We say that a class of maps in a category has the three-for-two property if for any commutative triangle
in which two of the three maps belong to , then so is the third.
We call this property three-for-two rather than two-for-three because this is like getting three apples for the price of two in a food store.
We shall say that a triple of classes of maps in finitely bicomplete category is a Quillen model structure, or just a model structure, if the following conditions are satisfied: * the class has the three-for-two property; * The pairs and are weak factorisation systems.
A Quillen model category, or just a model category, is a category equipped with a model structure.
The definition above is equivalent to the notion of closed model structure introduced by Quillen. The proof of the equivalence depends on Tierneyβs lemma below.
A map in is called a fibration, a map in a cofibration and a map in a weak equivalence. A map in is also said to be acyclic. It follows from the axioms that every map admits a factorisation with an acyclic cofibration and a fibration, and also a factorisation with a cofibration and an acyclic fibration.
An object is said to be fibrant if the map is a fibration, where is the terminal object of . Dually, an object is said to be cofibrant if the map is a cofibration, where is the initial object. We shall say that an object is fibrant-cofibrant if it is both fibrant and cofibrant.
A model structure is said to be right proper if the base change of a weak equivalence along a fibration is a weak equivalence. Dually, a model structure is said to be left proper if the cobase change of a weak equivalence along a cofibration is a weak equivalence. A model structure is said to be proper if it is both left and right proper.
We shall say that a model structure on a category is trivial if is the class of isomorphisms, in which case .
We shall say that a model structure on a category is coarse if is the class of all maps, in which case the pair is just an arbitrary weak factorisation system in the category .
For less trivial examples, see .
If is a model structure on a category , then the triple is a model structure on the opposite category .
If is an object of a category and is a class of maps in , we shall denote by the class of maps in whose underlying map in belongs to . Dually, we shall denote by the class of maps in whose underlying map belongs to .
If is a model structure on a category , then the triple is a model structure in the slice category for any object . Dually, the triple is a model structure in the coslice category .
This follows from the analogous properties of weak factorisation systems here.
The classes , , and are closed under composition and retracts. The classes and are closed under base changes and products. The classes and are closed under cobase changes and coproducts. The intersection is the class of isomorphisms.
This follows directly from the general properties of the classes of a weak factorisation system here.
A retract of a fibrant object is fibrant. A product of a family of fibrant objects is fibrant. Dually, a retract of a cofibrant object is cofibrant. A coproduct of a family of cofibrant objects is cofibrant.
If an object is a retract of an object , then the map is a retract of the map . If an object is the product of a family of object , then the map is the product of the family of maps .
(Myles Tierney) The class is closed under retracts.
Notice first that the class is closed under retracts by Proposition . Suppose now that a map is a retract of a map in . We want to show . We have a commutative diagram
with and . We suppose first that is a fibration. In this case, factor as with an acyclic cofibration and a fibration. The map is acyclic by three-for-two, since and are acyclic. The square
has a diagonal filler , since is a fibration. We get a commutative diagram
The map is a retract of , since . Thus, is acyclic, since is an acyclic fibration. In the general case, factor as with an acyclic cofibration and a fibration. By taking a pushout we obtain a commutative diagram
where and . The map is a cobase change of , so is an acyclic cofibration, since is. Thus, is acyclic by three-for-two, since is acyclic by assumption. So is acyclic by the first part, since is a fibration. Finally, is acyclic, since is acyclic.
The homotopy category of a model category is defined to be the category of fractions
The canonical functor is a localisation with respects to the maps in . Recall that a functor is said to invert a map if the morphism is invertible. The functor inverts the maps in and for any functor which inverts the maps in , there is a unique functor such that . We shall see in theorem that a map in the category is acyclic if and only if it is inverted by the functor . We shall see in corollary that the category is locally small if the category is locally small.
We denote by (resp. , ) the full subcategory of spanned by the fibrant (resp. cofibrant, fibrant-cofibrant) objects of . If is a class of maps in , we shall put
Let us put
Then the square of inclusions,
induces a commutative square of categories and canonical functors,
We shall see in theorem that the four functors in the square are equivalences of categories.
