DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1709.06271V2 [Math.CT] 4 Nov 2018 Oia Ler Scretyi Tt Fflx N Httebscdefin Algebra)”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1709.06271V2 [Math.CT] 4 Nov 2018 Oia Ler Scretyi Tt Fflx N Httebscdefin Algebra)” LECTURES ON INFINITY CATEGORIES VLADIMIR HINICH To the memory of Michael Roytberg Abstract. These are lecture notes of the course in infinity categories given at Weizmann Institute in 2016–2017. 0. Introduction 0.1. These are lecture notes of the course in infinity categories given at Weiz- mann institute in the fall semester of 2016–2017 year. The aim of the course was to give some relevant background from homotopy theory, to present different formal approaches to infinity categories, and to allow the audience to develop an understanding of the subject, which would not rely on a specific model of infinity categories. Infinity categories have already proven an indispensable tool in derived al- gebraic geometry, factorization homology and geometric representation theory. There is no doubt that the importance of the language of infinity categories will continue growing in the near future. We hope these lecture notes may serve a less technical introduction to the subject, as compared to the remarkable (but quite voluminous) Lurie’s treatise [L.T]. The idea of infinity category owes, to a much extent, to a certain dissatisfaction with the classical language of derived categories developed by Grothendieck and Verdier in early 60-ies. 1 An infinity-category should have, apart of objects and arXiv:1709.06271v2 [math.CT] 4 Nov 2018 morphisms, a sort of “higher morphisms” between the morphisms, as well as morphisms between these “higher morphisms”, and so on. Once it was realized that higher groupoids should correspond to homotopy types, and that for a wide range of applications it is sufficient to assume that all “higher morphisms” are invertible, a number of different definitions of these so-called (∞, 1)-categories was suggested. 1Here is what S. Gelfand and Y. Manin wrote in the introduction to [GM] published in late 1980-ies. “We worked on this book with the disquieting feeling that the development of homo- logical algebra is currently in a state of flux, and that the basic definitions and constructions of the theory of triangulated categories, despite their widespread use, are of only preliminary nature (this applies even more to homotopic algebra)”. 1 2 VLADIMIR HINICH 0.2. We will now present a few examples where infinity categories appear nat- urally as an “upgrade” of conventionally used categories. 0.2.1. Category theory appeared in algebraic topology which studies algebraic invariants of topological spaces. From the very beginning it was well understood that what is important is not just to assign, say, an abelian group to a topogical space, but to make sure that this assignment is functorial, that is, that it carries a continuous map of topological spaces to a homomorphism of groups. Thus, singular homology appears as a functor H : Top → Ab from the category of topological spaces to the category of abelian groups. The next thing to do is to realize that the map H(f): H(X) → H(Y ) does not really depend on f : X → Y , but on the equivalence class of f up to homotopy. To make our language as close as possible to the problems we are trying to solve, we may replace the category Top of topological spaces, factoring the sets HomTop(X,Y ) by the homotopy relation. We will get another meaningful category which should better describe the object of study of algebraic topology — but this category has some very unpleasant properties (lack of limits). Another approach, which is closer to the one advocated by infinity-category theory, is to think of the sets HomTop(X,Y ) as topological spaces, so that information on homotopies between the maps is encoded in the topology of Hom-spaces. This will lead us, in this course, to defining an infinity category of spaces describing, roughly speaking, topological spaces up to homotopy. This infinity category is a fundamental object in the theory, playing the role similar to that of the category of sets Set in the conventional category theory. Interestingly, this infinity category can be defined without mentioning a definition of topological space. 0.2.2. We are still thinking about topology, but we will now look at a single topological space X instead of the totality of all topological spaces. Let X be a topological space. Following Poincar´e, we assign to X a groupoid 2 Π1(X) whose objects are the points of X and arrows are the homotopy classes of paths. The groupoid Π1(X) has a very nice homotopic property: it retains information on π0(X) and π1(X) of X but forgets all higher homotopy groups of X. And here is the reason: we took homotopy classes of paths as arrows. Could we have taken instead topological spaces of paths, we would have chance to retain all information about the homotopy type of X. This is, however, easier said than done. It is easy to compose homotopy classes of paths, but there is no canonical way of composing the actual paths. 2A groupoid is just a category whose arrows are invertible. 