In the literature, I've mostly seen two quasicategories coming from $\text{Ch}_R$:

  1. By considering $\text{Ch}_R$ with weak equivalences $\mathcal W = \text{quasi-isomorphisms}$, we can consider its Dwyer-Kan localization $L^H(\text{Ch}_R)$, a simplicial category. Then, from the Quillen equivalence $$|-|:\text{sSet}_{\text{Joyal}}\leftrightarrows\text{sSet-Cat}_{\text{Bergner}}:N_\Delta,$$ we can define, taking a fibrant replacement if necessary, $$ N_\Delta(L^H(\text{Ch}_R))\in\text{quasicategories} $$

  2. In the Dold-Kan equivalence $N:\text{sAb}\leftrightarrows\text{Ch}_R:\Gamma.$, $\Gamma$ is a monoidal functor (between cartesian categories), thus it induces a functor $$ \Gamma_*:\text{Ch}_R\text{-Cat}\to \text{sAb-Cat}. $$ The underlying set of a simplicial abelian group is a Kan complex thus $$ N_\Delta(\Gamma_*(\text{Ch}_R))\in\text{quasicategories} $$

Are the quasicategories $N_\Delta(L^H(\text{Ch}_R)$ and $N_\Delta(\Gamma_*(\text{Ch}_R)$ equivalent? Is this trivial?

Related: how to make the category of chain complexes into an $\infty$-category.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Are you restricting to complexes of projectives? If not, then the latter doesn't turn quasi-isomorphisms into equivalences - its homotopy category is the "chain homotopy category" $K(R)$ instead of the derived category $D(R)$. $\endgroup$ Jan 25 at 23:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @TylerLawson: This is an answer, In my opinion $\endgroup$
    – Leo Alonso
    Jan 26 at 0:01
  • $\begingroup$ @TylerLawson Thank you for the answer, the question was wrong and I updated Example 2. What about now $\endgroup$ Jan 26 at 14:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DanielPlácido Your edit does not address Tyler Lawson's point, which is still correct: in your example 2 you're only inverting homotopy equivalences of complexes, not quasi-isomorphisms. $\endgroup$ Jan 26 at 15:34

The two categories you describe are not equivalent in the fashion that you hope.

No matter what kind of simplicial category $C$ is, the quasicategory $N_\Delta(C)$ has an explicit description of its homotopy category: namely, it has the same objects as $C$, and $$ Hom_{hN_\Delta C}(X,Y) = \pi_0 Hom_C(X,Y). $$ (This is true even if we need to take a fibrant replacement of $C$ first.)

Consider first case (1). Whenever $C$ is a category with a subcategory $W$ of weak equivalences, the Dwyer-Kan localization $L^H C$ has morphism spaces that are explicitly described: the 0-simplices are composites of morphisms in $C$ with formal inverses of morphisms in $C$, and the 1-simplices are natural transformations ("hammocks") built out of commutative diagrams involving these morphisms in $C$ or $W$. Taking $\pi_0$, we find that the homotopy category is formed by taking the morphisms in $C$ and formally inverting the morphisms in $W$: it is the localization. $$ hN_\Delta L^H C \cong C[W^{-1}] $$

Now consider case 2. If $C$ is a dg category, then we can also be explicit about the simplices in $Hom_{\Gamma_* C}(X,Y)$. Namely, a 0-simplex is a 0-cycle $f$ in the Hom-complex $\underline{Hom}_C(X,Y)$, and an edge from $f$ to $g$ is a 1-chain $h$ in $\underline{Hom}_C(X,Y)$ with $\partial h = g-f$. Taking $\pi_0$, we find that the homotopy category is formed by taking the morphisms in $C$ and modding out by the relation of chain homotopy equivalence $$ Hom_{hN_\Delta \Gamma_* C}(X,Y) \cong H_0 \underline{Hom}_C(X,Y). $$ This makes it the "chain homotopy category".

Applied to $Ch(R)$, the first construction is the derived category $D(R)$, and the second construction is the chain homotopy category $K(R)$. There is a natural functor $K(R) \to D(R)$, but it is not an equivalence: for example, there is a map of complexes from $(\dots \to 0 \to \Bbb Z \to \Bbb Z \to 0)$ to $(\dots \to 0 \to 0 \to \Bbb Z/2 \to 0)$ that is a quasi-isomorphism; there are no nonzero maps of chain complexes in the opposite direction in $Ch(\Bbb Z)$ and hence no nonzero maps in $K(\Bbb Z)$ either.

I believe that if you restrict to the subcategory of "cofibrant" complexes (e.g. bounded-below complexes of projectives) then you get an equivalence. Most of the versions of this result that I know, however, are for simplicial model categories (which $Ch_R$ is not), and so I don't have a reference handy.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ One can use a trick to answer your last question in the affirmative: an exact functor between stable ∞-category is an equivalence iff it induces an equivalence on the homotopy categories, and it's quite easy to see that both the dg-nerve of cofibrant complexes and the DK localization are stable, and that the functor preserves cofibers and direct sums (the latter because it is the DK-localization of a stable model category). $\endgroup$ Jan 29 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ @DenisNardin Good point! $\endgroup$ Jan 30 at 1:26

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.