The following result is easy to prove but technically useful:
The pair and the pair are weak factorisation systems in the category . The pair and the pair are weak factorisation systems in the category . The pair and the pair are weak factorisation systems in the category .
Let us how that the pair is a weak factorisation system in . We shall use the characterisation of a weak factorisation system here. Obviously, we have for every and . If is a map between fibrant objects, let us choose a factoriation with an acyclic cofibration and a fibration. The object is fibrant, since is a fibration and is fibrant. This shows that and . Finally, the class is closed under codomain retracts, since a retract of a fibrant object is fibrant. Similarly, the class is closed under domain retracts.
The inclusion is a cofibration if is cofibrant, and the inclusion is a cofibration if is cofibrant.
The inclusion is a cobase change of the map , since the square
is a pushout. Hence the map is a cofibration if is cofibrant (since the class of cofibrations is closed under cobase changes by Proposition )
A cylinder for an object is a quadruple obtained by factoring the codiagonal as a cofibration followed by a weak equivalence .
The notation introduced by Quillen suggests that a cylinder represents the first two terms of a cosimplicial object
with and . This is the notion of a cosimplicial framing? of an object . Beware that if and are the maps in the category , then and . We may think of a cylinder has an oriented object with two faces, with the face representing the source of the cylinder and the face representing the target.
The transpose of a cylinder is the cylinder .
The maps and are acyclic, and they are acyclic cofibrations when is cofibrant.
The map and are acyclic by three-for-two, since we have and is acyclic. If is cofibrant, then the inclusions and are cofibrations by Lemma . Hence also the composite and (since the class of cofibrations is closed under composition by Proposition ).
A mapping cylinder of a map is obtained by factoring the map as a cofibration followed by a weak equivalence . We then have and . The factorisation
is called the mapping cylinder factorisation of the map . The map is acyclic by three-for-two, since is acyclic and we have .
The maps is a cofibration when is cofibrant, and the map is a cofibration when is cofibrant.
The inclusion is a cofibration when is cofibrant by Lemma . Hence also the composite in this case. The inclusion is a cofibration when is cofibrant by Lemma . Hence also the composite in this case.
If is cofibrant, then a mapping cylinder for a map can be constructed from a cylinder by the following diagram with a pushout square
We have and by construction. The map is a cofibration by cobase change, since the map is a cofibration. Let us show that is acyclic. For this, it suffices to show that is acyclic by three-for-two, since . The two squares of the following diagram are pushout,
hence also their composite,
by the lemma here. This shows that the map is a cobase change of the map . But is an acyclic cofibration by Lemma , since is cofibrant. It follows that is an acyclic cofibration (since the class of acyclic cofibrations is closed under cobase changes by Proposition ).
(Ken Brown 1) Let be a model category and let be a functor defined on the sub-category of cofibrant objects and taking its values in a category equipped with class of weak equivalences containing the units and satisfying three-for-two. If the functor takes an acyclic cofibration to a weak equivalence, then it takes an acyclic map to a weak equivalence.
If is an acyclic map between cofibrant objects, let us choose a mapping cylinder factorisation . The maps and are cofibrations by Lemma , since and are cofibrant. The map is acyclic by three-for-two, since and is acyclic. Thus, is a weak equivalence. Hence also the map by three-for-two since we have and contains the units. The map is acyclic by three-for-two, since and and are acyclic. Thus, is a weak equivalence, and it follows by three-for-two that is a weak equivalence since .
Recall that a functor is said to invert a morphism in its domain if it takes this morphism to an isomorphism.
(Ken Brown 2)
If a functor inverts acyclic cofibrations, then it inverts weak equivalences.
If a functor inverts acyclic fibrations, then it inverts weak equivalences.
Ken Brownβs lemma implies that the inclusion induces an isomorphism of categories,
If is a cyclinder for , then a left homotopy between two maps is a map such that and and . We shall say that is the source of the homotopy and that is the target,
The reverse of an homotopy is the homotopy defined by the same map but on the transpose cylinder . The homotopy unit of a map is defined by the map .
