10
$\begingroup$

If $C$ is a 1-category and $D$ is a locally presentable $(\infty,1)$-category presented by a combinatorial model (1-)category $M$, then any $(\infty,1)$-functor $C\to D$ can be represented by a strict 1-functor $C\to M$, because the functor category $M^C$ carries a model structure that presents the $(\infty,1)$-functor category $D^C$.

I would like to know if something analogous is true when all the 1s are replaced by 2. In particular, I care about the situation where $D = \rm Cat_{(\infty,1)}$ is the $(\infty,2)$-category of $(\infty,1)$-categories and $M = \rm sCat$ is the model category of simplicially enriched categories, which is a 2-category in an evident way with simplicial natural transformations. That is, if $C$ is a 2-category, can an $(\infty,2)$-functor $C \to \rm Cat_{(\infty,1)}$ be represented by a 2-functor, or at least a pseudofunctor, $C \to \rm sCat$?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Do want to allow any restrictions on C? For example can we assume that C is strict? or suitably "cofibrant"? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 20:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I'm happy with any restrictions that don't reduce the class of C it applies to, up to biequivalence. So it's fine to assume C is strict, or cofibrant as a 2- or bicategory. (Of course, being cofibrant as a 2-category doesn't necessarily make it cofibrant as an $(\infty,2)$-category, and the latter isn't a restriction I would want to impose.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 13, 2023 at 20:54

0

You must log in to answer this question.