nLab (∞,1)-algebraic theory

Contents

Context

Higher algebra

(∞,1)(\infty,1)-Category theory

Contents

Idea

In as far as an algebraic theory or Lawvere theory is nothing but a small category with finite products and an algebra for the theory a product-preserving functor to Set, the notion has an evident generalization to higher category theory and in particular to (∞,1)-category theory.

Definition

Definition

An (∞,1)(\infty,1)-Lawvere theory is (given by a syntactic (∞,1)(\infty,1)-category that is) an (∞,1)-category CC with finite (∞,1)-products. An (∞,1)(\infty,1)-algebra for the theory is an (∞,1)-functor C→C \to ∞Grpd that preserves these products.

The (∞,1)(\infty,1)-category of ∞-algebras over an (∞,1)-algebraic theory is the full sub-(∞,1)-category

Alg (∞,1)(C)↪PSh (∞,1)(C op) Alg_{(\infty,1)}(C) \hookrightarrow PSh_{(\infty,1)}(C^{op})

of the (∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-presheaves on C opC^{op} on the product-preserving (∞,1)(\infty,1)-functors

In a full (∞,1)(\infty,1)-category theoretic context this appears as HTT, def. 5.5.8.8. A definition in terms of simplicially enriched categories and the model structure on sSet-categories to present (∞,1)(\infty,1)-categories is in Ros. The introduction of that article lists further and older occurences of this definition.

Properties

Proposition

Let CC be an (∞,1)-category with finite products. Then

This is HTT, prop. 5.5.8.10.

Models

There are various model category presentations of Alg (∞,1)(C)↪PSh (∞,1)(C op)Alg_{(\infty,1)}(C) \hookrightarrow PSh_{(\infty,1)}(C^{op}).

Recall that the (∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-presheaves PSh (∞,1)(C op)PSh_{(\infty,1)}(C^{op}) itself is modeled by the model structure on simplicial presheaves

PSh (∞,1)(C op)≃[T,sSet] ∘, PSh_{(\infty,1)}(C^{op}) \simeq [T, sSet]^\circ \,,

where we regard TT as a Kan complex-enriched category and have on the right the sSet-enriched functor category with the projective or injective model structure, and (−) ∘(-)^\circ denoting the full enriched subcategory on fibrant-cofibrant objects.

This says in particular that every weak (∞,1)(\infty,1)-functor f:T→∞Grpf : T \to \infty \mathrm{Grp} is equivalent to a rectified on F:T→KanCplxF : T \to KanCplx. And f∈PSh (∞,1)(C op)f \in PSh_{(\infty,1)}(C^{op}) belongs to Alg (∞,1)(C)Alg_{(\infty,1)}(C) if FF preserves finite products weakly in that for {c i∈C}\{c_i \in C\} a finite collection of objects, the canonical natural morphism

F(c 1×⋯×c n)→F(c 1)×⋯×F(c n) F(c_1 \times \cdots\times \c_n) \to F(c_1) \times \cdots \times F(c_n)

is a homotopy equivalence of Kan complexes.

If TT is an ordinary category with products, hence an ordinary Lawvere theory, then such a functor is called a homotopy T-algebra. There is a model category structure on these (see there).

We now look at model category structure on strictly product preserving functors C→sSetC \to sSet, which gives an equivalent model for Alg (∞,1)(C)Alg_{(\infty,1)}(C). See model structure on simplicial T-algebras.

Proposition

Let CC be a category with finite products, and let sTAlg⊂Func(C,sSet)sTAlg \subset Func(C,sSet) be the full subcategory of the functor category from CC to sSet on those functors that preserve these products.

Then sAlg(C)sAlg(C) carries the structure of a model category sAlg(C) projsAlg(C)_{proj} where the weak equivalences and the fibrations are objectwise those in the standard model structure on simplicial sets.

This is due to (Quillen).

The inclusion i:sAlg(C)↪sPSh(C op) proji : sAlg(C) \hookrightarrow sPSh(C^{op})_{proj} into the projective model structure on simplicial presheaves evidently preserves fibrations and acylclic fibrations and gives a Quillen adjunction

sAlg(C) proj↪i←sPSh(C op). sAlg(C)_{proj} \stackrel{\leftarrow}{\underset{i}{\hookrightarrow}} sPSh(C^{op}) \,.
Proposition

The total right derived functor

ℝi:Ho(sAlg(C) proj)→Ho(sPSh(C op) proj) \mathbb{R}i : Ho(sAlg(C)_{proj}) \to Ho(sPSh(C^{op})_{proj})

is a full and faithful functor and an object F∈sPSh(C op)F \in sPSh(C^{op}) belongs to the essential image of ℝi\mathbb{R}i precisely if it preserves products up to weak homotopy equivalence.