Two maps are left homotopic, , if there exists a left homotopy with domain some cylinder object for .
The left homotopy relation between the maps can be defined on a fixed cylinder for , when is fibrant.
Let us show that if two maps are homotopic by virtue of a homotopy defined on a cylinder , then then they are homotopic by virtue of a homotopy defined on any another cylinder . By assumption, we have for a map . Let us choose a factorisation with an acyclic cofibration and a fibration. The map is acyclic by three-for-two, since the maps and are. Hence the square
has a diagonal filler since the map is a cofibration. But the square
has also a diagonal filler , since is an acyclic cofibration and is fibrant. The composite is a left homotopy .
If a functor inverts weak equivalences, then the implication
is true for any pair of maps in . The same result is true for a functor defined on or on .
If is a cylinder for , then the map is invertible by the assumption of since is acyclic. Hence we have , since we have
If is a homotopy between two map , then
Let us now consider the case where the domain of the functor is the category . Observe that if is cofibrant, then so is the object in a cylinder , since the map is a cofibration and the object is cofibrant (since a coproduct of cofibrant objects is cofibrant by Corollary ). Hence the cylinder belongs to the category and the proof above can be repeated in this case. Let us now consider the case where the domain of the functor is the category . In this case the left homotopy relation between the maps can defined on a fixed cylinder for by Lemma , since is fibrant. A cylinder for can be constructed by factoring the map as an acyclic cofibration followed by a fibration . The object is cofibrant, since is cofibrant. But is also fibrant, since is a fibration and is fibrant. Hence the cylinder belongs to the category and the proof above can be repeated.
The left homotopy relation on the set of maps is reflexive and symmetric. We shall denote by the quotient of the set by the equivalence relation generated by the left homotopy relation. The relation is compatible with composition on the left: the implication
is true for every maps and . This defines a functor
The left homotopy relation between the maps is an equivalence when is cofibrant.
Cylinders for can be composed as cospan. More precisely, the composite of a cylinder with a cylinder is the cylinder defined by the following diagram with a pushout square,
The map is defined by the condition and . Let us show that is acyclic. The map is an acyclic cofibration by Lemma , since is cofibrant. It follows that is an acyclic cofibration, since it is a cobase change of . Hence the map is acyclic by three-for-two, since we have and the maps and are acyclic. It remains to show that the map is a cofibration. For this, we can use the following diagram with a pushout square,
The map in this diagram is a cobase change of the map . But the map is a cofibration, since the maps and are cofibrations. This proves that the map is a cofibration. It follows that the composite is a cofibration, since the map is a cofibration by Lemma . We have proved that is a cylinder for . We can now prove that the left homotopy relation on the set of maps is transitive. Let and be three maps and suppose that is a left homotopy , and is a left homotopy . There is then a unique map such that and , since . This defines a homotopy , since and .
(Covering homotopy theorem) Let be cofibrant, let be a fibration, let , and let be a left homotopy with source . Then there exists a left homotopy with source such that .
The square
has a diagonal filler , since is an acyclic cofibration by Lemma and is a fibration.
(Homotopy lifting lemma) Let be an acyclic fibration, let and , and let be a left homotopy . Then there exists a map defining a left homotopy such that .
The square
has a diagonal filler , since is a cofibration and is an acylic fibration.
If is cofibrant, then the functor inverts acyclic maps between fibrant objects.
Let us first show that the functor inverts acyclic fibrations. If is an acyclic fibration and , then the square
has a diagonal filler, since is cofibrant and is an acyclic fibration. Hence there exists a map such that . This shows that the map is surjective. Let us show that it is injective. If and , then by the homotopy lifting lemma . We have proved that the map is bijective. It then follows from Ken Brownβs lemma that that the functor inverts acyclic maps between fibrant objects.
A map which is left homotopic to an acyclic map is acyclic.
Let be a left homotopy between two maps and . If is acyclic, then so is by three-for-two, since is acyclic. Hence the composite is acyclic by three-for-two, since is acyclic.
(Dual to Lemma ) The projection is a fibration if is fibrant, and the projection is a fibration if is fibrant
A path object for an object is a quadruple obtained by factoring the diagonal as a weak equivalence followed by a fibration .
