Limit of weak equivalences in a Bousfield localization
$begingroup$
Let $M$ be a model category and $C$ a class of maps in it, and assume the left Bousfield localization $L_CM$ exists. Suppose we are given sequences of maps $(p_{n+1}: X_{n+1}to X_n), (q_{n+1}: Y_{n+1}to Y_n), (f_n: X_nto Y_n), n=0, 1,ldots$ with $q_{n+1}f_{n+1}=f_np_{n+1}$, so we get a ladder of commutative squares. If each $p_n$ is a fibration of fibrants in $M$, each $q_n$ is a fibration of fibrants in $L_CM$, and each $f_n$ is a weak equivalence in $L_CM$, can we conclude that the limit map $lim f_n$ is also a weak equivalence in $L_CM$?
For the notion of left Bousfield localization, see Hirschhorn, Model categories and their localizations, chapter 3, 4. See Proposition 15.10.12 in that book for a similar result, my question is by weakening the assumption as well as the conclusion. You may add suitable and reasonable conditions—like simplicial, properness, cofibrantly generated, etc.—if needed.
homotopy-theory model-categories bousfield-localization
asked Dec 25 '18 at 22:19
Lao-tzuLao-tzu
418412
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $M$ be a model category and $C$ a class of maps in it, and assume the left Bousfield localization $L_CM$ exists. Suppose we are given sequences of maps $(p_{n+1}: X_{n+1}to X_n), (q_{n+1}: Y_{n+1}to Y_n), (f_n: X_nto Y_n), n=0, 1,ldots$ with $q_{n+1}f_{n+1}=f_np_{n+1}$, so we get a ladder of commutative squares. If each $p_n$ is a fibration of fibrants in $M$, each $q_n$ is a fibration of fibrants in $L_CM$, and each $f_n$ is a weak equivalence in $L_CM$, can we conclude that the limit map $lim f_n$ is also a weak equivalence in $L_CM$?
For the notion of left Bousfield localization, see Hirschhorn, Model categories and their localizations, chapter 3, 4. See Proposition 15.10.12 in that book for a similar result, my question is by weakening the assumption as well as the conclusion. You may add suitable and reasonable conditions—like simplicial, properness, cofibrantly generated, etc.—if needed.
homotopy-theory model-categories bousfield-localization
asked Dec 25 '18 at 22:19
Lao-tzuLao-tzu
418412
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $M$ be a model category and $C$ a class of maps in it, and assume the left Bousfield localization $L_CM$ exists. Suppose we are given sequences of maps $(p_{n+1}: X_{n+1}to X_n), (q_{n+1}: Y_{n+1}to Y_n), (f_n: X_nto Y_n), n=0, 1,ldots$ with $q_{n+1}f_{n+1}=f_np_{n+1}$, so we get a ladder of commutative squares. If each $p_n$ is a fibration of fibrants in $M$, each $q_n$ is a fibration of fibrants in $L_CM$, and each $f_n$ is a weak equivalence in $L_CM$, can we conclude that the limit map $lim f_n$ is also a weak equivalence in $L_CM$?
For the notion of left Bousfield localization, see Hirschhorn, Model categories and their localizations, chapter 3, 4. See Proposition 15.10.12 in that book for a similar result, my question is by weakening the assumption as well as the conclusion. You may add suitable and reasonable conditions—like simplicial, properness, cofibrantly generated, etc.—if needed.
homotopy-theory model-categories bousfield-localization
asked Dec 25 '18 at 22:19
Lao-tzuLao-tzu
418412
$endgroup$
Let $M$ be a model category and $C$ a class of maps in it, and assume the left Bousfield localization $L_CM$ exists. Suppose we are given sequences of maps $(p_{n+1}: X_{n+1}to X_n), (q_{n+1}: Y_{n+1}to Y_n), (f_n: X_nto Y_n), n=0, 1,ldots$ with $q_{n+1}f_{n+1}=f_np_{n+1}$, so we get a ladder of commutative squares. If each $p_n$ is a fibration of fibrants in $M$, each $q_n$ is a fibration of fibrants in $L_CM$, and each $f_n$ is a weak equivalence in $L_CM$, can we conclude that the limit map $lim f_n$ is also a weak equivalence in $L_CM$?
