6
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathbf{C}$ be a cofibrantly generated model category (assume for simplicity that all objects are fibrant) and $\mathbf{C}^{\mathrm{T}}$ the category of $\mathrm{T}$-algebras with the induced model structure (same weak equivalences and fibrations as in the underlying model category $\mathbf{C}$). By definition, the adjuction $\mathrm{T}:\mathbf{C}\rightleftharpoons\mathbf{C}^{\mathrm{T}}: \mathrm{U}$ is monadic. How about the homotopical version, i.e, $\mathbb{L}\mathrm{T}:Ho\mathbf{C}\rightleftharpoons Ho(\mathbf{C}^{\mathrm{T}}): \mathbb{R}\mathrm{U}$

is there any result about the "homotopical" monadicity theorem, which compares $Ho(\mathbf{C}^{\mathrm{T}})$ and $Ho(\mathbf{C})^{\mathbb{L}\mathrm{T}}$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As Mike already said, $Ho(C^T)$ is almost never monadic over $Ho(C)$. However if you are willing to use a homotopy coherent version of a monad and an algebra, Jacob Lurie has an $\infty$-category version of the Barr-Beck/monadicity theorem in his book on higher algebra. $\endgroup$ Feb 13, 2012 at 22:32

2 Answers 2

8
$\begingroup$

$Ho(C^T)$ is almost never monadic over $Ho(C)$. The objects of $Ho(C^T)$ are $T$-algebras in $C$, which means in particular that their $T$-algebra structure commutes strictly, whereas the algebras for the induced monad on $Ho(C)$ will only have algebra structure commuting up to (non-specified, non-coherent) isomorphism.

For instance, if $T$ is the monad derived from an $E_\infty$-operad, then $T$-algebras are $E_\infty$-spaces, whereas $Ho(T)$-algebras are "$H_\infty$-spaces". These have an obstruction theory specifying when they can be $E_\infty$-ized.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Mike: what you said is true if $T$ is the monad associated to an $E_\infty$ operad. In the $A_\infty$ case $Ho(T)$-algebras are homotopy associative H-spaces. Niles Johnson and I have worked out the obstruction theory in lifting a map of $Ho(T)$-algebras to a homotopy class of $T$-algebra maps (under appropriate restrictions) in a forthcoming paper. $\endgroup$ Feb 13, 2012 at 22:22
  • $\begingroup$ Mike, Noel, Thank you for your answers! $\endgroup$
    – Ilias A.
    Feb 14, 2012 at 9:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, Justin! I've corrected the answer. I actually just heard Niles talk about your result (which I think is awesome by the way) at the JMM last month; I should have remembered it and mentioned it. $\endgroup$ Feb 15, 2012 at 5:15
5
$\begingroup$

Maybe an update on the literature on homotopical refinements of monadicity:

The article

  • Kathryn Hess, A general framework for homotopic descent and codescent, (arXiv:1001.1556)

discusses homotopical monadicity in terms of simplicial model categories.

The article

  • Emily Riehl, Dominic Verity, Homotopy coherent adjunctions and the formal theory of monads (arXiv:1310.8279)

discusses it in terms of quasi-categories.

Finally, as mentioned in the comments above

discusses it more abstractly in $\infty$-category theory.

Maybe as a caveat, in Hess's nice article the monads are ordinary (if maybe simplicially enriched) monads on the underlying categories, so that I suppose that there should be some extra discussion of "rectification", namely discussion of under which conditions this presents an $\infty$-monad with all its higher coherence data. See the comments on the nLab at infinity-Monad -- Properties -- Homotopy coherence.

$\endgroup$

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.