Localization of a model category with respect to a class of maps
I am little bit lost with the following (standard?) problem in model categories.
Suppose we have a Quillen adjunction between combinatorial model categories:
$$L:Mleftrightarrow N: R $$
and let $(M,Cof,Fib, WE)$ denote the model structure on $M$. I would like to know if it is possible to define a new model structure $(M, Cof, Fib^{'}, WE^{'})$ such that $f in WE^{'}$ if and only if $L(f)$ is a weak equivalence in $N$ ?
ct.category-theory homotopy-theory model-categories
edited Nov 11 at 19:42
David White
11.5k460100
asked Nov 11 at 19:12
ABC
755
add a comment |
I am little bit lost with the following (standard?) problem in model categories.
Suppose we have a Quillen adjunction between combinatorial model categories:
$$L:Mleftrightarrow N: R $$
and let $(M,Cof,Fib, WE)$ denote the model structure on $M$. I would like to know if it is possible to define a new model structure $(M, Cof, Fib^{'}, WE^{'})$ such that $f in WE^{'}$ if and only if $L(f)$ is a weak equivalence in $N$ ?
ct.category-theory homotopy-theory model-categories
edited Nov 11 at 19:42
David White
11.5k460100
asked Nov 11 at 19:12
ABC
755
add a comment |
I am little bit lost with the following (standard?) problem in model categories.
Suppose we have a Quillen adjunction between combinatorial model categories:
$$L:Mleftrightarrow N: R $$
and let $(M,Cof,Fib, WE)$ denote the model structure on $M$. I would like to know if it is possible to define a new model structure $(M, Cof, Fib^{'}, WE^{'})$ such that $f in WE^{'}$ if and only if $L(f)$ is a weak equivalence in $N$ ?
ct.category-theory homotopy-theory model-categories
edited Nov 11 at 19:42
David White
11.5k460100
asked Nov 11 at 19:12
ABC
755
I am little bit lost with the following (standard?) problem in model categories.
Suppose we have a Quillen adjunction between combinatorial model categories:
$$L:Mleftrightarrow N: R $$
and let $(M,Cof,Fib, WE)$ denote the model structure on $M$. I would like to know if it is possible to define a new model structure $(M, Cof, Fib^{'}, WE^{'})$ such that $f in WE^{'}$ if and only if $L(f)$ is a weak equivalence in $N$ ?
ct.category-theory homotopy-theory model-categories
ct.category-theory homotopy-theory model-categories
edited Nov 11 at 19:42
David White
11.5k460100
asked Nov 11 at 19:12
ABC
755
edited Nov 11 at 19:42
David White
11.5k460100
asked Nov 11 at 19:12
ABC
755
edited Nov 11 at 19:42
David White
11.5k460100
edited Nov 11 at 19:42
David White
11.5k460100
edited Nov 11 at 19:42
David White
11.5k460100
11.5k460100
asked Nov 11 at 19:12
ABC
755
asked Nov 11 at 19:12
ABC
755
asked Nov 11 at 19:12
ABC
755
755
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
This is a very well-studied problem. Hirschhorn's book proves that, if $M$ is left proper and cellular then localization exists with respect to a set of maps. Jeff Smith figured out how to replace cellular by combinatorial; a nice write-up is in Barwick's paper On Left and Right Model Categories and Left and Right Localizations. For a general class of maps, the existence of the localization is conjecturally equivalent to Vopenka's principle. See The orthogonal subcategory problem in homotopy theory by Casacuberta and Chorny (and, also, Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small).
However, if the class of maps is accessible then Lurie shows how to construct the localization, in Section 5.5 of Higher Topos Theory. Since you start with a left Quillen functor between combinatorial model categories, for you this means $L$ should be an accessible functor and the weak equivalences of $N$ should be of small generation (see Prop 5.5.4.16).
answered Nov 11 at 19:41
David White
11.5k460100
I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
– ABC
Nov 11 at 20:02
Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
– David White
Nov 12 at 14:15
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%2f315092%2flocalization-of-a-model-category-with-respect-to-a-class-of-maps%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
This is a very well-studied problem. Hirschhorn's book proves that, if $M$ is left proper and cellular then localization exists with respect to a set of maps. Jeff Smith figured out how to replace cellular by combinatorial; a nice write-up is in Barwick's paper On Left and Right Model Categories and Left and Right Localizations. For a general class of maps, the existence of the localization is conjecturally equivalent to Vopenka's principle. See The orthogonal subcategory problem in homotopy theory by Casacuberta and Chorny (and, also, Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small).