3 This sort of composition makes sense in infinity category theory. There spaces and infinity groupoids become just the same thing. 0.2.3. Here is a more algebraic example. An important notion of homological algebra is the notion of derived functor. Study of derived functors led to the notion of derived category in which the standard ambiguity in the choice of resolutions used to calculate derived functors, disappears. Here is, in two paragraphs, the construction of derived category of an abelian category A. As a first step, one constructs the category of complexes C(A) where all projective resolutions, their images after application of functors, live. The second step is similar to the notion of localization of a ring: given a ring R and a collection S of its elements, one defines a ring homomorphism R → R[S−1] such that the image of each element in S becomes invertible in R[S−1] and universal for this property. Localizing C(A) with respect to the collection of quasiisomorphisms, we get D(A), the derived category of A. The construction of derived category D(A) is a close relative to the construc- tion of the homotopy category of topological spaces, when we factor the set of continuous maps by an equivalence relation. The notion of derived category is not very convenient, approximately for the same reasons we already mentioned. Localizing a category, we destroy an important information, similarly to destroy- ing information about higher homotopy groups of X in the construction of the fundamental groupoid Π1(X). Here is another inconvenience. 0.2.4. Let A be the category of abelian sheaves on a topological space X. For an open subset U ⊂ X let AU be the category of sheaves on U. There is a very precise procedure how one can glue, given sheaves FU ∈ AU and some “gluing data”, a sheaf F ∈ A whose restrictions to U are FU . The collection of AU is also a sort of a sheaf (of categories). It is still possible to glue A from the collection 3 of AU (even though one needs “2-gluing data” for this ). We would be happy to be able to glue the derived categories D(AU ) into the global D(A). It turns out this is in fact possible, but one needs to replace the derived category with a more refined infinity notion, and of course, use all “higher” gluing data. 0.2.5. There is a pleasant “side effect” in replacing the derived category D(A) with an infinity category. As it is well-known, D(A) is a triangulated category, that is an additive category endowed with a shift endofunctor, with a chosen collection of diagrams called distinguished triangles, satisfying a list of properties. The notion of triangulated category is a very important, but very unnatural one. Fortunately, the respective infinity categorical notion is very natural: this is just a property of infinity category (called stability, see Section 10) rather than a collection of extra structures (shift functor, distinguished triangles, etc.) 3 The reason is that categories AU are the objects of a 2-category, that of categories. 4 VLADIMIR HINICH 0.3. The abundance of definitions of (∞, 1)-category is somewhat similar to the abundance of programming languages or of models of computation; all of them have in mind the same idea of computability, but realize this idea differently. Some programming languages are more convenient in specific applications than others. The same holds for different definitions of (∞, 1)-categories. There is an easy way to compare expressive power of two programming lan- guages: it is enough to write an interpreter for language I in language II and vice versa. It is less obvious how to compare different formalizations of infinity categories. In all existing approaches, (∞, 1)-categories are realized as fibrant-cofibrant ob- jects in a certain Quillen model category (simpilicial sets with Joyal model struc- ture, bisimplicial sets with Segal category or complete Segal model structure, simplicial categories, etc.). The graph of Quillen equivalences between differ- ent model categories in the above list is connected, which implies that at least the homotopy categories of different versions of (∞, 1)-categories are equivalent. This, however, seems too weak at first sight. On the other hand, if we choose our favorite definition of ∞-category, we can see that, first of all, any model category gives rise to an ∞-category (we call it underlying ∞-category), and, further- more, Quillen equivalent model categories give rise to equivalent ∞-categories. In particular, ∞-categories underlying different models of infinity categories, are equivalent. This already sounds very similar to what happens when one compares different models of computation, and supports our belief that there exists a notion of (∞, 1)-category as Plato’s idea, so that the different models are merely different (but equivalent) realizations of this idea.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cohomological Descent on the Overconvergent Site
