11
$\begingroup$

Suppose I have two fibrant simplicially enriched categories $C$ and $D$. Then I can consider the collection of simplicial functors $sFun(C,D)$ which, if I recall correctly, has the structure of a simplicial category (though this enrichment does not cooperate with the Bergner model structure, for instance). I can apply the coherent nerve functor and produce two quasicategories $N(C)$ and $N(D)$ which have a Kan complex of morphisms between them $Map(N(C),N(D))$. I'm interested in knowing if there's any way to control $Map(N(C),N(D))$ (even just up to homotopy) if I know what $sFun(C,D)$ is.

I could control the homotopy type of $Map(N(C),N(D))$ if I knew, for instance, that $C$ was also cofibrant, but this seems to be an extremely strong condition to require. In general, is there just no useful way to get information about $Map(N(C),N(D))$ from $sFun(C,D)$?

I should also add that in the example I'm most interested in, $C$ is just a discrete category (thought of as a simplicial category), so maybe that gives me extra control over its cofibrant replacement?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Some time ago I thought a bit about modifying the Bergner model structure to have more cofibrations. I was able to get some Reedy - ish categories to be cofibrant. It might be possible to work in a model structure like this to relax the cofibrancy assumptions on $C$, at the cost of imposing new fibrancy conditions on $D$. But actually -- even if $C$ is Bergner-cofibrant and $D$ is Bergner-fibrant, do we know that $sFun(C,D)$ comes out right? Usually I'd want my model structure to be monoidal to conclude things like that, which Bergner is not... $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion ♦
    Sep 25, 2020 at 21:27
  • $\begingroup$ Also, are you aiming for the space of functors $C \to D$, or the $\infty$-category of functors $C \to D$? If I understand the notation $sFun(C,D)$ correctly, it will in general have non-invertible morphisms and be more closely related to the latter -- you'd have to throw away non-invertible morphisms to get something like the former. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion ♦
    Sep 25, 2020 at 21:31

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
13
$\begingroup$

Have you looked in the paper by Jean-Marc Cordier and myself:

Homotopy Coherent Category Theory, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 349 (1997) 1 - 54?

We defined a simplicial set of coherent natural transformations between two simplicial functors $F,G:C\to D$. That may be useful as an intermediate setting. There are 'rectification' results if $D$ is complete/cocomplete and especially in the case in which $C$ is an ordinary category, one has an augmentation from its simplicial resolution $S(C)$ to $C$ itself which is well understood. (This may be how you can get at its cofibrant replacement as $S(C)$ is explicitly combinatorially specifiable and is better understood now than when we wrote that paper 22 years ago!))

In general I would not expect the simplicial category $sFun(C,D)$ to be that good a model for the other one. Some of our earlier papers perhaps :

Vogt's Theorem on Categories of Homotopy Coherent Diagrams, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 100 (1986) pp. 65 - 90.

might also contain useful ideas. The explicit combinatorial arguments we gave can be useful in specific cases although a model / infinity category approach may suit your aims as well. I will not attempt to give more recent references than our papers as there are other regular contributors here who know that approach better than I do.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

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.