3
$\begingroup$

I am reading the paper by Jardine and Goerss, Localization theories for simplicial presheaves and having troubles with understand an argument. In this paper, the two authors considered $\mathcal{C}$ to be a small Grothendieck site (so in particular the underlying class of objects is a set and morphisms between two objects form a set). They proposed a list of axiom, called localization theories, so that whenever the site $\mathcal{C}$ satisfies this list, the category $\mathbf{PreSh}(\mathcal{C},\Delta^{op}\mathbf{Sets})$ of simplicial presheavse is a model category. For simplicity, we can think of weak equivalences are sectionwise equivalences and cofibrations are monomorphisms.

One of the axioms is:

Suppose that $\gamma$ is a limit ordinal and there is functor $X: \gamma \longrightarrow \mathbf{PreSh}(\mathcal{C},\Delta^{op}\mathbf{Sets})$ such that for each morphism $i \leq j$ in $\gamma$, $X(i) \longrightarrow X(j)$ is a trivial cofibration, then every canonical morphism $$X(i) \longrightarrow \operatorname{lim}_{j \in \gamma}X(j)$$ is a trivial cofibration.

As fas as I understand, this axiom was listed in order to make the small object argument work. Let me first pick a cardinal $\alpha$ bouding the set of morphisms of $\mathcal{C}$ and $\beta$ be some cardinal greater than $2^{\alpha}$ (this is where I do not understand the choice). Then the small object argument comes into the account: it factors any morphism $f: X \longrightarrow Y$ into $$X \longrightarrow X_{\beta} \longrightarrow Y$$ where $X_{\beta}$ is defined by a transfinite induction argument (basically, it is like what we should do for simplicial sets, we should fill all the holes $\partial \Delta[n] \subset \Delta[n]$), i.e. $X_{\beta}$ is some $\beta$-transfinite composition. What I do not understand is why $X_{\beta} \longrightarrow Y$ has to be a fibration. The authors proved this by using the lifting property. They proved that $X_{\beta} \longrightarrow Y$ has the right lifting property w.r.t all trivial cofibration $i:U \longrightarrow V$ with $V$ being $\alpha$-bounded (meaning that $\left|V_n(A) \right| \leq \alpha$ for every $n\geq 0$ and $A \in \mathcal{C}$).

Their argument is:

A morphism $U \longrightarrow X_{\beta}$ must factor through some stage $X_{\gamma}$ for some $\gamma < \beta$ because otherwise $U$ would have too many subobjects. Once the factorization is found, the lifting problem is solved.

I do not see why? Why $U \longrightarrow X_{\beta}$ does not factor implies that $U$ would have too many subobjects? And precisely, how many is too many?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

To answer the question as it is stated: $U$ is an object in a locally presentable category, therefore $U$ is a small object, hence the corepresentable functor of $U$ preserves $α$-filtered colimits for some regular cardinal $α$. More precisely, the image of $U$ in such a colimit has a cardinality bounded by the product of cardinalities of $U$ and $\cal C$. Therefore, it must factor through some fixed stage of an $α$-filtered colimit if $α$ is greater than this cardinality.

However, that being said, the result discussed in the main post has been superseded by a considerably more general and easier to use theorem of Smith: for any left proper combinatorial model category, the left Bousfield localization at any set of morphisms $S$, and, more generally, at any class of morphisms $S$ that forms an accessible subcategory of $C$, exists. The conditions of Goerss and Jardine (especially, condition E7) simply guarantee that there is a set $S$ of such morphisms. For a reference, see, for example, Theorem 4.7 in Barwick's On left and right model categories and left and right Bousfield localizations.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ I understand what you commented, making an use of smallness, but what I am still not over is the choice of $\beta$, how can I prove that $U$ is $\beta$-small (let's ignore regularity of cardinals for simplicity). $\endgroup$
    – Alexey Do
    May 18, 2023 at 21:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlexeyDo: Take $β$ to be any regular cardinal larger than the total number of elements in all sets $U(X)$, $X∈C$. Now if $U→\mathop{\rm colim}_i Y_i$ is a morphism of simplicial presheaves, then the image of $U$ is a simplicial subpresheaf of the colimit, which has at most as many elements as $U$. Since colimits of simplicial presheaves are computed objectwise, every individual element in the image factors through some stage $Y_i$. Also, if restrictions of two sections of $U$ to the same object in $\cal C$ are equal, then the relevant elements become equal in some $Y_j$. $\endgroup$ May 18, 2023 at 21:22
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexeyDo: Since $β$ exceeds the cardinality of the set of $i$ and $j$, all elements in the image $U$ as well as any relations between them factor through some fixed stage $Y_k$, which proves $U$ is $β$-small. $\endgroup$ May 18, 2023 at 21:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, but I do not see Jardine and Goerss assume the regularity of cardinals, is this a mistake in their paper? $\endgroup$
    – Alexey Do
    May 19, 2023 at 12:20
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexeyDo: If $β$ is a nonregular cardinal, then a category has $β$-filtered colimits if and only if it has $β^+$-filtered colimits, where $β^+$ is the successor cardinal of $β$, which is regular. Therefore, $β$-filtered colimits for nonregular cardinals $β$ are a redundant concept. Of course, if you only want to show an object to be $β$-small, there is no need to assume regularity. $\endgroup$ May 19, 2023 at 16:39

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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