model category, model -category
Definitions
Morphisms
Universal constructions
Refinements
Producing new model structures
Presentation of -categories
Model structures
for -groupoids
on chain complexes/model structure on cosimplicial abelian groups
related by the Dold-Kan correspondence
for equivariant -groupoids
for rational -groupoids
for rational equivariant -groupoids
for -groupoids
for -groups
for -algebras
general -algebras
specific -algebras
for stable/spectrum objects
for -categories
for stable -categories
for -operads
for -categories
for -sheaves / -stacks
homotopy theory, (∞,1)-category theory, homotopy type theory
flavors: stable, equivariant, rational, p-adic, proper, geometric, cohesive, directed…
models: topological, simplicial, localic, …
see also algebraic topology
Introductions
Definitions
Paths and cylinders
Homotopy groups
Basic facts
Theorems
The extra structure of a model category over a category with weak equivalences induces concrete constructions for expressing homotopy between morphisms. These lead in particular to an explicit construction of the homotopy category of a model category.
Let be a model category and an object.
where is a weak equivalence. This is called a good path object if in addition is a fibration.
where is a weak equivalence. This is called a good cylinder object if in addition is a cofibration.
By the factorization axioms every object in a model category has both a good path object and as well as a good cylinder object according to def. . But in some situations one is genuinely interested in using non-good such objects.
For instance in the classical model structure on topological spaces, the obvious object is a cylinder object, but not a good cylinder unless itself is cofibrant (a cell complex in this case).
More generally, the path object of def. is analogous to the powering with an interval object and the cyclinder object is analogous to the tensoring with a cylinder object . In fact, if is a -enriched model category and is fibrant/cofibrant, then these powers and copowers are in fact examples of (good) path and cylinder objects if the interval object is sufficiently good.
Let be two parallel morphisms in a model category.
If is a good cylinder object for a cofibrant object def. , then both components are acyclic cofibrations.
Dually, if
is a good path object for a fibrant object , then both component are acyclic fibrations.
We discuss the first case, the second is formally dual. First observe that the two inclusions are cofibrations, since they are the pushout of the cofibration . This implies that and are composites of two cofibrations
and hence are themselves cofibrations. That they are in addition weak equivalences follows from two-out-of-three applied to the identity
implied by the fact that the cylinder by definition factors the codiagonal.
The following says that the choice of cylinder/path objects in def. is irrelevant as long it is “good”.
For a left homotopy in some model category, def. , such that is a fibrant object, then for any choice of good cylinder object for , def. , there is a commuting diagram of the form
Dually, for a right homotopy, def. , such that is cofibrant, then for any choice of good path object for , def. , there is a commuting diagram of the form
We discuss the first statement, the second is formally dual. Let be the given left homotopy with respect to a given cylinder object of . Factor it as
Then find liftings and in the following two commuting diagrams
Now the composite is of the required kind,
Let be two parallel morphisms in a model category.
Let be cofibrant. If there is a left homotopy then there is also a right homotopy (def. ) with respect to any chosen good path object.
Let be fibrant. If there is a right homotopy then there is also a left homotopy with respect to any chosen good cylinder object.
We discuss the first case, the second is formally dual. Let be the given left homotopy. By lemma we may assume without restriction that is good in the sense of def. , for otherwise replace it by one that is. With this, lemma implies that we have a lift in the following commuting diagram
where on the right we have the chosen path space object. Now the composite is a right homotopy as required.
For a cofibrant object in a model category and a fibrant object, then the relations of left homotopy and of right homotopy (def. ) on the hom set coincide and are both equivalence relations.
That both relations coincide under the (co-)fibrancy assumption follows directly from lemma .
To see that left homotopy with domain is a transitive relation first use lemma to obtain that every left homotopy is exhibited by a good cylinder object and then lemma to see that the cofiber coproduct in
is again a cylinder object, def. . The symmetry and reflexivity of the relation is obvious.
See the references at model category.
Last revised on July 24, 2024 at 11:40:40. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.