However, if the class of maps is accessible then Lurie shows how to construct the localization, in Section 5.5 of Higher Topos Theory. Since you start with a left Quillen functor between combinatorial model categories, for you this means $L$ should be an accessible functor and the weak equivalences of $N$ should be of small generation (see Prop 5.5.4.16).
answered Nov 11 at 19:41
David White
11.5k460100
I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
– ABC
Nov 11 at 20:02
Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
– David White
Nov 12 at 14:15
add a comment |
This is a very well-studied problem. Hirschhorn's book proves that, if $M$ is left proper and cellular then localization exists with respect to a set of maps. Jeff Smith figured out how to replace cellular by combinatorial; a nice write-up is in Barwick's paper On Left and Right Model Categories and Left and Right Localizations. For a general class of maps, the existence of the localization is conjecturally equivalent to Vopenka's principle. See The orthogonal subcategory problem in homotopy theory by Casacuberta and Chorny (and, also, Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small).
However, if the class of maps is accessible then Lurie shows how to construct the localization, in Section 5.5 of Higher Topos Theory. Since you start with a left Quillen functor between combinatorial model categories, for you this means $L$ should be an accessible functor and the weak equivalences of $N$ should be of small generation (see Prop 5.5.4.16).
answered Nov 11 at 19:41
David White
11.5k460100
I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
– ABC
Nov 11 at 20:02
Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
– David White
Nov 12 at 14:15
add a comment |
This is a very well-studied problem. Hirschhorn's book proves that, if $M$ is left proper and cellular then localization exists with respect to a set of maps. Jeff Smith figured out how to replace cellular by combinatorial; a nice write-up is in Barwick's paper On Left and Right Model Categories and Left and Right Localizations. For a general class of maps, the existence of the localization is conjecturally equivalent to Vopenka's principle. See The orthogonal subcategory problem in homotopy theory by Casacuberta and Chorny (and, also, Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small).
However, if the class of maps is accessible then Lurie shows how to construct the localization, in Section 5.5 of Higher Topos Theory. Since you start with a left Quillen functor between combinatorial model categories, for you this means $L$ should be an accessible functor and the weak equivalences of $N$ should be of small generation (see Prop 5.5.4.16).
answered Nov 11 at 19:41
David White
11.5k460100
This is a very well-studied problem. Hirschhorn's book proves that, if $M$ is left proper and cellular then localization exists with respect to a set of maps. Jeff Smith figured out how to replace cellular by combinatorial; a nice write-up is in Barwick's paper On Left and Right Model Categories and Left and Right Localizations. For a general class of maps, the existence of the localization is conjecturally equivalent to Vopenka's principle. See The orthogonal subcategory problem in homotopy theory by Casacuberta and Chorny (and, also, Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small).
However, if the class of maps is accessible then Lurie shows how to construct the localization, in Section 5.5 of Higher Topos Theory. Since you start with a left Quillen functor between combinatorial model categories, for you this means $L$ should be an accessible functor and the weak equivalences of $N$ should be of small generation (see Prop 5.5.4.16).
answered Nov 11 at 19:41
David White
11.5k460100
answered Nov 11 at 19:41
David White
11.5k460100
answered Nov 11 at 19:41
David White
11.5k460100
answered Nov 11 at 19:41
David White
11.5k460100
11.5k460100
I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
– ABC
Nov 11 at 20:02
Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
– David White
Nov 12 at 14:15
add a comment |
I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
– ABC
Nov 11 at 20:02
Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
– David White
Nov 12 at 14:15
I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
– ABC
Nov 11 at 20:02
I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
– ABC
Nov 11 at 20:02
Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
– David White
Nov 12 at 14:15
Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
– David White
Nov 12 at 14:15
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.
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.
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%2f315092%2flocalization-of-a-model-category-with-respect-to-a-class-of-maps%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