For the notion of left Bousfield localization, see Hirschhorn, Model categories and their localizations, chapter 3, 4. See Proposition 15.10.12 in that book for a similar result, my question is by weakening the assumption as well as the conclusion. You may add suitable and reasonable conditions—like simplicial, properness, cofibrantly generated, etc.—if needed.
homotopy-theory model-categories bousfield-localization
homotopy-theory model-categories bousfield-localization
asked Dec 25 '18 at 22:19
Lao-tzuLao-tzu
418412
asked Dec 25 '18 at 22:19
Lao-tzuLao-tzu
418412
edited Dec 25 '18 at 22:25
Lao-tzu
asked Dec 25 '18 at 22:19
Lao-tzuLao-tzu
418412
asked Dec 25 '18 at 22:19
Lao-tzuLao-tzu
418412
asked Dec 25 '18 at 22:19
Lao-tzuLao-tzu
418412
418412
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
No. For a counterexample to your claim, consider the model category M
of simplicial presheaves on a small site S equipped with the projective
model structure.
Its fibrant objects are presheaves of Kan complexes.
If C is the set of Čech covers of S, then L_C(M) is the local projective
model structure on simplicial presheaves.
Its fibrant objects are presheaves of Kan complexes that satisfy homotopy descent.
A weak equivalence from a fibrant object in M to a fibrant object in L_C(M)
is a homotopy sheafification map.
Furthermore, the limit of p and q is a homotopy limit in M,
so lim f_n is a weak equivalence if and only if the homotopy sheafification
functor preserves homotopy limits of towers.
This is false for arbitrary sites.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 4:37
Dmitri PavlovDmitri Pavlov
13.1k43482
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
What's your def of homotopy (co)limits? I know it's discussed in the last two chapters of Hirschhorn's book by formulas. But his homotopy limits has not fully homotopy invariance—the objects involved in the diagrams should be fibrant in the model structure. But someone else will take functorial fibrant replacement before using the formulas, which I know is weakly equivalent to the right derived functor of $lim$ in nice cases (and someone always use this right derived functor as def of homotopy limits). Do you know what is the most "correct" and/or most accepted def?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 11:38
$begingroup$
The difficulty of defining homotopy limits and colimits by universal property is one of the main motivations behind $infty$-categories. Without such a definition, all 'definitions' are actually nontrivially equivalent computations.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 12:32
$begingroup$
@Harry Gindi Is the notion of homotopy limits in a model category just a special case of limits for $infty$-categories (when taking the $infty$-category associated to the given model category) or there is some relation you can explain?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 13:11
1
$begingroup$
@DimitriPavlov I found unwinding the functorial case in the relative category model to be highly involved. It is a large portion of the book of Dwyer-Hirschhorn-Kan-Smith. Usually you can punt the question and pop through to the hammock localization and then define it in terms of hom-wise simplicial holims, but in the Quasicategory case, the non-functorial definition amounts to nothing more than a terminal object of a slice over the diagram.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 15:31
1
$begingroup$
@HarryGindi: Sure, the unwinding can be involved, but notice that your original claim was not about the complexity of computations, but rather about the complexity of definitions, a different notion.
$endgroup$
– Dmitri Pavlov
Dec 26 '18 at 15:38
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
In the language of $infty$-categories, which makes it a bit clearer, this is asking for the reflector (left adjoint) of the inclusion of a reflective subcategory to preserve filtered limits. This isn't true for ordinary categories, and there is also no reason to expect it to be true for $infty$-categories.
Hirschhorn's Proposition 15.10.12 says that the homotopy limit of a tower of fibrations can be computed as the ordinary limit. Your modification asks for this homotopy limit to be preserved by the reflector (localization functor).
answered Dec 26 '18 at 5:18
Harry GindiHarry Gindi
9,189778170
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
As for a condition for this to hold, it's true if the $f_n$ are $M$-equivalences, but this makes the statement trivial, since it implies that the $X_n$ are $C$-local and forces the $p_n$ to be local fibrations (by the usual results about left Bousfield localization, being $C$-local is invariant under $M$-equivalence and $M$-fibrations between local objects are also local fibrations.)
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 5:35
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319485%2flimit-of-weak-equivalences-in-a-bousfield-localization%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
$begingroup$
No. For a counterexample to your claim, consider the model category M
of simplicial presheaves on a small site S equipped with the projective
model structure.
Its fibrant objects are presheaves of Kan complexes.
If C is the set of Čech covers of S, then L_C(M) is the local projective
model structure on simplicial presheaves.
