Higher Topos Theory Theorem 2.2.5.3












8














The following question is found in the proof of Theorem 2.2.5.3 of HTT but since it can be understood in a more general context I will just ask it without stating the theorem.



We have a trivial Kan fibration of simplicial sets $p : S rightarrow T$ where $T$ is an $infty$-category. We wish to show that for any two vertices $x,y$ of $S$, the induced map of simplicial sets $$Map_{mathfrak{C}[S]}(x,y) rightarrow Map_{mathfrak{C}[T]}(p(x),p(y))$$ is a Kan weak equivalence.
We have two results, the first one is that the map $$lvert Hom^R_T(p(x),p(y)) rvert_{Q^bullet} rightarrow Map_{mathfrak{C}[T]}(p(x),p(y))$$ where $Q^bullet$ is the cosimplicial object defined in 2.2.2 is a Kan weak equivalence. The second one is that for any simplicial set, the map $$pi_X : lvert X rvert_{Q^bullet} rightarrow X$$ also defined in Section 2.2.2 is also a Kan weak equivalence.
Lurie says that thanks to those two results, it is enough to show that the map $$Hom^R_S(x,y) rightarrow Hom^R_T(p(x),p(y))$$ is a Kan weak equivalence.



I was thinking of fitting all this into a commutative diagram and using the two-out-of-three property but I am struggling with it. Is this the right way to look at it or am I missing something?



If someone needs more definitions I'll gladly add them.






ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff







share|cite|improve this question





























    8














    The following question is found in the proof of Theorem 2.2.5.3 of HTT but since it can be understood in a more general context I will just ask it without stating the theorem.



    We have a trivial Kan fibration of simplicial sets $p : S rightarrow T$ where $T$ is an $infty$-category. We wish to show that for any two vertices $x,y$ of $S$, the induced map of simplicial sets $$Map_{mathfrak{C}[S]}(x,y) rightarrow Map_{mathfrak{C}[T]}(p(x),p(y))$$ is a Kan weak equivalence.
    We have two results, the first one is that the map $$lvert Hom^R_T(p(x),p(y)) rvert_{Q^bullet} rightarrow Map_{mathfrak{C}[T]}(p(x),p(y))$$ where $Q^bullet$ is the cosimplicial object defined in 2.2.2 is a Kan weak equivalence. The second one is that for any simplicial set, the map $$pi_X : lvert X rvert_{Q^bullet} rightarrow X$$ also defined in Section 2.2.2 is also a Kan weak equivalence.
    Lurie says that thanks to those two results, it is enough to show that the map $$Hom^R_S(x,y) rightarrow Hom^R_T(p(x),p(y))$$ is a Kan weak equivalence.



    I was thinking of fitting all this into a commutative diagram and using the two-out-of-three property but I am struggling with it. Is this the right way to look at it or am I missing something?



    If someone needs more definitions I'll gladly add them.






    ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff







    share|cite|improve this question



























      8












      8








      8







      The following question is found in the proof of Theorem 2.2.5.3 of HTT but since it can be understood in a more general context I will just ask it without stating the theorem.



      We have a trivial Kan fibration of simplicial sets $p : S rightarrow T$ where $T$ is an $infty$-category. We wish to show that for any two vertices $x,y$ of $S$, the induced map of simplicial sets $$Map_{mathfrak{C}[S]}(x,y) rightarrow Map_{mathfrak{C}[T]}(p(x),p(y))$$ is a Kan weak equivalence.
      We have two results, the first one is that the map $$lvert Hom^R_T(p(x),p(y)) rvert_{Q^bullet} rightarrow Map_{mathfrak{C}[T]}(p(x),p(y))$$ where $Q^bullet$ is the cosimplicial object defined in 2.2.2 is a Kan weak equivalence. The second one is that for any simplicial set, the map $$pi_X : lvert X rvert_{Q^bullet} rightarrow X$$ also defined in Section 2.2.2 is also a Kan weak equivalence.
      Lurie says that thanks to those two results, it is enough to show that the map $$Hom^R_S(x,y) rightarrow Hom^R_T(p(x),p(y))$$ is a Kan weak equivalence.



