There are two "opposite" functors: $$ op_\Delta\colon sSet\to sSet$$ and $$op_s\colon sCat\to sCat.$$ The first takes a simplicial set to its opposite simplicial set by precomposing with the opposite of a functor $\Delta\to \Delta$ which is the identity on objects and takes a morphism $\langle k_0,\ldots,k_n\rangle\colon [n]\to [m]$ (where $k_i$ is the integer that $i$ gets mapped to by this morphism) to the morphism $\langle m-k_n,\ldots,m-k_0\rangle$. For example, the morphism $[1]\to [2]$ that takes $0$ to $0$ and $1$ to $1$ gets mapped to the morphism that takes $0$ to $1$ and $1$ to $2$.

The second functor takes a simplicial category to the opposite simplicial category, which is easier to define. It has the same objects but given $x,y\in C^{op}$, the mapping complex $C^{op}(x,y)=C(y,x)$.

There is also the simplicial nerve functor $N\colon sCat\to sSet$. I am interested in a proof of the fact that for a given fibrant simplicial category $C$, there is a weak equivalence of quasicategories $op_\Delta\circ N(C)\simeq N\circ op_s(C)$.

I'm relatively certain that this is an elementary proof, but I don't feel skilled enough with the simplicial nerve to figure out the details. Does anyone have a proof of this fact?


It all follows from the following elementary lemma:

$\mathfrak{C}([n]^{op})$ is isomorphic to $\mathfrak{C}([n])^{op}$ as a cosimplicial simplicial category (in fact, they are actually equal, since the components of the natural isomorphism are all identities).

proof: It is an immediate calculation from the definition of opposites.

Consequence: From this lemma, apply adjunctions to show that $^{op}$ actually commutes with the simplicial nerve up to isomorphism. I can fill in details if you want.

  • $\begingroup$ For what it's worth, the "immediate calculation" is a little bit involved, depending on your explicit model of $\mathfrak{C}[n]$ and probably requires induction. I have a construction that I haven't seen elsewhere that makes this induction pretty easy, and also the construction in Riehl-Verity of $\mathfrak{C}[\infty]$ should make it easy as well, but the version described in HTT will probably make this calculation very very hard. $\endgroup$ – Harry Gindi Aug 15 '18 at 4:05
  • $\begingroup$ I'm pretty sure it is enough to check it for $n=0$ and $n=1$ (since $\Delta^0$ and $\Delta^1$ generate $\mathrm{Cat}_\infty$ under colimits), if that helps $\endgroup$ – Denis Nardin Aug 15 '18 at 8:13
  • $\begingroup$ @DenisNardin It seems like that only works if you use a homotopical approach. For better or for worse, I have answered with a sketch of a combinatorial proof that works at the point-set level. It's not clear to me how knowing that $\Delta[1]$ and $\Delta[0]$ generate $\operatorname{Cat}_\infty$ under (homotopy) colimits helps prove the point-set statement. $\endgroup$ – Harry Gindi Aug 15 '18 at 8:39
  • $\begingroup$ Well, Jon was asking only whether the two functors are naturally equivalent. For that it is enough to prove that they induce the same equivalence between the two ∞-cats. Of course if you want to prove the point-set statement you need to do more work $\endgroup$ – Denis Nardin Aug 15 '18 at 9:08
  • $\begingroup$ @DenisNardin I guess the benefit of the point-set statement is that the proof is elementary, the result is stronger, and it doesn't require the dozens of pages needed to prove that $\mathfrak{C}$ and $\mathfrak{N}$ are a QEQ and that QEQs become adjoint equivs under the Relative Nerve. $\endgroup$ – Harry Gindi Aug 15 '18 at 9:22

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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