Its fibrant objects are presheaves of Kan complexes that satisfy homotopy descent.
A weak equivalence from a fibrant object in M to a fibrant object in L_C(M)
is a homotopy sheafification map.
Furthermore, the limit of p and q is a homotopy limit in M,
so lim f_n is a weak equivalence if and only if the homotopy sheafification
functor preserves homotopy limits of towers.
This is false for arbitrary sites.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 4:37
Dmitri PavlovDmitri Pavlov
13.1k43482
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
What's your def of homotopy (co)limits? I know it's discussed in the last two chapters of Hirschhorn's book by formulas. But his homotopy limits has not fully homotopy invariance—the objects involved in the diagrams should be fibrant in the model structure. But someone else will take functorial fibrant replacement before using the formulas, which I know is weakly equivalent to the right derived functor of $lim$ in nice cases (and someone always use this right derived functor as def of homotopy limits). Do you know what is the most "correct" and/or most accepted def?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 11:38
$begingroup$
The difficulty of defining homotopy limits and colimits by universal property is one of the main motivations behind $infty$-categories. Without such a definition, all 'definitions' are actually nontrivially equivalent computations.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 12:32
$begingroup$
@Harry Gindi Is the notion of homotopy limits in a model category just a special case of limits for $infty$-categories (when taking the $infty$-category associated to the given model category) or there is some relation you can explain?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 13:11
1
$begingroup$
@DimitriPavlov I found unwinding the functorial case in the relative category model to be highly involved. It is a large portion of the book of Dwyer-Hirschhorn-Kan-Smith. Usually you can punt the question and pop through to the hammock localization and then define it in terms of hom-wise simplicial holims, but in the Quasicategory case, the non-functorial definition amounts to nothing more than a terminal object of a slice over the diagram.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 15:31
1
$begingroup$
@HarryGindi: Sure, the unwinding can be involved, but notice that your original claim was not about the complexity of computations, but rather about the complexity of definitions, a different notion.
$endgroup$
– Dmitri Pavlov
Dec 26 '18 at 15:38
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
No. For a counterexample to your claim, consider the model category M
of simplicial presheaves on a small site S equipped with the projective
model structure.
Its fibrant objects are presheaves of Kan complexes.
If C is the set of Čech covers of S, then L_C(M) is the local projective
model structure on simplicial presheaves.
Its fibrant objects are presheaves of Kan complexes that satisfy homotopy descent.
A weak equivalence from a fibrant object in M to a fibrant object in L_C(M)
is a homotopy sheafification map.
Furthermore, the limit of p and q is a homotopy limit in M,
so lim f_n is a weak equivalence if and only if the homotopy sheafification
functor preserves homotopy limits of towers.
This is false for arbitrary sites.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 4:37
Dmitri PavlovDmitri Pavlov
13.1k43482
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
What's your def of homotopy (co)limits? I know it's discussed in the last two chapters of Hirschhorn's book by formulas. But his homotopy limits has not fully homotopy invariance—the objects involved in the diagrams should be fibrant in the model structure. But someone else will take functorial fibrant replacement before using the formulas, which I know is weakly equivalent to the right derived functor of $lim$ in nice cases (and someone always use this right derived functor as def of homotopy limits). Do you know what is the most "correct" and/or most accepted def?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 11:38
$begingroup$
The difficulty of defining homotopy limits and colimits by universal property is one of the main motivations behind $infty$-categories. Without such a definition, all 'definitions' are actually nontrivially equivalent computations.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 12:32
$begingroup$
@Harry Gindi Is the notion of homotopy limits in a model category just a special case of limits for $infty$-categories (when taking the $infty$-category associated to the given model category) or there is some relation you can explain?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 13:11
1
$begingroup$
@DimitriPavlov I found unwinding the functorial case in the relative category model to be highly involved. It is a large portion of the book of Dwyer-Hirschhorn-Kan-Smith. Usually you can punt the question and pop through to the hammock localization and then define it in terms of hom-wise simplicial holims, but in the Quasicategory case, the non-functorial definition amounts to nothing more than a terminal object of a slice over the diagram.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 15:31
1
$begingroup$
@HarryGindi: Sure, the unwinding can be involved, but notice that your original claim was not about the complexity of computations, but rather about the complexity of definitions, a different notion.
$endgroup$
– Dmitri Pavlov
Dec 26 '18 at 15:38
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
No. For a counterexample to your claim, consider the model category M
of simplicial presheaves on a small site S equipped with the projective
model structure.