The notation introduced by Quillen suggests that a path object represents the first two terms of a simplicial object
with and . This is the notion of simplicial framing? of an object . Beware that the source of a 1-simplex in a simplicial set is the vertex , and that its target is the vertex .
The transpose of a path object is the path object .
(Dual to Lemma ) The maps and are acyclic, and they are are acyclic fibrations when is fibrant.
A mapping path object of a map is obtained by factoring the map
as a weak equivalence followed by a fibration . By construction, we have and . The factorisation
is called the mapping path factorisation of the map . The map is acyclic by three-for-two, since is acyclic and .
If is fibrant, then a mapping path object for a map can be constructed from a path object for by the following diagram with a pullback square,
We have and by construction. The map is a fibration by base change, since the map is. Let us show that the map is acyclic. For this, it suffices to show that is acyclic by three-for-two, since . The two squares of the following diagram are cartesian,
hence also their composite,
by the lemma here. Hence the map is a base change of the map . But is an acyclic fibration by Lemma , since is fibrant. This shows that the map is acyclic (since the base change of an acyclic fibration is an acyclic fibration by Proposition ).
If is a path object for , then a right homotopy between two maps is defined to be a map such that and . We shall say that is the source of the homotopy and that is its target .
The reverse of is the homotopy defined by the same map but on the transpose path object . The unit homotopy of a map is the map .
Two maps are right homotopic, , if there exists a right homotopy with codomain a path object for .
(Dual to Lemma ) The right homotopy relation between the maps can be defined on a fixed path object for when is cofibrant.
We shall denote by the quotient of by the equivalence relation generated by the right homotopy relation. The right homotopy relation is compatible with composition on the right:
for every map . We thus obtain a functor
(Dual to Lemma ) The right homotopy relation between the maps is an equivalence when is fibrant.
(Homotopy extension theorem, dual to Lemma ). Let be fibrant, let be a cofibration, let , and let be a right homotopy with source . Then there exists a right homotopy with source such that .
(Homotopy prolongation lemma, dual to Lemma ) Let be fibrant, let be an acyclic cofibration, let and , and let be a right homotopy . Then there exists a map defining a right homotopy such that .
(Dual to Lemma ) If is fibrant, then the functor inverts acyclic maps between cofibrant objects.
If is a cylinder object for and is a path object for , then a map is double homotopy between four maps ,
The four corners of the square are representing maps , the horizontal sides are representing left homotopies, and the vertical sides are representing right homotopies.
If is fibrant, then every open box of three homotopies, opened at the top, between four maps ,
can be filled by a double homotopy (ie , and ).
The square
has a diagonal filler , since is a cofibration and is an acyclic fibration by Lemma .
If is fibrant, then the right homotopy relation on the set of maps implies the left homotopy relation. Dually, if is cofibrant, then the left homotopy relation implies the right homotopy relation. Hence the two relations coincide when is cofibrant and is fibrant.
Let be a right homotopy between two maps . By Lemma , the open box of homotopies
can be filled by a double homotopy , since is fibrant. This yields a left homotopy .
When is cofibrant and is fibrant, then two maps are said to be homotopic if they are left (or right) homotopic; we shall denote this relation by . We shall denote by the quotient of the set by the homotopy relation:
By definition, This defines a functor
that is, a distributor .
The homotopy relation is compatible with the composition law
if and are fibrant-cofibrant objects. It thus induces a composition law
and this defines a category if we put
for .
We say that a map in is a homotopy equivalence if it is invertible in the category .
It is obvious from the definition that the class of homotopy equivalences has the three-for-two property.
A map in is a homotopy equivalence iff there exists a map such that and .
Let us denote by , and , the canonical functors. The functor takes homotopic maps to the same morphism by Lemma . It follows that there is a unique functor such that the following triangle commutes,
We shall prove in Theorem below that the functor is an isomorphism of categories. We will need a lemma:
If is a set of morphisms in a category , then the localisation functor is an epimorphism of category. Moreover, for any category , the functor
induced by is fully faithful and it induces an isomorphism between the category and the full subcategory of spanned by the functors inverting the elements of . In particular, two functors are isomorphic iff the functors and are isomorphic.
