Theorem 2.1.2.2 Higher Topos Theory











up vote
6
down vote

favorite












At the page 74 of HTT, there is the following theorem




Let $S$ be a simplicial set, $mathcal{C}$ a simplicial category, and $phi: mathfrak{C}[S] rightarrow mathcal{C}^{op}$ a simplicial functor. The straightening and unstraigntening functors determine a Quillen adjunction
$$ St_{phi} : (Set_{Delta})_{/S} leftrightarrows Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}} :Un_{phi}$$
where $(Set_{Delta})_{/S}$ is endowed with the contravariant model structure and $Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}}$ with the projective model structure. [...]




In then says that the proof is easy, but I can't manage to show that $St_{phi}$ sends cofibrations to projective cofibrations. I thought that since the the class of morphisms which are sent to projective cofibrations is weakly saturated it is enough to show the result for all inclusions $partial Delta^n subseteq Delta^n$.



I did not have much success for the simplicial category $mathcal{C}$ and the map $phi$ could be anything and I have a hard time dealing with it.



Furthermore there is something else which troubles me: the model structure on the $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ makes no use of the simplicial enrichement on both $mathcal{C}$ and $sSet$ so I was wondering if I was not missing something by believing that the that model structure on $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ is really the projective model structure coming from the Kan model structure on $sSet$ and not the one coming somehow from an other model stucture using the simplicial enrichement.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
    – Watson
    Nov 28 at 10:36






  • 1




    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
    – Denis Nardin
    Nov 28 at 11:16

















up vote
6
down vote

favorite












At the page 74 of HTT, there is the following theorem




Let $S$ be a simplicial set, $mathcal{C}$ a simplicial category, and $phi: mathfrak{C}[S] rightarrow mathcal{C}^{op}$ a simplicial functor. The straightening and unstraigntening functors determine a Quillen adjunction
$$ St_{phi} : (Set_{Delta})_{/S} leftrightarrows Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}} :Un_{phi}$$
where $(Set_{Delta})_{/S}$ is endowed with the contravariant model structure and $Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}}$ with the projective model structure. [...]




In then says that the proof is easy, but I can't manage to show that $St_{phi}$ sends cofibrations to projective cofibrations. I thought that since the the class of morphisms which are sent to projective cofibrations is weakly saturated it is enough to show the result for all inclusions $partial Delta^n subseteq Delta^n$.



I did not have much success for the simplicial category $mathcal{C}$ and the map $phi$ could be anything and I have a hard time dealing with it.



Furthermore there is something else which troubles me: the model structure on the $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ makes no use of the simplicial enrichement on both $mathcal{C}$ and $sSet$ so I was wondering if I was not missing something by believing that the that model structure on $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ is really the projective model structure coming from the Kan model structure on $sSet$ and not the one coming somehow from an other model stucture using the simplicial enrichement.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
    – Watson
    Nov 28 at 10:36






  • 1




    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
    – Denis Nardin
    Nov 28 at 11:16















up vote
6
down vote

favorite









up vote
6
down vote

favorite











At the page 74 of HTT, there is the following theorem




Let $S$ be a simplicial set, $mathcal{C}$ a simplicial category, and $phi: mathfrak{C}[S] rightarrow mathcal{C}^{op}$ a simplicial functor. The straightening and unstraigntening functors determine a Quillen adjunction
$$ St_{phi} : (Set_{Delta})_{/S} leftrightarrows Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}} :Un_{phi}$$
where $(Set_{Delta})_{/S}$ is endowed with the contravariant model structure and $Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}}$ with the projective model structure. [...]




In then says that the proof is easy, but I can't manage to show that $St_{phi}$ sends cofibrations to projective cofibrations. I thought that since the the class of morphisms which are sent to projective cofibrations is weakly saturated it is enough to show the result for all inclusions $partial Delta^n subseteq Delta^n$.



I did not have much success for the simplicial category $mathcal{C}$ and the map $phi$ could be anything and I have a hard time dealing with it.



Furthermore there is something else which troubles me: the model structure on the $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ makes no use of the simplicial enrichement on both $mathcal{C}$ and $sSet$ so I was wondering if I was not missing something by believing that the that model structure on $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ is really the projective model structure coming from the Kan model structure on $sSet$ and not the one coming somehow from an other model stucture using the simplicial enrichement.










share|cite|improve this question













At the page 74 of HTT, there is the following theorem




Let $S$ be a simplicial set, $mathcal{C}$ a simplicial category, and $phi: mathfrak{C}[S] rightarrow mathcal{C}^{op}$ a simplicial functor. The straightening and unstraigntening functors determine a Quillen adjunction
$$ St_{phi} : (Set_{Delta})_{/S} leftrightarrows Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}} :Un_{phi}$$
where $(Set_{Delta})_{/S}$ is endowed with the contravariant model structure and $Set_{Delta}^{mathcal{C}}$ with the projective model structure. [...]