Its fibrant objects are presheaves of Kan complexes.
If C is the set of Čech covers of S, then L_C(M) is the local projective
model structure on simplicial presheaves.
Its fibrant objects are presheaves of Kan complexes that satisfy homotopy descent.
A weak equivalence from a fibrant object in M to a fibrant object in L_C(M)
is a homotopy sheafification map.
Furthermore, the limit of p and q is a homotopy limit in M,
so lim f_n is a weak equivalence if and only if the homotopy sheafification
functor preserves homotopy limits of towers.
This is false for arbitrary sites.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 4:37
Dmitri PavlovDmitri Pavlov
13.1k43482
$endgroup$
No. For a counterexample to your claim, consider the model category M
of simplicial presheaves on a small site S equipped with the projective
model structure.
Its fibrant objects are presheaves of Kan complexes.
If C is the set of Čech covers of S, then L_C(M) is the local projective
model structure on simplicial presheaves.
Its fibrant objects are presheaves of Kan complexes that satisfy homotopy descent.
A weak equivalence from a fibrant object in M to a fibrant object in L_C(M)
is a homotopy sheafification map.
Furthermore, the limit of p and q is a homotopy limit in M,
so lim f_n is a weak equivalence if and only if the homotopy sheafification
functor preserves homotopy limits of towers.
This is false for arbitrary sites.
answered Dec 26 '18 at 4:37
Dmitri PavlovDmitri Pavlov
13.1k43482
answered Dec 26 '18 at 4:37
Dmitri PavlovDmitri Pavlov
13.1k43482
answered Dec 26 '18 at 4:37
Dmitri PavlovDmitri Pavlov
13.1k43482
answered Dec 26 '18 at 4:37
Dmitri PavlovDmitri Pavlov
13.1k43482
13.1k43482
1
$begingroup$
What's your def of homotopy (co)limits? I know it's discussed in the last two chapters of Hirschhorn's book by formulas. But his homotopy limits has not fully homotopy invariance—the objects involved in the diagrams should be fibrant in the model structure. But someone else will take functorial fibrant replacement before using the formulas, which I know is weakly equivalent to the right derived functor of $lim$ in nice cases (and someone always use this right derived functor as def of homotopy limits). Do you know what is the most "correct" and/or most accepted def?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 11:38
$begingroup$
The difficulty of defining homotopy limits and colimits by universal property is one of the main motivations behind $infty$-categories. Without such a definition, all 'definitions' are actually nontrivially equivalent computations.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 12:32
$begingroup$
@Harry Gindi Is the notion of homotopy limits in a model category just a special case of limits for $infty$-categories (when taking the $infty$-category associated to the given model category) or there is some relation you can explain?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 13:11
1
$begingroup$
@DimitriPavlov I found unwinding the functorial case in the relative category model to be highly involved. It is a large portion of the book of Dwyer-Hirschhorn-Kan-Smith. Usually you can punt the question and pop through to the hammock localization and then define it in terms of hom-wise simplicial holims, but in the Quasicategory case, the non-functorial definition amounts to nothing more than a terminal object of a slice over the diagram.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 15:31
1
$begingroup$
@HarryGindi: Sure, the unwinding can be involved, but notice that your original claim was not about the complexity of computations, but rather about the complexity of definitions, a different notion.
$endgroup$
– Dmitri Pavlov
Dec 26 '18 at 15:38
|
show 14 more comments
1
$begingroup$
What's your def of homotopy (co)limits? I know it's discussed in the last two chapters of Hirschhorn's book by formulas. But his homotopy limits has not fully homotopy invariance—the objects involved in the diagrams should be fibrant in the model structure. But someone else will take functorial fibrant replacement before using the formulas, which I know is weakly equivalent to the right derived functor of $lim$ in nice cases (and someone always use this right derived functor as def of homotopy limits). Do you know what is the most "correct" and/or most accepted def?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 11:38
$begingroup$
The difficulty of defining homotopy limits and colimits by universal property is one of the main motivations behind $infty$-categories. Without such a definition, all 'definitions' are actually nontrivially equivalent computations.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 12:32
$begingroup$
@Harry Gindi Is the notion of homotopy limits in a model category just a special case of limits for $infty$-categories (when taking the $infty$-category associated to the given model category) or there is some relation you can explain?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 13:11
1
$begingroup$
@DimitriPavlov I found unwinding the functorial case in the relative category model to be highly involved. It is a large portion of the book of Dwyer-Hirschhorn-Kan-Smith. Usually you can punt the question and pop through to the hammock localization and then define it in terms of hom-wise simplicial holims, but in the Quasicategory case, the non-functorial definition amounts to nothing more than a terminal object of a slice over the diagram.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 15:31
1
$begingroup$
@HarryGindi: Sure, the unwinding can be involved, but notice that your original claim was not about the complexity of computations, but rather about the complexity of definitions, a different notion.