Left to the reader.
The functor defined above is an isomorphism of categories. A map in is acyclic iff it is a homotopy equivalence.
(Mark Hovey) Let us first show that if a map in the category is acyclic, then it is a homotopy equivalence. The map is bijective for every cofibrant object by Lemma , since is an acyclic map between fibrant object. It follows that is inverted by the Yoneda functor
But the Yoneda functor is conservative, since it is fully faithful by Yoneda?. It follows that is invertible in the category . This shows that is a homotopy equivalence. Let us now prove that the functor is an isomorphism of categories. The canonical functor inverts acyclic maps by what we just proved. Hence there is a unique functor such that the following triangle commutes,
Let us show that the functors and are mutually inverses. Let us observe that the functor is an epimorphism, since it is surjective on objects and full. But we have . It follows that we have , since is an epimorphism. On the other hand, the functor is an epimorphism by Lemma , since it is a localisation. It follows that we have , since we have . We have proved that the functor and are mutually inverse. Let us now show that a homotopy equivalence is acyclic. We shall first consider the case where is a fibration. There exists a map such that and , since is a homotopy equivalence by assumption. There is then a left homotopy defined on a cylinder . I then follows from the covering homotopy theorem that there exists a left homotopy such that , since is a fibration. Let us put . Then and . Thus, , since the homotopy relation is a congruence. Hence the map is acyclic by Lemma , since is acyclic. But the map is retract of the map , since the following diagram commutes and we have ,
It then follows by Lemma that is a weak equivalence. The implication () is proved in the case where is a fibration. In the general case, let us choose a factorisation with an acyclic cofibration and a fibration. The map is a homotopy equivalence by the first part of the proof, since it is acyclic. Thus, is a homotopy equivalence by three-for-two for homotopy equivalences, since is a homotopy equivalence by assumption. Thus, is acyclic since it is a fibration. Hence the composite is acyclic by three-for-two.
A fibrant replacement of an object is a fibrant object together with an acyclic cofibration . A cofibrant replacement of an object is a cofibrant object together with an acyclic fibration .
A fibrant replacement of is obtained by factoring the map as an acyclic cofibration followed by a fibration . If is fibrant, we can take and . Similarly, a cofibrant replacement of is obtained by factoring the map as a cofibration followed by an acyclic fibration . If is cofibrant, we can take and .
A fibrant replacement of a cofibrant object is cofibrant; it is thus fibrant-cofibrant. Dually a cofibrant replacement of a fibrant object is fibrant-cofibrant.
The composite is acyclic. It can thus be factored as an acyclic cofibration followed by an acyclic fibration ,
The object is a fibrant-cofibrant replacement of the object . If is cofibrant, we can take , and if is fibrant, we can take (in which case we have , when is fibrant-cofibrant).
For every map , there exits two maps and fitting in the following commutative diagram,
The map is unique up to a right homotopy, and the map unique up to homotopy. The maps and are acyclic if is acyclic. If and , then and .
The map exists because is fibrant and the map is an acyclic cofibration. After choosing , we can choose the map , since the object is cofibrant and the map is an acyclic fibration. The map is unique up to a right homotopy by Lemma , since is fibrant. Hence also the composite , since the right homotopy relation is compatible with composition on the right. But this composite is also unique up to a left homotopy by Lemma , since the object is fibrant. It follows by Lemma that the map is unique up to a left homotopy, since is an acyclic fibration. The first statement is proved. Let us prove the second statement. If is a weak equivalence, then so are the maps and by three-for-two, since the vertical sides of the diagram (10) are acyclic. Let us prove the third statement. If we compose horizontally the following diagram,
we obtain the following diagram,
which should be compared with the diagram,
It then follows from the homotopy uniqueness that we have and .
The four canonical functors in the following square are equivalences of categories,
A map is acyclic iff it is inverted by the canonical functor .