    COHOMOLOGICAL DESCENT ON THE OVERCONVERGENT SITE DAVID ZUREICK-BROWN Abstract. We prove that cohomological descent holds for finitely presented crystals on the overconvergent site with respect to proper or fppf hypercovers. 1. Introduction Cohomological descent is a robust computational and theoretical tool, central to p-adic cohomology and its applications. On one hand, it facilitates explicit calculations (analo- gous to the computation of coherent cohomology in scheme theory via Cechˇ cohomology); on another, it allows one to deduce results about singular schemes (e.g., finiteness of the cohomology of overconvergent isocrystals on singular schemes [Ked06]) from results about smooth schemes, and, in a pinch, sometimes allows one to bootstrap global definitions from local ones (for example, for a scheme X which fails to embed into a formal scheme smooth near X, one actually defines rigid cohomology via cohomological descent; see [lS07, comment after Proposition 8.2.17]). The main result of the series of papers [CT03,Tsu03,Tsu04] is that cohomological descent for the rigid cohomology of overconvergent isocrystals holds with respect to both flat and proper hypercovers. The barrage of choices in the definition of rigid cohomology is burden- some and makes their proofs of cohomological descent very difficult, totaling to over 200 pages. Even after the main cohomological descent theorems [CT03, Theorems 7.3.1 and 7.4.1] are proved one still has to work a bit to get a spectral sequence [CT03, Theorem 11.7.1]. Actually, even to state what one means by cohomological descent (without a site) is subtle. The situation is now more favorable.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheaves and Homotopy Theory
    SHEAVES AND HOMOTOPY THEORY DANIEL DUGGER The purpose of this note is to describe the homotopy-theoretic version of sheaf theory developed in the work of Thomason [14] and Jardine [7, 8, 9]; a few enhancements are provided here and there, but the bulk of the material should be credited to them. Their work is the foundation from which Morel and Voevodsky build their homotopy theory for schemes [12], and it is our hope that this exposition will be useful to those striving to understand that material. Our motivating examples will center on these applications to algebraic geometry. Some history: The machinery in question was invented by Thomason as the main tool in his proof of the Lichtenbaum-Quillen conjecture for Bott-periodic algebraic K-theory. He termed his constructions `hypercohomology spectra', and a detailed examination of their basic properties can be found in the first section of [14]. Jardine later showed how these ideas can be elegantly rephrased in terms of model categories (cf. [8], [9]). In this setting the hypercohomology construction is just a certain fibrant replacement functor. His papers convincingly demonstrate how many questions concerning algebraic K-theory or ´etale homotopy theory can be most naturally understood using the model category language. In this paper we set ourselves the specific task of developing some kind of homotopy theory for schemes. The hope is to demonstrate how Thomason's and Jardine's machinery can be built, step-by-step, so that it is precisely what is needed to solve the problems we encounter. The papers mentioned above all assume a familiarity with Grothendieck topologies and sheaf theory, and proceed to develop the homotopy-theoretic situation as a generalization of the classical case.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplicial Sets, Nerves of Categories, Kan Complexes, Etc
    SIMPLICIAL SETS, NERVES OF CATEGORIES, KAN COMPLEXES, ETC FOLING ZOU These notes are taken from Peter May's classes in REU 2018. Some notations may be changed to the note taker's preference and some detailed definitions may be skipped and can be found in other good notes such as [2] or [3]. The note taker is responsible for any mistakes. 1. simplicial approach to defining homology Defnition 1. A simplical set/group/object K is a sequence of sets/groups/objects Kn for each n ≥ 0 with face maps: di : Kn ! Kn−1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n and degeneracy maps: si : Kn ! Kn+1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n satisfying certain commutation equalities. Images of degeneracy maps are said to be degenerate. We can define a functor: ordered abstract simplicial complex ! sSet; K 7! Ks; where s Kn = fv0 ≤ · · · ≤ vnjfv0; ··· ; vng (may have repetition) is a simplex in Kg: s s Face maps: di : Kn ! Kn−1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n is by deleting vi; s s Degeneracy maps: si : Kn ! Kn+1; 0 ≤ i ≤ n is by repeating vi: In this way it is very straightforward to remember the equalities that face maps and degeneracy maps have to satisfy. The simplical viewpoint is helpful in establishing invariants and comparing different categories. For example, we are going to define the integral homology of a simplicial set, which will agree with the simplicial homology on a simplical complex, but have the virtue of avoiding the barycentric subdivision in showing functoriality and homotopy invariance of homology. This is an observation made by Samuel Eilenberg. To start, we construct functors: F C sSet sAb ChZ: The functor F is the free abelian group functor applied levelwise to a simplical set.
    [Show full text]
  • The Simplicial Parallel of Sheaf Theory Cahiers De Topologie Et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques, Tome 10, No 4 (1968), P
    CAHIERS DE TOPOLOGIE ET GÉOMÉTRIE DIFFÉRENTIELLE CATÉGORIQUES YUH-CHING CHEN Costacks - The simplicial parallel of sheaf theory Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle catégoriques, tome 10, no 4 (1968), p. 449-473 <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=CTGDC_1968__10_4_449_0> © Andrée C. Ehresmann et les auteurs, 1968, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la revue « Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle catégoriques » implique l’accord avec les conditions générales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam.org/conditions). Toute utilisation commerciale ou impression systématique est constitutive d’une infraction pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ CAHIERS DE TOPOLOGIE ET GEOMETRIE DIFFERENTIELLE COSTACKS - THE SIMPLICIAL PARALLEL OF SHEAF THEORY by YUH-CHING CHEN I NTRODUCTION Parallel to sheaf theory, costack theory is concerned with the study of the homology theory of simplicial sets with general coefficient systems. A coefficient system on a simplicial set K with values in an abe - . lian category 8 is a functor from K to Q (K is a category of simplexes) ; it is called a precostack; it is a simplicial parallel of the notion of a presheaf on a topological space X . A costack on K is a « normalized» precostack, as a set over a it is realized simplicial K/" it is simplicial « espace 8ta18 ». The theory developed here is functorial; it implies that all &#x3E;&#x3E; homo- logy theories are derived functors. Although the treatment is completely in- dependent of Topology, it is however almost completely parallel to the usual sheaf theory, and many of the same theorems will be found in it though the proofs are usually quite different.
    [Show full text]
  • Fields Lectures: Simplicial Presheaves
    Fields Lectures: Simplicial presheaves J.F. Jardine∗ January 31, 2007 This is a cleaned up and expanded version of the lecture notes for a short course that I gave at the Fields Institute in late January, 2007. I expect the cleanup and expansion processes to continue for a while yet, so the interested reader should check the web site http://www.math.uwo.ca/∼jardine periodi- cally for updates. Contents 1 Simplicial presheaves and sheaves 2 2 Local weak equivalences 4 3 First local model structure 6 4 Other model structures 12 5 Cocycle categories 13 6 Sheaf cohomology 16 7 Descent 22 8 Non-abelian cohomology 25 9 Presheaves of groupoids 28 10 Torsors and stacks 30 11 Simplicial groupoids 35 12 Cubical sets 43 13 Localization 48 ∗This research was supported by NSERC. 1 1 Simplicial presheaves and sheaves In all that follows, C will be a small Grothendieck site. Examples include the site op|X of open subsets and open covers of a topo- logical space X, the site Zar|S of Zariski open subschemes and open covers of a scheme S, or the ´etale site et|S, again of a scheme S. All of these sites have “big” analogues, like the big sites Topop,(Sch|S)Zar and (Sch|S)et of “all” topological spaces with open covers, and “all” S-schemes T → S with Zariski and ´etalecovers, respectivley. Of course, there are many more examples. Warning: All of the “big” sites in question have (infinite) cardinality bounds on the objects which define them so that the sites are small, and we don’t talk about these bounds.
    [Show full text]
  • Etale Homotopy Theory of Non-Archimedean Analytic Spaces
    Etale homotopy theory of non-archimedean analytic spaces Joe Berner August 15, 2017 Abstract We review the shape theory of ∞-topoi, and relate it with the usual cohomology of locally constant sheaves. Additionally, a new localization of profinite spaces is defined which allows us to extend the ´etale realization functor of Isaksen. We apply these ideas to define an ´etale homotopy type functor ´et(X ) for Berkovich’s non-archimedean analytic spaces X over a complete non-archimedean field K and prove some properties of the construction. We compare the ´etale homotopy types coming from Tate’s rigid spaces, Huber’s adic spaces, and rigid models when they are all defined. 0 Introduction The ´etale homotopy type of an algebraic variety is one of many tools developed in the last century to use topological machinery to attack algebraic questions. For example sheaves and their cohomology, topoi, spectral sequences, Galois categories, algebraic K-theory, and Chow groups. The ´etale homotopy type enriches ´etale cohomology and torsor data from a collection of groups into a pro-space. This allows us to almost directly apply results from algebraic topol- ogy, with the book-keeping primarily coming from the difference between spaces and pro-spaces. In this paper, we apply this in the context of non-archimedean geometry. The major results are two comparison theorems for the ´etale homo- topy type of non-archimedean analytic spaces, and a theorem indentifying the homotopy fiber of a smooth proper map with the ´etale homotopy type of any geometric fiber. The first comparison theorem concerns analytifications of va- rieties, and states that after profinite completion away from the characteristic arXiv:1708.03657v1 [math.AT] 11 Aug 2017 of the field that the ´etale homotopy type of a variety agrees with that of its analytification.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 2: Spaces of Maps, Loop Spaces and Reduced Suspension
    LECTURE 2: SPACES OF MAPS, LOOP SPACES AND REDUCED SUSPENSION In this section we will give the important constructions of loop spaces and reduced suspensions associated to pointed spaces. For this purpose there will be a short digression on spaces of maps between (pointed) spaces and the relevant topologies. To be a bit more specific, one aim is to see that given a pointed space (X; x0), then there is an entire pointed space of loops in X. In order to obtain such a loop space Ω(X; x0) 2 Top∗; we have to specify an underlying set, choose a base point, and construct a topology on it. The underlying set of Ω(X; x0) is just given by the set of maps 1 Top∗((S ; ∗); (X; x0)): A base point is also easily found by considering the constant loop κx0 at x0 defined by: 1 κx0 :(S ; ∗) ! (X; x0): t 7! x0 The topology which we will consider on this set is a special case of the so-called compact-open topology. We begin by introducing this topology in a more general context. 1. Function spaces Let K be a compact Hausdorff space, and let X be an arbitrary space. The set Top(K; X) of continuous maps K ! X carries a natural topology, called the compact-open topology. It has a subbasis formed by the sets of the form B(T;U) = ff : K ! X j f(T ) ⊆ Ug where T ⊆ K is compact and U ⊆ X is open. Thus, for a map f : K ! X, one can form a typical basis open neighborhood by choosing compact subsets T1;:::;Tn ⊆ K and small open sets Ui ⊆ X with f(Ti) ⊆ Ui to get a neighborhood Of of f, Of = B(T1;U1) \ ::: \ B(Tn;Un): One can even choose the Ti to cover K, so as to `control' the behavior of functions g 2 Of on all of K.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2-Category Theory of Quasi-Categories
    THE 2-CATEGORY THEORY OF QUASI-CATEGORIES EMILY RIEHL AND DOMINIC VERITY Abstract. In this paper we re-develop the foundations of the category theory of quasi- categories (also called 1-categories) using 2-category theory. We show that Joyal’s strict 2-category of quasi-categories admits certain weak 2-limits, among them weak comma objects. We use these comma quasi-categories to encode universal properties relevant to limits, colimits, and adjunctions and prove the expected theorems relating these notions. These universal properties have an alternate form as absolute lifting diagrams in the 2- category, which we show are determined pointwise by the existence of certain initial or terminal vertices, allowing for the easy production of examples. All the quasi-categorical notions introduced here are equivalent to the established ones but our proofs are independent and more “formal”. In particular, these results generalise immediately to model categories enriched over quasi-categories. Contents 1. Introduction 2 1.1. A generalisation 3 1.2. Outline 4 1.3. Acknowledgments 5 2. Background on quasi-categories 6 2.1. Some standard simplicial notation 6 2.2. Quasi-categories 8 2.3. Isomorphisms and marked simplicial sets 10 2.4. Join and slice 14 3. The 2-category of quasi-categories 19 3.1. Relating 2-categories and simplicially enriched categories 19 3.2. The 2-category of quasi-categories 21 3.3. Weak 2-limits 24 arXiv:1306.5144v4 [math.CT] 6 May 2015 3.4. Slices of the category of quasi-categories 33 3.5. A strongly universal characterisation of weak comma objects 37 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Quasicategories 1.1 Simplicial Sets
    Quasicategories 12 November 2018 1.1 Simplicial sets We denote by ∆ the category whose objects are the sets [n] = f0; 1; : : : ; ng for n ≥ 0 and whose morphisms are order-preserving functions [n] ! [m]. A simplicial set is a functor X : ∆op ! Set, where Set denotes the category of sets. A simplicial map f : X ! Y between simplicial sets is a natural transforma- op tion. The category of simplicial sets with simplicial maps is denoted by Set∆ or, more concisely, as sSet. For a simplicial set X, we normally write Xn instead of X[n], and call it the n set of n-simplices of X. There are injections δi :[n − 1] ! [n] forgetting i and n surjections σi :[n + 1] ! [n] repeating i for 0 ≤ i ≤ n that give rise to functions n n di : Xn −! Xn−1; si : Xn+1 −! Xn; called faces and degeneracies respectively. Since every order-preserving function [n] ! [m] is a composite of a surjection followed by an injection, the sets fXngn≥0 k ` together with the faces di and degeneracies sj determine uniquely a simplicial set X. Faces and degeneracies satisfy the simplicial identities: n−1 n n−1 n di ◦ dj = dj−1 ◦ di if i < j; 8 sn−1 ◦ dn if i < j; > j−1 i n+1 n < di ◦ sj = idXn if i = j or i = j + 1; :> n−1 n sj ◦ di−1 if i > j + 1; n+1 n n+1 n si ◦ sj = sj+1 ◦ si if i ≤ j: For n ≥ 0, the standard n-simplex is the simplicial set ∆[n] = ∆(−; [n]), that is, ∆[n]m = ∆([m]; [n]) for all m ≥ 0.
    [Show full text]
  • HODGE FILTERED COMPLEX BORDISM 11 Given by the Constant Presheaf with Value E
    HODGE FILTERED COMPLEX BORDISM MICHAEL J. HOPKINS AND GEREON QUICK Abstract. We construct Hodge filtered cohomology groups for complex man- ifolds that combine the topological information of generalized cohomology the- ories with geometric data of Hodge filtered holomorphic forms. This theory provides a natural generalization of Deligne cohomology. For smooth complex algebraic varieties, we show that the theory satisfies a projective bundle for- mula and A1-homotopy invariance. Moreover, we obtain transfer maps along projective morphisms. 1. Introduction For a complex manifold, Deligne cohomology is an elegant way to combine the topological information of integral cohomology with the geometric data of holomor- n phic forms. For a given p, the Deligne cohomology group HD(X; Z(p)) of a complex manifold X is defined to be the nth hypercohomology of the Deligne complex ZD(p) p (2πi) 1 d d p−1 0 → Z −−−−→OX → ΩX −→ ... −→ ΩX → 0 k of sheaves over X, where ΩX denotes the sheaf of holomorphic k-forms. Deligne cohomology is an important tool for many fundamental questions in al- gebraic, arithmetic and complex geometry. Let us just highlight one of the algebraic geometric applications of Deligne cohomology. Let X be a smooth projective com- plex variety. The associated complex manifold is an example of a compact K¨ahler manifold. Let CHpX be the Chow group of codimension p algebraic cycles modulo rational equivalence. There is the classical cycle map p 2p clH : CH X → H (X; Z) from Chow groups to the integral cohomology of the associated complex manifold of X. This map sends an irreducible subvariety Z ⊂ X of codimension p in X to arXiv:1212.2173v3 [math.AT] 27 Aug 2014 the Poincar´edual of the fundamental class of a resolution of singularities of Z.