$endgroup$
– Dmitri Pavlov
Dec 26 '18 at 15:38
1
1
$begingroup$
What's your def of homotopy (co)limits? I know it's discussed in the last two chapters of Hirschhorn's book by formulas. But his homotopy limits has not fully homotopy invariance—the objects involved in the diagrams should be fibrant in the model structure. But someone else will take functorial fibrant replacement before using the formulas, which I know is weakly equivalent to the right derived functor of $lim$ in nice cases (and someone always use this right derived functor as def of homotopy limits). Do you know what is the most "correct" and/or most accepted def?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 11:38
$begingroup$
What's your def of homotopy (co)limits? I know it's discussed in the last two chapters of Hirschhorn's book by formulas. But his homotopy limits has not fully homotopy invariance—the objects involved in the diagrams should be fibrant in the model structure. But someone else will take functorial fibrant replacement before using the formulas, which I know is weakly equivalent to the right derived functor of $lim$ in nice cases (and someone always use this right derived functor as def of homotopy limits). Do you know what is the most "correct" and/or most accepted def?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 11:38
$begingroup$
The difficulty of defining homotopy limits and colimits by universal property is one of the main motivations behind $infty$-categories. Without such a definition, all 'definitions' are actually nontrivially equivalent computations.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 12:32
$begingroup$
The difficulty of defining homotopy limits and colimits by universal property is one of the main motivations behind $infty$-categories. Without such a definition, all 'definitions' are actually nontrivially equivalent computations.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 12:32
$begingroup$
@Harry Gindi Is the notion of homotopy limits in a model category just a special case of limits for $infty$-categories (when taking the $infty$-category associated to the given model category) or there is some relation you can explain?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 13:11
$begingroup$
@Harry Gindi Is the notion of homotopy limits in a model category just a special case of limits for $infty$-categories (when taking the $infty$-category associated to the given model category) or there is some relation you can explain?
$endgroup$
– Lao-tzu
Dec 26 '18 at 13:11
1
1
$begingroup$
@DimitriPavlov I found unwinding the functorial case in the relative category model to be highly involved. It is a large portion of the book of Dwyer-Hirschhorn-Kan-Smith. Usually you can punt the question and pop through to the hammock localization and then define it in terms of hom-wise simplicial holims, but in the Quasicategory case, the non-functorial definition amounts to nothing more than a terminal object of a slice over the diagram.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 15:31
$begingroup$
@DimitriPavlov I found unwinding the functorial case in the relative category model to be highly involved. It is a large portion of the book of Dwyer-Hirschhorn-Kan-Smith. Usually you can punt the question and pop through to the hammock localization and then define it in terms of hom-wise simplicial holims, but in the Quasicategory case, the non-functorial definition amounts to nothing more than a terminal object of a slice over the diagram.
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 15:31
1
1
$begingroup$
@HarryGindi: Sure, the unwinding can be involved, but notice that your original claim was not about the complexity of computations, but rather about the complexity of definitions, a different notion.
$endgroup$
– Dmitri Pavlov
Dec 26 '18 at 15:38
$begingroup$
@HarryGindi: Sure, the unwinding can be involved, but notice that your original claim was not about the complexity of computations, but rather about the complexity of definitions, a different notion.
$endgroup$
– Dmitri Pavlov
Dec 26 '18 at 15:38
|
show 14 more comments
$begingroup$
In the language of $infty$-categories, which makes it a bit clearer, this is asking for the reflector (left adjoint) of the inclusion of a reflective subcategory to preserve filtered limits. This isn't true for ordinary categories, and there is also no reason to expect it to be true for $infty$-categories.