Let us first show that the diagonal functor is an equivalence of categories. We shall use the following commutative square of functors,
where the top functor is the inclusion and the vertical functor are the canonical functors. We have for every map . For every map in , the map is well defined up to homotopy by Lemma . Hence the morphism is independant of the choice of by Lemma . If and , then by Lemma . Thus, . This defines a functor . The functor takes a weak equivalence to an isomorphism, since takes a weak equivalence to a weak equivalence by Lemma . It follows that there is a unique functor such that the following square commutes,
By construction, have for every map . Let us show that the functors and are quasi-inverses. Observe first that we have for a map in (we could even suppose that ); thus in this case. This shows that and it follows that , since the functor is epic by Lemma . Let us now show that the composite is isomorphic to the identity of the category . For this, it suffices to show that the functors and are isomorphic by Lemma , since the functor is a localisation. We have for every object . Moreover, for every map , the map is equal to the map , since . The maps and are invertible in the category since they are acyclic. Let us put in the category . This defines a natural isomorphim since the image by of the commutative diagram (10) is a commutative diagram
It then follows from Lemma that there is a natural isomorphism . We have proved that the functor is an equivalence of categories. The proof that the canonical functor is an equivalence of categories is similar except that it uses the fibrant replacement instead of the fibrant-cofibrant replacement . It then follows by duality that the canonical functor is an equivalence of categories. Let us now prove that a map is acyclic iff it is inverted by the canonical functor . The implication () is clear by definition of the functor . Conversely, if is invertible, let us show that is acyclic. The square (?) shows that the map is also invertible since the vertical sides of the square are invertible. But we have . Hence the map is invertible in the category , since the functor is an equivalence. This shows that is a homotopy equivalence. Thus, is acyclic by Theorem . It then follows by three-for-two that is acyclic, since the vertical maps in the diagram (10) are acyclic.
If the category is locally small, then so is the category
The category is locally small since it is a subcategory of . Hence the category is locally small, since it is a quotient of the category by a congruence relation. It follows by Theorem that the category is locally small. It then follows by Theorem that the category is locally small.
A map between cofibrant objects is acyclic iff the map is bijective for every fibrant-cofibrant object .
The implication () was proved in Lemma . Conversely, if the map is bijective for every fibrant-cofibrant object , let us show that is acyclic. For this, let us choose fibrant replacements and of the objects and , together with a map fitting in a commutative square,
The horizontal maps of the following square are bijective by Lemma , since the maps and are acyclic,
It follows that the map is bijective, since the map is bijective. It then follows by using the Yoneda embedding that the map is invertible in the category . This shows that the map is a acyclic by Theorem . It then follows by three-for-two applied to the square (14) that the map is acyclic.
A model structure in a category is determined by any two of its three classes. A map is a weak equivalence iff it admits a factorisation with an acyclic cofibration and an acyclic fibration.
The class determines the class , since the pair is a weak factorisation system. Hence the pair determines the class . Dually, the pair determines the class . Let us show that the pair determines the class . Obviously, the pair determines the pair since and . Hence it suffices to show that a map is a weak equivalence iff it admits a factorisation with an acyclic cofibration and an acyclic fibration. The implication () is clear, since the class is closed under composition. Conversely, if is a weak equivalence, let us choose a factorisation with an acyclic cofibration and a fibration. The map is acyclic by three-for-two, since the maps and are acyclic. Thus, .
Let us denote by (resp. , ) the class of fibrant (resp. cofibrant, fibrant-cofibrant) objects of a model structure in a category .
A model structure in a category is determined by its class of cofibrations and its class of fibrant objects (resp. its class of fibrant-cofibrant objects). More precisely, if is another model structure with the same cofibrations, then the four conditions
are equivalent.