In then says that the proof is easy, but I can't manage to show that $St_{phi}$ sends cofibrations to projective cofibrations. I thought that since the the class of morphisms which are sent to projective cofibrations is weakly saturated it is enough to show the result for all inclusions $partial Delta^n subseteq Delta^n$.



I did not have much success for the simplicial category $mathcal{C}$ and the map $phi$ could be anything and I have a hard time dealing with it.



Furthermore there is something else which troubles me: the model structure on the $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ makes no use of the simplicial enrichement on both $mathcal{C}$ and $sSet$ so I was wondering if I was not missing something by believing that the that model structure on $Set^{mathcal{C}}_{Delta}$ is really the projective model structure coming from the Kan model structure on $sSet$ and not the one coming somehow from an other model stucture using the simplicial enrichement.







ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff model-categories






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 28 at 10:32









Valérian Montessuit

463




463








  • 1




    Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
    – Watson
    Nov 28 at 10:36






  • 1




    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
    – Denis Nardin
    Nov 28 at 11:16
















  • 1




    Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
    – Watson
    Nov 28 at 10:36






  • 1




    Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
    – Denis Nardin
    Nov 28 at 11:16










1




1




Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
– Watson
Nov 28 at 10:36




Cross-posted: math.stackexchange.com/questions/3013094
– Watson
Nov 28 at 10:36




1




1




Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
– Denis Nardin
Nov 28 at 11:16






Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you aware that $Set_Delta^{mathcal{C}}$ is the category simplicial functors, i.e. the functors that preserve the simplicial enrichment? The projective model structure in question is that of section A.3.3
– Denis Nardin
Nov 28 at 11:16












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













First, notice that if $Xhookrightarrow Y$ is an injective map over $S$, then the map $M_{X,phi} to M_{Y,phi}$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories. To see this, notice that it is a pushout of the map $M_{X,id}to M_{Y,id},$ which can easily be verified to be a cofibration, as it is the image of the injective map $$X^trianglerightcoprod_X S hookrightarrow Y^triangleright coprod_Y S$$ under the functor $mathfrak{C},$ which preserves cofibrations.



Then we see that if $Cto D$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories, then given any $xin C$ such that $C(-,x)$ is projectively cofibrant, the induced natural transformation $C(-, x)to D(f-,fx)$ is a projective cofibration by A.3.3.9.ii.



The last thing that remains to be proved is that $M_{phi,X}(-,p),$ where $p$ denotes the image of the cone point, is projectively cofibrant. The previous revision to this answer did not answer this question, and I am leaving it open until I have more time later or until someone adds an answer.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 12:57










  • I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 13:10


















up vote
4
down vote













I think what Lurie might have meant when he wrote "It is easy to see that $St_{phi}$ preserves cofibrations" in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1.2, is that it is easy to see it if you take into account the compatibility of straightening with left Kan extensions as described just above in Proposition 2.2.1.1. Indeed, combining (1) and (2) of the latter proposition we see that given any generating cofibration $partial Delta^n to Delta^n to S$ in $({rm Set}_{Delta})_{/S}$, in order to show that $St_{phi}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{{cal C}}$ it is enough to show that $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}}$. The map $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ can then be described very explicitly, and one can check that it is a pushout of a map of the form $(i_0)_!partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (i_0)_!(Delta^1)^n$, where $(i_0)_!$ denotes the left Kan extension functor along the terminal object inclusion ${0} subseteq mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}$ and $partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (Delta^1)^n$ is the inclusion of the boundary of the $n$-cube inside the full $n$-cube.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 17:10













Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f316393%2ftheorem-2-1-2-2-higher-topos-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
5
down vote













First, notice that if $Xhookrightarrow Y$ is an injective map over $S$, then the map $M_{X,phi} to M_{Y,phi}$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories. To see this, notice that it is a pushout of the map $M_{X,id}to M_{Y,id},$ which can easily be verified to be a cofibration, as it is the image of the injective map $$X^trianglerightcoprod_X S hookrightarrow Y^triangleright coprod_Y S$$ under the functor $mathfrak{C},$ which preserves cofibrations.