Hirschhorn's Proposition 15.10.12 says that the homotopy limit of a tower of fibrations can be computed as the ordinary limit. Your modification asks for this homotopy limit to be preserved by the reflector (localization functor).
answered Dec 26 '18 at 5:18
Harry GindiHarry Gindi
9,189778170
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
As for a condition for this to hold, it's true if the $f_n$ are $M$-equivalences, but this makes the statement trivial, since it implies that the $X_n$ are $C$-local and forces the $p_n$ to be local fibrations (by the usual results about left Bousfield localization, being $C$-local is invariant under $M$-equivalence and $M$-fibrations between local objects are also local fibrations.)
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 5:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the language of $infty$-categories, which makes it a bit clearer, this is asking for the reflector (left adjoint) of the inclusion of a reflective subcategory to preserve filtered limits. This isn't true for ordinary categories, and there is also no reason to expect it to be true for $infty$-categories.
Hirschhorn's Proposition 15.10.12 says that the homotopy limit of a tower of fibrations can be computed as the ordinary limit. Your modification asks for this homotopy limit to be preserved by the reflector (localization functor).
answered Dec 26 '18 at 5:18
Harry GindiHarry Gindi
9,189778170
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
As for a condition for this to hold, it's true if the $f_n$ are $M$-equivalences, but this makes the statement trivial, since it implies that the $X_n$ are $C$-local and forces the $p_n$ to be local fibrations (by the usual results about left Bousfield localization, being $C$-local is invariant under $M$-equivalence and $M$-fibrations between local objects are also local fibrations.)
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 5:35
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In the language of $infty$-categories, which makes it a bit clearer, this is asking for the reflector (left adjoint) of the inclusion of a reflective subcategory to preserve filtered limits. This isn't true for ordinary categories, and there is also no reason to expect it to be true for $infty$-categories.
Hirschhorn's Proposition 15.10.12 says that the homotopy limit of a tower of fibrations can be computed as the ordinary limit. Your modification asks for this homotopy limit to be preserved by the reflector (localization functor).
answered Dec 26 '18 at 5:18
Harry GindiHarry Gindi
9,189778170
$endgroup$
In the language of $infty$-categories, which makes it a bit clearer, this is asking for the reflector (left adjoint) of the inclusion of a reflective subcategory to preserve filtered limits. This isn't true for ordinary categories, and there is also no reason to expect it to be true for $infty$-categories.
Hirschhorn's Proposition 15.10.12 says that the homotopy limit of a tower of fibrations can be computed as the ordinary limit. Your modification asks for this homotopy limit to be preserved by the reflector (localization functor).
answered Dec 26 '18 at 5:18
Harry GindiHarry Gindi
9,189778170
answered Dec 26 '18 at 5:18
Harry GindiHarry Gindi
9,189778170
answered Dec 26 '18 at 5:18
Harry GindiHarry Gindi
9,189778170
answered Dec 26 '18 at 5:18
Harry GindiHarry Gindi
9,189778170
9,189778170
2
$begingroup$
As for a condition for this to hold, it's true if the $f_n$ are $M$-equivalences, but this makes the statement trivial, since it implies that the $X_n$ are $C$-local and forces the $p_n$ to be local fibrations (by the usual results about left Bousfield localization, being $C$-local is invariant under $M$-equivalence and $M$-fibrations between local objects are also local fibrations.)
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 5:35
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
As for a condition for this to hold, it's true if the $f_n$ are $M$-equivalences, but this makes the statement trivial, since it implies that the $X_n$ are $C$-local and forces the $p_n$ to be local fibrations (by the usual results about left Bousfield localization, being $C$-local is invariant under $M$-equivalence and $M$-fibrations between local objects are also local fibrations.)
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 5:35
2
2
$begingroup$
As for a condition for this to hold, it's true if the $f_n$ are $M$-equivalences, but this makes the statement trivial, since it implies that the $X_n$ are $C$-local and forces the $p_n$ to be local fibrations (by the usual results about left Bousfield localization, being $C$-local is invariant under $M$-equivalence and $M$-fibrations between local objects are also local fibrations.)
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 5:35
$begingroup$
As for a condition for this to hold, it's true if the $f_n$ are $M$-equivalences, but this makes the statement trivial, since it implies that the $X_n$ are $C$-local and forces the $p_n$ to be local fibrations (by the usual results about left Bousfield localization, being $C$-local is invariant under $M$-equivalence and $M$-fibrations between local objects are also local fibrations.)
$endgroup$
– Harry Gindi
Dec 26 '18 at 5:35
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319485%2flimit-of-weak-equivalences-in-a-bousfield-localization%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