We shall use the equality
and the inclusion . Let us prove the implication (1)(2). If , then . Thus, , since and . It follows that . The implication (1)(2) is proved. The implication (2)(3) is obvious, since . Let us prove the implication (3)(4). If is cofibrant and (resp. ) let us denote by (resp. ) the set of homotopy classes of maps with respect to the model structure (resp. ). We claim that if , then the left homotopy relation between the maps only depends on the weak factorisation system . To see this, observe that a cylinder object of can be constructed by factoring the map as a cofibration followed by a map in . The left homotopy relation between the maps can be defined by using this cylinder alone by Lemma , since the object is fibrant in both model structures under the assumption that . This shows that the left homotopy relation between the maps only depends on the system if . It follows that we have if is cofibrant and . We can now prove that . If a map belongs to , then the map is bijective for every object by Corollary , hence also the map for every object . This shows that by the same corollary. The inclusion is proved. Let us now prove the implication (4)(1). Let be a map in . Let us factor the map as a cofibration followed by a map in , and then factor the composite as a cofibration followed by a map in . We obtain a commutative square
with , since . We have by three-for-two, since . Thus, , since by assumption. It follows by three-for-two that . The implication (4)(1) is proved.
A model structure in a category is determined by its subcategory of fibrant objects together with one of the classes or Dually, a model structure is determined by its subcategory of cofibrant objects together with one of the classes or
The first statement follows from Proposition and by using the fact that . The rest follows by duality.
A model structure in a category is determined by its subcategory of fibrant-cofibrant objects together with one of the classes
This follows from Proposition in the case of the class , and also in the case of the class , since we have . The rest follows by duality.
Let be a set of arrows in a category , and let be the localisation functor. We saw in Lemma that for any category , the functor
induced by is fully faithful, and that it induces an isomorphism between the category and the full subcategory of spanned by the functors which inverts the elements of . We can thus identify these categories, by using the same notation for a functor and the functor . In which case the category becomes a full subcategory of the category . The left Kan extension of a functor along the functor is a functor equipped with a natural transformation which reflects into the full subcategory . More precisely, for any functor and any natural transformation , there exists a unique natural transformation such that ,
The functor can thus be regarded as the best right approximation of the functor by a functor inverting the elements in .
Dually, the right Kan extension of a functor along the functor is a functor equipped with a natural transformation which coreflects into the full subcategory . More precisely, for any functor and any natural transformation , there exists a unique natural transformation such that ,
The functor can thus be regarded as the best left approximation of the functor by a functor inverting the elements in .
Let be a category equipped with a class of weak equivalences. The right derived functor of a functor is defined to be the best dexter approximation of the functor by a functor inverting weak equivalences. Dually, the left derived functor of is defined to be the best sinister approximation of the functor by a functor inverting weak equivalences.
We shall say a right derived functor is absolute if it stays a right derived functor after postcomposing it with any functor , that is, if the natural transformation exibits the functor as the the right derived functor of . Dually, We shall say a left derived functor is absolute if it stays a left derived functor after postcomposing it with any functor , that is, if the natural transformation exibits the functor as the left derived functor of .
Let be a model category, and be a functor which inverts weak equivalences between fibrant objects. Then the right derived functor exists and it is absolute. Moreover, the map is an isomorphism when is fibrant.
For each object , let us choose a fibrant replacement ; we shall take when is fibrant. By Lemma , for every map , there exits a map fitting in the commutative square,
The map is unique up to a right homotopy by Lemma . Hence the map does not depends on the choice of by Lemma . Moreover, if and , then we have by the same lemma. We thus obtain a functor .
The functor inverts weak equivalences, since is a weak equivalence between fibrant objects when is a weak equivalence by Lemma . Thus, . Notice that when is fibrant. The image by of the square (15) is a commutative square,
It shows that we can define a natural transformation by putting for every object . Notice that we have when is fibrant. Let us show that the natural transformation is reflecting the functor into the subcategory of the category . For this we have to prove that for any functor and any natural transformation there exists a unique natural transformation such that ,
The map in the following square
is invertible by the assumption on , since is a weak equivalence. We can thus defines a map by putting . Let us verify that this defines a natural transformation . The right hand square of the following diagram commutes for any map by the functoriality of , since the square (15) commutes,
And the left hand square commutes by the naturality of . The naturality of is proved. Observe that we have for every object , since the square (16) commutes. This proves that . It remains to prove the uniqueness of . If is a natural transformation such that , let us show that . Notice that when is fibrant, since we have in this case. In general, let us choose a weak equivalence with codomain a fibrant object (for example, ). The bottom maps in the following two squares are equal since is fibrant,
Hence also the top maps, since is invertible by the assumption on . Thus, . We have proved that is the right derived functor of . Moreover, the map is invertible when is fibrant, since we have in this case. For any functor we have and . This shows that the right derived functor is absolute.