Then we see that if $Cto D$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories, then given any $xin C$ such that $C(-,x)$ is projectively cofibrant, the induced natural transformation $C(-, x)to D(f-,fx)$ is a projective cofibration by A.3.3.9.ii.



The last thing that remains to be proved is that $M_{phi,X}(-,p),$ where $p$ denotes the image of the cone point, is projectively cofibrant. The previous revision to this answer did not answer this question, and I am leaving it open until I have more time later or until someone adds an answer.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 12:57










  • I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 13:10















up vote
5
down vote













First, notice that if $Xhookrightarrow Y$ is an injective map over $S$, then the map $M_{X,phi} to M_{Y,phi}$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories. To see this, notice that it is a pushout of the map $M_{X,id}to M_{Y,id},$ which can easily be verified to be a cofibration, as it is the image of the injective map $$X^trianglerightcoprod_X S hookrightarrow Y^triangleright coprod_Y S$$ under the functor $mathfrak{C},$ which preserves cofibrations.



Then we see that if $Cto D$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories, then given any $xin C$ such that $C(-,x)$ is projectively cofibrant, the induced natural transformation $C(-, x)to D(f-,fx)$ is a projective cofibration by A.3.3.9.ii.



The last thing that remains to be proved is that $M_{phi,X}(-,p),$ where $p$ denotes the image of the cone point, is projectively cofibrant. The previous revision to this answer did not answer this question, and I am leaving it open until I have more time later or until someone adds an answer.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 12:57










  • I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 13:10













up vote
5
down vote










up vote
5
down vote









First, notice that if $Xhookrightarrow Y$ is an injective map over $S$, then the map $M_{X,phi} to M_{Y,phi}$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories. To see this, notice that it is a pushout of the map $M_{X,id}to M_{Y,id},$ which can easily be verified to be a cofibration, as it is the image of the injective map $$X^trianglerightcoprod_X S hookrightarrow Y^triangleright coprod_Y S$$ under the functor $mathfrak{C},$ which preserves cofibrations.



Then we see that if $Cto D$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories, then given any $xin C$ such that $C(-,x)$ is projectively cofibrant, the induced natural transformation $C(-, x)to D(f-,fx)$ is a projective cofibration by A.3.3.9.ii.



The last thing that remains to be proved is that $M_{phi,X}(-,p),$ where $p$ denotes the image of the cone point, is projectively cofibrant. The previous revision to this answer did not answer this question, and I am leaving it open until I have more time later or until someone adds an answer.






share|cite|improve this answer














First, notice that if $Xhookrightarrow Y$ is an injective map over $S$, then the map $M_{X,phi} to M_{Y,phi}$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories. To see this, notice that it is a pushout of the map $M_{X,id}to M_{Y,id},$ which can easily be verified to be a cofibration, as it is the image of the injective map $$X^trianglerightcoprod_X S hookrightarrow Y^triangleright coprod_Y S$$ under the functor $mathfrak{C},$ which preserves cofibrations.



Then we see that if $Cto D$ is a cofibration of simplicial categories, then given any $xin C$ such that $C(-,x)$ is projectively cofibrant, the induced natural transformation $C(-, x)to D(f-,fx)$ is a projective cofibration by A.3.3.9.ii.



The last thing that remains to be proved is that $M_{phi,X}(-,p),$ where $p$ denotes the image of the cone point, is projectively cofibrant. The previous revision to this answer did not answer this question, and I am leaving it open until I have more time later or until someone adds an answer.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 28 at 13:02

























answered Nov 28 at 12:05









Harry Gindi

8,673675164




8,673675164












  • I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 12:57










  • I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 13:10


















  • I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 12:57










  • I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 13:10
















I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
– Harry Gindi
Nov 28 at 12:57




I just realized there's still a minor gap here: It's not clear from what I wrote why $M_{X,phi}(-,p)$ where $p$ is the image of the cone point is projectively cofibrant, which you need to apply A.3.3.9.ii. I'll figure it out later if still nobody has answered.
– Harry Gindi
Nov 28 at 12:57












I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
– Harry Gindi
Nov 28 at 13:10




