A homotopy factorization system in a model category is a presentation of an orthogonal factorization system in its underlying (∞,1)-category.
Let be a monoidal model category (with cofibrant unit object) and a -enriched model category. In the case SSet, the following definition is found in Bousfield, section 6.
A homotopy factorization system in is a pair of classes of maps such that:
is an acyclic fibration in .
It follows that is in fact a weak factorization system. For on the one hand; the underlying-set functor takes acyclic fibrations to surjections since is cofibrant; thus have the lifting property. And on the other hand, if has the left lifting property against , then factoring it and applying the retract argument implies , and dually.
Note that is automatically a fibration, since is a cofibration and a fibration; thus the content of assertion (2) is that this map is a weak equivalence. If (hence also ) is cofibrant and (hence also ) is fibrant, then the pullback is pullback of two fibrations between fibrant objects and thus a homotopy pullback; thus in this case the condition is equivalent to asking that the square
is a homotopy pullback square. If is right proper, then the condition for the pullback to be a homotopy pullback can be weakened to “ (hence also ) is cofibrant OR (hence also ) is fibrant”, and thus becomes automatic if either all objects of are fibrant or all objects of are cofibrant.
A hierarchy of notions of “homotopy factorization system” for unenriched model categories can be found in Joyal, Appendix F. Let be a model category and a pair of classes of maps. Write for the class of cofibrations, for the class of fibrations, for the subcategory of cofibrant objects, for the subcategory of fibrant objects, for the subcategory of fibrant and cofibrant objects, for the class of cofibrations between fibrant and cofibrant objects, etc.
The relation between the enriched and unenriched notions is unclear to the author of this page, but here are some things that can be said.
Suppose either every object of is fibrant and cofibrant, or is right proper and either every object of is fibrant or every object of is cofibrant. Then given an enriched hfs, by closing and under weak equivalence in we obtain an unenriched weak hfs .
Since is a wfs, to show that is an unenriched weak hfs, it suffices to show that and dually. Note that any morphism in is both cofibrant and fibrant in the Reedy model structure on ; hence if two such morphisms are weakly equivalent in , there is a single weak equivalence relating them. But the property of being a homotopy pullback square is preserved under weak equivalence; and under the given hypotheses, as remarked above, the homotopy lifting property can be expressed in terms of such a square, and is thus preserved by weak equivalences between cofibrations. The proof for is dual (using the other Reedy model structure).
It is unclear whether or under what conditions this weak hfs is a hfs or a strong hfs.
In the converse direction, the following are proven by Joyal:
If is an unenriched weak hfs, the following are equivalent:
The closure under diagonals and codiagonals suggests that some kind of homotopy orthogonality should exist, using simplicial resolutions rather than enrichment.
A. K. Bousfield, Constructions of factorization systems in categories, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 9 (1977) 207-220, pdf
Andre Joyal, Notes on quasi-categories, pdf
Last revised on February 13, 2021 at 04:47:02. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.