We shall say that a functor between two model categories is a left Quillen functor if it takes a cofibration to a cofibration and an acyclic cofibration to an acyclic cofibration. Dually, we shall say that is a right Quillen functor if it takes a fibration to a fibration and an acyclic fibration to an acyclic fibration.
Most left Quillen functors that we shall consider are cocontinuous and have a right adjoint. Dually, most right Quillen functors have a left adjoint.
A left Quillen functor takes an acyclic map between cofibrant objects to an acyclic map. A right Quillen functor takes an acyclic map between fibrant objects to an acyclic map.
Let be an adjunction between two model categories. Then the left adjoint is a left Quillen functor iff the right adjoint is a right Quillen functor.
Let us denote by the model structure on and by the model structure on . Then the conditions
are equivalent by the proposition here. Similarly, the conditions
are equivalent.
We shall say that an adjunction between two model categories is a Quillen adjunction if the left adjoint is a left Quillen functor, or equivalently, if the right adjoint is a right Quillen functor.
The category of simplicial sets admits a model structure, called the Kan model structure?, in which the fibrant objects are the Kan complexes and the cofibrations are the monomorphisms. The weak equivalences are the weak homotopy equivalences and the fibrations are the Kan fibrations. The model structure is cartesian closed and proper.
The category admits a model structure, called the natural model structure in which the cofibrations are the functors monic on objects, the weak equivalences are the equivalences of categories and the fibrations are the isofibrations. The model structure is cartesian closed and proper.
The category of simplicial sets admits a model structure, called the model structure for quasi-categories, in which the fibrant objects are the quasi-categories and the cofibrations are the monomorphisms. A weak equivalence is called a categorical equivalence and a fibration is called an isofibration. The model structure is cartesian closed and left proper.
Recall (from after Definition ) that a fibrant-cofibrant replacement of an object is obtained by factoring the composite as an acyclic cofibration followed by an acyclic fibration . Show that for every map , there are maps , and fitting in a commutative cube:
Show that the distributor defined in (8) induces a distributor . Show that the distributor is representable by an equivalence of categories .
Show that the natural model structure on is characterised by each of the following four groups of conditions:
Group 1:
the acyclic maps are the equivalences of categories
an acyclic map is a fibration iff it is a split epimorphism
Group 2:
the acyclic maps are the equivalences of categories
an acyclic map is a cofibration iff it is a split monomorphism
Group 3:
every object is fibrant.
an acyclic map is a fibration iff it is a surjective equivalence
Group 4:
every object is cofibrant.
an acyclic map is a cofibration iff it is a monic equivalence
Papers:
Dwyer, W.G., Spalinski, J.: Homotopy Theories and Model Categories. Handbook of Algebraic Topology. Edited By I.M. James. North Holland (1995). pdf
Maltsiniotis, Georges: Quillen adjunction theorem for derived functors, revisited. pdf
Lecture Notes and Textbooks:
Dwyer, W.G., Hirschhorn, P.S., Kan, D.M., Smith, J.H.: Homotopy Limit Functors on Model Categories and Homotopical Categories. AMS Math. Survey and Monographs Vol 113 (2004)
Gabriel, P., Zisman, M.: Calculus of Fractions and Homotopy Theory. Ergeb. der Math. undihrer Grenzgebiete, vol 35, Springer-Verlag, New-York (1967)
Goerss, P.G., Jardine, J.F.: Simplicial Homotopy Theory. Progress in Mathematics vol. 174. BirkhΓ’user (1999)
Hirschhorn, Philip S.: Model Categories and their Localization. AMS Math. Survey and Monographs Vol 99 (2002)
Hovey, Mark: Model Categories. AMS Math. Survey and Monographs Vol 63 (1999)
Quillen, Daniel: Homotopical Algebra. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 43. Springer Verlag, Berlin (1967)