      I was thinking of fitting all this into a commutative diagram and using the two-out-of-three property but I am struggling with it. Is this the right way to look at it or am I missing something?



      If someone needs more definitions I'll gladly add them.






      ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff







      share|cite|improve this question















      The following question is found in the proof of Theorem 2.2.5.3 of HTT but since it can be understood in a more general context I will just ask it without stating the theorem.



      We have a trivial Kan fibration of simplicial sets $p : S rightarrow T$ where $T$ is an $infty$-category. We wish to show that for any two vertices $x,y$ of $S$, the induced map of simplicial sets $$Map_{mathfrak{C}[S]}(x,y) rightarrow Map_{mathfrak{C}[T]}(p(x),p(y))$$ is a Kan weak equivalence.
      We have two results, the first one is that the map $$lvert Hom^R_T(p(x),p(y)) rvert_{Q^bullet} rightarrow Map_{mathfrak{C}[T]}(p(x),p(y))$$ where $Q^bullet$ is the cosimplicial object defined in 2.2.2 is a Kan weak equivalence. The second one is that for any simplicial set, the map $$pi_X : lvert X rvert_{Q^bullet} rightarrow X$$ also defined in Section 2.2.2 is also a Kan weak equivalence.
      Lurie says that thanks to those two results, it is enough to show that the map $$Hom^R_S(x,y) rightarrow Hom^R_T(p(x),p(y))$$ is a Kan weak equivalence.



      I was thinking of fitting all this into a commutative diagram and using the two-out-of-three property but I am struggling with it. Is this the right way to look at it or am I missing something?



      If someone needs more definitions I'll gladly add them.






      ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff




      ct.category-theory higher-category-theory simplicial-stuff






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 5 hours ago









      Earthliŋ

      529219




      529219










      asked 10 hours ago









      Valérian Montessuit

      885




      885






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          11














          From naturality we have the following commutative diagram:



          $require{AMScd}
          begin{CD}
          Map_{mathfrak C[S]}(x,y) @<sim<< |Hom^R_S(x,y)|_{Q_bullet} @>sim>> Hom^R_S(x,y) \
          @VVV @VVV @VVV\
          Map_{mathfrak C[T]}(px,py) @<sim<< |Hom^R_T(px,py)|_{Q_bullet} @>sim>> Hom^R_T(px,py)
          end{CD}$



          From the above two results the horizontal maps are weak equivalences. So if the right hand vertical map is an equivalence, then by 2/3, so is the middle vertical map, so by 2/3, so is the left hand vertical map.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "504"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319513%2fhigher-topos-theory-theorem-2-2-5-3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            11














            From naturality we have the following commutative diagram:



            $require{AMScd}
            begin{CD}
            Map_{mathfrak C[S]}(x,y) @<sim<< |Hom^R_S(x,y)|_{Q_bullet} @>sim>> Hom^R_S(x,y) \
            @VVV @VVV @VVV\
            Map_{mathfrak C[T]}(px,py) @<sim<< |Hom^R_T(px,py)|_{Q_bullet} @>sim>> Hom^R_T(px,py)
            end{CD}$



            From the above two results the horizontal maps are weak equivalences. So if the right hand vertical map is an equivalence, then by 2/3, so is the middle vertical map, so by 2/3, so is the left hand vertical map.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              11














              From naturality we have the following commutative diagram:



              $require{AMScd}
              begin{CD}
              Map_{mathfrak C[S]}(x,y) @<sim<< |Hom^R_S(x,y)|_{Q_bullet} @>sim>> Hom^R_S(x,y) \
              @VVV @VVV @VVV\
              Map_{mathfrak C[T]}(px,py) @<sim<< |Hom^R_T(px,py)|_{Q_bullet} @>sim>> Hom^R_T(px,py)
              end{CD}$



              From the above two results the horizontal maps are weak equivalences. So if the right hand vertical map is an equivalence, then by 2/3, so is the middle vertical map, so by 2/3, so is the left hand vertical map.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                11