I think the projective cofibrancy can be shown to follow in the special case of the above argument by taking $X=emptyset$ and $Y=X$, since in this case the straightening of the empty simplicial set over $S$ can be computed by hand to be the constant functor hitting the empty simplicial set, but I have to work it out.
– Harry Gindi
Nov 28 at 13:10










up vote
4
down vote













I think what Lurie might have meant when he wrote "It is easy to see that $St_{phi}$ preserves cofibrations" in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1.2, is that it is easy to see it if you take into account the compatibility of straightening with left Kan extensions as described just above in Proposition 2.2.1.1. Indeed, combining (1) and (2) of the latter proposition we see that given any generating cofibration $partial Delta^n to Delta^n to S$ in $({rm Set}_{Delta})_{/S}$, in order to show that $St_{phi}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{{cal C}}$ it is enough to show that $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}}$. The map $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ can then be described very explicitly, and one can check that it is a pushout of a map of the form $(i_0)_!partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (i_0)_!(Delta^1)^n$, where $(i_0)_!$ denotes the left Kan extension functor along the terminal object inclusion ${0} subseteq mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}$ and $partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (Delta^1)^n$ is the inclusion of the boundary of the $n$-cube inside the full $n$-cube.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 17:10

















up vote
4
down vote













I think what Lurie might have meant when he wrote "It is easy to see that $St_{phi}$ preserves cofibrations" in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1.2, is that it is easy to see it if you take into account the compatibility of straightening with left Kan extensions as described just above in Proposition 2.2.1.1. Indeed, combining (1) and (2) of the latter proposition we see that given any generating cofibration $partial Delta^n to Delta^n to S$ in $({rm Set}_{Delta})_{/S}$, in order to show that $St_{phi}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{{cal C}}$ it is enough to show that $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}}$. The map $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ can then be described very explicitly, and one can check that it is a pushout of a map of the form $(i_0)_!partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (i_0)_!(Delta^1)^n$, where $(i_0)_!$ denotes the left Kan extension functor along the terminal object inclusion ${0} subseteq mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}$ and $partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (Delta^1)^n$ is the inclusion of the boundary of the $n$-cube inside the full $n$-cube.






share|cite|improve this answer

















  • 1




    I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 17:10















up vote
4
down vote










up vote
4
down vote









I think what Lurie might have meant when he wrote "It is easy to see that $St_{phi}$ preserves cofibrations" in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1.2, is that it is easy to see it if you take into account the compatibility of straightening with left Kan extensions as described just above in Proposition 2.2.1.1. Indeed, combining (1) and (2) of the latter proposition we see that given any generating cofibration $partial Delta^n to Delta^n to S$ in $({rm Set}_{Delta})_{/S}$, in order to show that $St_{phi}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{{cal C}}$ it is enough to show that $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}}$. The map $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ can then be described very explicitly, and one can check that it is a pushout of a map of the form $(i_0)_!partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (i_0)_!(Delta^1)^n$, where $(i_0)_!$ denotes the left Kan extension functor along the terminal object inclusion ${0} subseteq mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}$ and $partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (Delta^1)^n$ is the inclusion of the boundary of the $n$-cube inside the full $n$-cube.






share|cite|improve this answer












I think what Lurie might have meant when he wrote "It is easy to see that $St_{phi}$ preserves cofibrations" in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1.2, is that it is easy to see it if you take into account the compatibility of straightening with left Kan extensions as described just above in Proposition 2.2.1.1. Indeed, combining (1) and (2) of the latter proposition we see that given any generating cofibration $partial Delta^n to Delta^n to S$ in $({rm Set}_{Delta})_{/S}$, in order to show that $St_{phi}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{{cal C}}$ it is enough to show that $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ is a projective cofibration in ${rm Set}_{Delta}^{mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}}$. The map $St_{Id}(partial Delta^n to Delta^n)$ can then be described very explicitly, and one can check that it is a pushout of a map of the form $(i_0)_!partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (i_0)_!(Delta^1)^n$, where $(i_0)_!$ denotes the left Kan extension functor along the terminal object inclusion ${0} subseteq mathfrak{C}[Delta^n]^{op}$ and $partial ((Delta^1)^n) to (Delta^1)^n$ is the inclusion of the boundary of the $n$-cube inside the full $n$-cube.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 28 at 17:03









Yonatan Harpaz

6,1861840




6,1861840








  • 1




    I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 17:10
















  • 1




    I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
    – Harry Gindi
    Nov 28 at 17:10










1




1




I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
– Harry Gindi
Nov 28 at 17:10






I wrote up a proof of 2.2.1.1 that now appears on the nLab page ncatlab.org/nlab/show/(infinity%2C1)-Grothendieck+construction (search for my name). It's not so obvious, but together with your answer, it provides the full answer!
– Harry Gindi
Nov 28 at 17:10




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f316393%2ftheorem-2-1-2-2-higher-topos-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater