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.