                11








                11






                From naturality we have the following commutative diagram:



                $require{AMScd}
                begin{CD}
                Map_{mathfrak C[S]}(x,y) @<sim<< |Hom^R_S(x,y)|_{Q_bullet} @>sim>> Hom^R_S(x,y) \
                @VVV @VVV @VVV\
                Map_{mathfrak C[T]}(px,py) @<sim<< |Hom^R_T(px,py)|_{Q_bullet} @>sim>> Hom^R_T(px,py)
                end{CD}$



                From the above two results the horizontal maps are weak equivalences. So if the right hand vertical map is an equivalence, then by 2/3, so is the middle vertical map, so by 2/3, so is the left hand vertical map.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                From naturality we have the following commutative diagram:



                $require{AMScd}
                begin{CD}
                Map_{mathfrak C[S]}(x,y) @<sim<< |Hom^R_S(x,y)|_{Q_bullet} @>sim>> Hom^R_S(x,y) \
                @VVV @VVV @VVV\
                Map_{mathfrak C[T]}(px,py) @<sim<< |Hom^R_T(px,py)|_{Q_bullet} @>sim>> Hom^R_T(px,py)
                end{CD}$



                From the above two results the horizontal maps are weak equivalences. So if the right hand vertical map is an equivalence, then by 2/3, so is the middle vertical map, so by 2/3, so is the left hand vertical map.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 7 hours ago









                Tim Campion

                13.3k354122




                13.3k354122






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319513%2fhigher-topos-theory-theorem-2-2-5-3%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

                    Image
                    0 I have column SubToBind that shows current year ratio and column PY SubToBind which shows previous year ratio. How can I simply create a card that would be displaying them both in a nice way? Something like that: I cannot achieve that with regular card, I also tried Card with States by OKViz but also unable to see both values. In KPI visual - I dont like the word "Goal", it will confuse end users. Are there any cards or other visuals that would do the job? Thanks powerbi dax powerbi-embedded share | improve this question edited Jun 11 '18 at 20:11 Oleg
                    Read more

                    Alexandru Averescu

                    Image
                    Alexandre Averescu Alexandru Averescu Naissance 3 avril 1859 Babele, Ismail  (ro) près de Izmaïl (principauté de Moldavie) Décès 2 octobre 1938 (à 79 ans) [ 1 ] Bucarest Origine   Roumanie Arme cavalerie Grade Maréchal Années de service 1901-1917 Commandement chef d'état-major général 2 e  armée 3 e  armée Groupe d'armée sud armée du Danube Conflits Guerre russo-turque de 1877-1878 Deuxième guerre balkanique Première Guerre mondiale Faits d'armes Bataille de Turtucaia/Tutrakan Bataille de Mărăști Distinctions Autres fonctions 3 fois président du Conseil des ministres ministre des Affaires étrangères ministre sans portefeuille conseiller de la Couronne modifier   Alexandre Averescu (en roumain : Alexandru Averescu .mw-parser-output .prononciation>a{background:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Loudspeaker.svg/11px-Loudspeaker.svg.png")center
                    Read more

                    Trompette piccolo

                    Image
                    Ne doit pas être confondu avec trompette de poche. Trompette piccolo en si bémol, avec des branches d'embouchure différentes pour le si bémol (la plus courte) ou la (la plus longue) Trompette piccolo La trompette piccolo est la plus petite de la famille des trompettes. Elle joue une octave plus haut que la trompette standard en si bémol. La plupart des trompettes piccolo sont conçues pour jouer dans les deux tonalités de si bémol ou la, en utilisant une branche d'embouchure différente pour chaque tonalité. Le tube de la trompette piccolo en si bémol a une longueur moitié de celle de la trompette normale en si bémol. Des trompettes piccolo en sol, fa, ut sont également fabriquées, mais elles sont rares. La trompette soprano en ré, aussi connu comme la « trompette Bach », a été inventée vers 1890 par le facteur belge Victor-Charles Mahillon pour jouer les parties hautes de la trompette dans la musique de Bach et Haendel. La trompette piccolo moderne permet aux
                    Read more