    [Show full text]
  • A Primer on Homotopy Colimits
    A PRIMER ON HOMOTOPY COLIMITS DANIEL DUGGER Contents 1. Introduction2 Part 1. Getting started 4 2. First examples4 3. Simplicial spaces9 4. Construction of homotopy colimits 16 5. Homotopy limits and some useful adjunctions 21 6. Changing the indexing category 25 7. A few examples 29 Part 2. A closer look 30 8. Brief review of model categories 31 9. The derived functor perspective 34 10. More on changing the indexing category 40 11. The two-sided bar construction 44 12. Function spaces and the two-sided cobar construction 49 Part 3. The homotopy theory of diagrams 52 13. Model structures on diagram categories 53 14. Cofibrant diagrams 60 15. Diagrams in the homotopy category 66 16. Homotopy coherent diagrams 69 Part 4. Other useful tools 76 17. Homology and cohomology of categories 77 18. Spectral sequences for holims and hocolims 85 19. Homotopy limits and colimits in other model categories 90 20. Various results concerning simplicial objects 94 Part 5. Examples 96 21. Homotopy initial and terminal functors 96 22. Homotopical decompositions of spaces 103 23. A survey of other applications 108 Appendix A. The simplicial cone construction 108 References 108 1 2 DANIEL DUGGER 1. Introduction This is an expository paper on homotopy colimits and homotopy limits. These are constructions which should arguably be in the toolkit of every modern algebraic topologist, yet there does not seem to be a place in the literature where a graduate student can easily read about them. Certainly there are many fine sources: [BK], [DwS], [H], [HV], [V1], [V2], [CS], [S], among others.
    [Show full text]
  • EQUIVARIANT MOTIVIC HOMOTOPY THEORY Table of Contents 1
    EQUIVARIANT MOTIVIC HOMOTOPY THEORY GUNNAR CARLSSON AND ROY JOSHUA Abstract. In this paper, we develop the theory of equivariant motivic homotopy theory, both unstable and stable. While our main interest is the case when the group is pro-finite, we discuss our results in a more general setting so as to be applicable to other contexts, for example when the group is in fact a smooth group scheme. We also discuss 1 how A -localization behaves with respect to ring and module spectra and also with respect to mod-l-completion, where l is a fixed prime. In forthcoming papers, we apply the theory developed here to produce a theory of Spanier-Whitehead duality and Becker-Gottlieb transfer in this framework, and explore various applications of the transfer. Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. The basic framework of equivariant motivic homotopy theory: the unstable theory 3. The basic framework of equivariant motivic homotopy theory: the stable theory 4. Effect of A1-localization on ring and module structures and on mod-l completions 5. References. The second author was supported by the IHES, the MPI (Bonn) and a grant from the NSA. 1 2 Gunnar Carlsson and Roy Joshua 1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to set up a suitable framework for a series of papers exploring the notions of Spanier-Whitehead duality and Becker-Gottlieb transfer in the setting of stable motivic homotopy theory and their applications. Some of the notable applications we have in mind are the conjectures due to the first author on equivariant algebraic K-theory, equivariant with respect to the action of a Galois group, see [Carl1].
    [Show full text]