related by the Dold-Kan correspondence
Simplicial sets are the archetypical combinatorial “model” for the (∞,1)-category of (compactly generated weakly Hausdorff) topological spaces and equivalently that of ∞-groupoids, as well as a standard model for the (∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-categories (∞,1)Cat itself.
This statement is made precise by the existence of the structure of a model category on sSet, called the classical model structure that is a presentation for the (infinity,1)-category Top, as well as the Joyal model structure which similarly is a presentation of the -category .
The cofibrations are simply the monomorphisms which are precisely the levelwise injections, i.e. the morphisms of simplicial sets such that is an injection of sets for all .
The weak equivalences are weak homotopy equivalences, i.e., morphisms whose geometric realization is a weak homotopy equivalence of topological spaces.
All simplicial sets are cofibrant with respect to this model structure.
The fibrant objects are precisely the Kan complexes.
The acyclic fibrations (i.e. the maps that are both fibrations as well as weak equivalences) between Kan complexes are precisely the morphisms that have the right lifting property with respect to all inclusions of boundaries of -simplices into their -simplices
This appears spelled out for instance as (Goerss-Jardine, theorem 11.2).
is a cofibrantly generated model category with
For more on this see homotopy hypothesis.
Let be the smallest class of morphisms in satisfying the following conditions:
Then is the class of weak homotopy equivalences.
As a corollary, we deduce that the classical model structure on is the smallest (in terms of weak equivalences) model structure for which the cofibrations are the monomorphisms and the weak equivalences include the (combinatorial) homotopy equivalences.
Let be the connected components functor, i.e. the left adjoint of the constant functor . A morphism in is a weak homotopy equivalence if and only if the induced map
is a bijection for all Kan complexes .
One direction is easy: if is a Kan complex, then axiom SM7 for simplicial model categories implies the functor is a right Quillen functor?, so Ken Brown’s lemma implies it preserves all weak homotopy equivalences; in particular, sends weak homotopy equivalences to bijections.
Conversely, when is a Kan complex, there is a natural bijection between and the hom-set , and thus by the Yoneda lemma, a morphism such that the induced morphism is a bijection for all Kan complexes is precisely a morphism that becomes an isomorphism in , i.e. a weak homotopy equivalence.
Urs it would be nice to eventually have a discussion of the following
this ought to be a Quillen functor, but is it? is there a reference?
A functor is
We know that both and are Kan complexes. By the above theorem it suffices to show that being a surjective equivalence is the same as having all lifts
We check successively what this means for increasing :
. In degree 0 the boundary inclusion is that of the empty set into the point . The lifting property in this case amounts to saying that every point in lifts through .
This precisely says that is surjective on 0-cells and hence that is surjective on objects.
. In degree 1 the boundary inclusion is that of a pair of points as the endpoints of the interval . The lifting property here evidently is equivalent to saying that for all objects all elements in are hit. Hence that is a full functor.
. In degree 2 the boundary inclusion is that of the triangle as the boundary of a filled triangle. It is sufficient to restrict attention to the case that the map sends the top left edge of the triangle to an identity. Then the lifting property here evidently is equivalent to saying that for all objects the map is injective. Hence that is a faithful functor.
There is a second model structure on – the model structure for quasi-categories – which is different (not Quillen equivalent) to the classical one, due to Andre Joyal, with the following distinguished classes of morphisms:
The cofibrations are monomorphisms, equivalently, levelwise injections.
The weak equivalences are weak categorical equivalences, which are morphisms of simplicial sets such that the induced map of internal-homs for all quasi-categories induces an isomorphism when applying the functor that takes a simplicial set to the set of isomorphism classes of objects of its fundamental category.
The fibrations are called variously isofibrations or quasi-fibration. As always, these are determined by the classes and . Quasi-fibrations between weak Kan complexes have a simple description; they are precisely the inner Kan fibrations, the maps that have the right lifting property with respect to the inner horn inclusions and also the inclusion where is the terminal simplicial set and is the nerve of the groupoid on two objects with one non-trivial isomorphism.
All objects are cofibrant. The fibrant objects are precisely the quasi-categories.
This model structure is cofibrantly generated. The generating cofibrations are the set described above. There is no known explicit description for the generating trivial cofibrations.
Importantly, this model structure is Quillen equivalent to several alternative model structures for the ‘’homotopy theory of homotopy theories“ such as that on the category of simplicially enriched categories.
Every weak categorical equivalence is a weak homotopy equivalence. Since both model structures have the same cofibrations, it follows that the classical model structure is a Bousfield localization of Joyal’s model structure.
Fibrant replacement in models the process of -groupoidification, of freely inverting all k-morphisms in a simplicial set. Techniques for fibrant replacements are discussed at
Dan Quillen’s original proof in
is purely combinatorial (i.e. does not use topological spaces): he uses the theory of minimal Kan fibrations, the fact that the latter are fiber bundles, as well as the fact that the classifying space of a simplicial group is a Kan complex. This proof has been rewritten several times in the literature: at the end of
as well as in
A proof (in fact two variants of it) using Kan’s functor (see Kan fibrant replacement) is given in section 2 of
which discusses the topic as a special case of a Cisinski model structure.
The fun part is not that much about the existence of model structure, but to prove that the fibrations are precisely the Kan fibrations (and also to prove all the good properties of without using topological spaces); for two different proofs of this fact using , see Prop. 2.1.41 as well as Scholium 2.3.21 for an alternative). For the rest, everything was already in the book of Gabriel and Zisman, for instance.
Another standard textbook reference for the classical model structure is
For references on the Joyal model structure see model structure for quasi-categories.