This is due to (Bergner).

It follows that the natural (∞,1)(\infty,1)-functor

(sAlg(C) proj) ∘→PSh (∞,1)(C op) (sAlg(C)_{proj})^\circ \stackrel{}{\to} PSh_{(\infty,1)}(C^{op})

is an equivalence.

A comprehensive statement of these facts is in HTT, section 5.5.9.

Examples

Simplicial 1-algebras

For TT (the syntactic category of) an ordinary algebraic theory (a Lawvere theory) let TAlgT Alg be the category of its ordinary algebras, the ordinary product-preserving functors T→SetT \to Set.

We may regard TT as an (∞,1)(\infty,1)-category and consider its (∞,1)(\infty,1)-algebras. By the above discussion, these are modeled by product-presering functors T→sSetT \to sSet. But this are equivalently simplicial objects in TT-algebras

[T,sSet] ×≃TAlg Δ op. [T, sSet]_\times \simeq T Alg^{\Delta^{op}} \,.

There is a standard model structure on simplicial T-algebras and we find that simplicial TT-1-algebras model TT-(∞,1)(\infty,1)-algebras.

Homotopy TT-algebras

For TT an ordinary Lawvere theory, there is also a model category structure on ordinary functors T→sSetT \to sSet that preserve the products only up to weak equivalence. Such functors are called homotopy T-algebras.

This model structure is equivalent to the model structure on simplicial T-algebras (see homotopy T-algebra for details) but has the advantage that it is a left proper model category.

Simplicial theories

There is a notion of simplicial algebraic theory that captures some class of (∞,1)(\infty,1)-algebraic theories. For the moment see section 4 of (Rezk)

Structure-(∞,1)(\infty,1)-sheaves

A pregeometry (for structured (∞,1)-toposes) is a (multi-sorted) (∞,1)(\infty,1)-algebraic theory. A structure (∞,1)(\infty,1)-sheaf on an (∞,1)-topos 𝒳\mathcal{X} in the sense of structured (∞,1)-toposes is an ∞\infty-algebra over this theory

𝒪:𝒯→𝒳 \mathcal{O} : \mathcal{T} \to \mathcal{X}

in the (∞,1)(\infty,1)-topos 𝒳\mathcal{X} – a special one satisfying extra conditions that make it indeed behave like a sheaf of function algebras .

Symmetric monoidal (∞,1)(\infty,1)-Categories and E ∞E_\infty-algebras

There is a (2,1)(2,1)-algebraic theory whose algebras in (∞,1)Cat are symmetric monoidal (∞,1)-categories. Hence monoids in these algebras are E-∞ algebras (see monoid in a monoidal (∞,1)-category).

This is in (Cranch). For more details see (2,1)-algebraic theory of E-infinity algebras.

References

The model structure presentation for the (∞,1)(\infty,1)-category of (∞,1)(\infty,1)-algebras goes back all the way to

  • Dan Quillen, Homotopical Algebra Lectures Notes in Mathematics 43, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, (1967)

A characterization of (∞,1)(\infty,1)-categories of (∞,1)(\infty,1)-algebras in terms of sifted colimits is given in

  • J. Rosicky On homotopy varieties (pdf)

using the incarnation of (∞,1)(\infty,1)-categories as simplicially enriched categories.

An (∞,1)(\infty,1)-categorical perspective on these homotopy-algebraic theories is given in

  • Andre Joyal, The theory of quasi-categories and its applications, lectures at CRM Barcelona February 2008, draft hc2.pdf_

from page 44 on.

A detailed account in the context of a general theory of (∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-presheaves is the context of section 5.5.8 of

The model category presentations of (∞,1)(\infty,1)-algebras is studied in

where it is shown that every such model is Quillen equivalent to a left proper model category. The article uses a monadic definition of (∞,1)(\infty,1)-algebras.

A discussion of homotopy T-algebras and their strictification is in

  • Bernard Badzioch, Algebraic theories in homotopy theory Annals of Mathematics, 155 (2002), 895-913 (JSTOR)

and for multi-sorted theories in

  • Julie Bergner, Rigidification of algebras over multi-sorted theories , Algebraic and Geometric Topoogy 7, 2007.

A discussion of E-∞ algebra-structures in terms of (∞,1)(\infty,1)-algebraic theories is in

See also

Expressed as a higher form of Lawvere theory see

Last revised on June 18, 2023 at 15:52:53. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.