair $(v, A)$ where $v \in O^\otimes$ and $A \in Alg_{/O}(C)$. Or perhaps it is something like $(v, F, A, \theta)$ where $\theta$ is an equivalence between $(v, F)$ and $(v, A)$ in $^p Alg_{/O}(C)$. Or perhaps it's something else entirely.

What is, intuitively/philosophically, the role of the semi-inert morphisms, i.e. why do we really have to use them to make this definition?

I think I understand how an object in here can be viewed as generalization of the classical notion of a module over an algebra. In chapter 4 when Lurie defines the $\infty$-operad $\mathcal{LM}^\otimes$ and defines an $\infty$-category $LMod(C)$ (for $C$ a monoidal $\infty$-category) of left modules over the associative operad as $Alg_{\mathcal{LM}/\mathcal{Ass}}(C)$, and then example shows how to think of an object in this category as a generalization of the notion of a module. I assume a similar analysis holds for objects in $Mod^O(C)$ e.g given $(v, A)$, say $v\simeq (v_1, ..., v_n)$, where the $v_i \in O$ then $A(v_1), ..., A(v_n)$ have various multiplications maps between them, controlled by the operad $O$. If this more explicitly spelled out in Higher Algebra let me know.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here is my interpretation. An object of $\mathrm{Mod}^\mathscr{O}(\mathscr{C})^\otimes$ is a pair $(\mathcal{M},\mathscr{M})$, where $\mathcal{M}$ is an object of $\overline{\mathrm{Mod}}^\mathscr{O}(\mathscr{C})^\otimes$ and $\mathscr{M}\in\mathscr{O}^\otimes\times\mathrm{Alg}_{/\mathscr{O}}(\mathscr{C})$, such that if $F_1:\overline{\mathrm{Mod}}^\mathscr{O}(\mathscr{C})^\otimes \to^{\mathrm{P}} \mathrm{Alg}_{/\mathscr{O}}(\mathscr{C})$ and $F_2:\overline{\mathrm{Mod}}^\mathscr{O}(\mathscr{C})^\otimes \to \mathscr{O}^\otimes\times\mathrm{Alg}_{/\mathscr{O}}(\mathscr{C})$, ... $\endgroup$ – user62675 Sep 3 '14 at 15:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... then $F_1(\mathcal{M})=F_2(\mathscr{M})$. Indeed, we may write $\mathscr{M}$ itself as a pair $(O,\mathscr{A})$, where $\mathscr{A}$ and $O$ are objects of $\mathrm{Alg}_{/\mathscr{O}}(\mathscr{C})$ and $\mathscr{O}^\otimes$ respectively. $\endgroup$ – user62675 Sep 3 '14 at 15:34

I know this question is a little old but I just came across it.

Roughly, as you say, from this data you get an object $v$ of $O^\otimes$ and an algebra $A$ of $Alg_{/O}(C)$. However, you also get an action of $A$ on some object $M$ over $v$. The role of the semi-inert morphisms is as a "marking": a semi-inert morphism $v \to y$ in $O^\otimes$ marks some portion of the object $y$ (the image of $v$) as set aside for a module part, and the part outside the image describes an algebra part. Here is how this is expressed.

In the following, for the sake of convenience I am going to pretend that objects of $O^\otimes$ are literally $n$-tuples $(X_1,\dots,X_n)$ of objects of the underlying category $O$, and similarly for $C^\otimes$, so that the inert maps are given by projecting off factors. You can say the following without that assumption but it might obscure what's going on.

Your object $v$ is then a tuple $(X_1,\dots,X_k)$ of objects of $O$. Your module $M$ is going to actually be a tuple $(M_1, \dots, M_k)$, where $M_i$ is a module living over the 1-object tuple $X_i$. So for our purposes, it's simpler to just look at the case where $v = X$ is an object of $O$.

There's a special semi-inert morphism, the identity $v \to v$, which gets sent to an object $M$ in the fiber $C_X$ over $X$. For any $w$ in $O$, there is also another special semi-inert morphism $v \to () \to w$: these together describe objects $A_Y$ in $C_Y$ for any $Y \in O$. Those are going to be the module and algebra objects. A general semi-inert morphism $v \to w$ is either isomorphic to one of the form $(X) \to (Y_1, Y_2, \dots, Y_m, X)$ coming from a sequence of maps $() \to (Y_i)$ in $O^\otimes$, or $(X) \to () \to (Y_1,\dots,Y_m)$. Your functor $F$ sends these to $(A_{Y_1},\dots,A_{Y_m},M)$ and $(A_{Y_1},\dots,A_{Y_m})$ respectively by the assumption that it preserves inert morphisms.

Now the rest of the structure says that we essentially get maps of spaces $$ Map_{O^\otimes}((Y_1,\dots,Y_m), Y) \to Map_{C^\otimes}((A_{Y_1},\dots,A_{Y_m}), A_Y) $$ making $A$ into an $O$-algebra, and maps $$ Map_{O^\otimes}((Y_1,\dots,Y_m,X), X) \to Map_{C^\otimes}((A_{Y_1},\dots,A_{Y_m},M), M) $$ that give the action of $A$ on $M$. These satisfy an associativity constraint -- compatibility with composition. (You can also mix the order of the terms up but that's encapsulated by compatibility with an action of the symmetric group.)

If instead of having $v = (X)$ you had $v = (X_1,\dots,X_k)$, then you would have an algebra $A$ and a $k$-tuple of $A$-modules.


An object of $\mathrm{Mod}^\mathscr{O}(\mathscr{C})^\otimes$ is a pair $(\mathcal{M},\mathscr{M})$, where $\mathcal{M}$ is an object of $\overline{\mathrm{Mod}}^\mathscr{O}(\mathscr{C})^\otimes$ and $\mathscr{M}\in\mathscr{O}^\otimes\times\mathrm{Alg}_{/\mathscr{O}}(\mathscr{C})‌​$, such that if $F_1:\overline{\mathrm{Mod}}^\mathscr{O}(\mathscr{C})^\otimes\to ^{\mathrm{P}}{\mathrm{Alg}}_{/\mathscr{O}}(\mathscr{C})$ and $F_2:\overline{\mathrm{Mod}}^\mathscr{O}(\mathscr{C})^\otimes\to\mathscr{O}^{\otimes}\times\mathrm{Alg}_{/\mathscr{O}}(\mathscr{C})$, then $F_1(\mathcal{M})=F_2(\mathscr{M})$. Indeed, we may write $\mathscr{M}$ itself as a pair $(O,\mathscr{A})$, where $\mathscr{A}$ and $O$ are objects of $\mathrm{Alg}_{/\mathscr{O}}(C)$ and $\mathscr{O}^\otimes$ respectively.

Another formulation is given in this PhD thesis; see section $2.4$, especially Definition $2.4.3$. I will try to explain what the intuitive role of semi-inert morphisms are in a later edit.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.