Present Cisinski to reading group <2024-09-22 Sun 17:00-19:00>
I volunteered to present a chapter from Cisinski. We were working through 7.5, which covers Derived Functors.
DONE [#B] Prepare for reading group
Lemma 7.5.15
For any ∞-Category with weak equivalences and fibrations, the canonical functor is an equivalence of categories.
Here, denotes the Homotopy category of , denotes the Localization of , and denotes the full subcategory of Fibrant objects.
Note that this is really a defininition and two theorems in one:
- The definition of a cleavage
- Every ∞-Category with weak equivalences and fibrations can be equipped with a cleavage
- Every cloven ∞-Category with weak equivalences and fibrations satisfies the lemma.
Proof
We start by choosing a cleavage, which consists of the following data:
For each object , a choice of fibrant object and weak equivalence . (If is already fibrant, then we choose and ).
For each map a choice of a (potentially non-commutative) diagram
where is a weak equivalence, and are fibrations, such that the image of the diagram in is commutative. (Whenever , we choose ), and .
What does this data give us? The name suggests that this is like a 1-categorical Cleavage, which gives us a choice of cartesian lifts for a fibration. This in turn lets us classify fibrations as Pseudofunctors . Here, it seems like we are instead taking a choice of fibrant replacements (the weak equivalences ), along with choices of "weak" factorizations of arbitrary maps into a weak equivalence followed by a fibration . Note that the triangle
seems to mostly exist as a coherence thing. Moreover, note that must be a trivial fibration by 2-Out-Of-3.
Useful example to think about is iso-comma categories as doubly displayed widgets; these are isofibrations in both directions, so they fit the criteria we need.
Existence of cleavages: We can obtain our choice of fibrant replacements by factoring (one of) the maps into the chosen final object of into .
The second property is a bit harder. Given a non-identity map , there is a canonical map that we can factor as a weak equivalence followed by a fibration . The maps and are obtained by postcomposing with the projections out of .
The actual proof: We need to promote a cleavage on to a functor . Given a map , we define . By definition, we have . Let and be a pair of maps. We start by forming a pullback in .
The following commutative square gives us a map .
Next, we choose a composite of and . This gives the following commutative diagram:
This is a bit easier if you think about this as composition of spans, followed by finding an intermediate.
We can then compose the functor with the canonical functor , which is equal to the canonical functor .
Then, by construction, for any map in , the square
commutes in . This gives us an invertible natural transformation , so the functor induced by is an equivalence of categories.
Proposition 7.5.16
Let be a Fibrant object in a ∞-Category with weak equivalences and fibrations . The induced functor is final.
Motivation
Taking colimits over slices like is a classic tool of 1-category theory, and final functors let us compute colimits by restricting along them (See 6.4.5 for the higher case of this). So this theorem will let us do that same "final replacement" trick we do when we compute colimits: in particular, when computing these sorts of slice-shaped colimits, we can restrict our attention to only the fibrant objects.
Proof
Recall that
and
Intuition here is that the following pullback square gives us the data of , as the object in is in the image of .
Why didn't he just write ?
Moreover, the comparison functor is induced by the functor . An object is determined by a pair where and is a map in .
We need to show that the coslice is weakly contractible. By lemma 4.3.15, it suffices to consider a functor of the form where is a nerve of a finite partially ordered set, and to prove that is homotopic to a constant functor.
Let be a simplicial set such that for any finite partially ordered set , any map is homotopic to a constant map. Then the map is a weak homotopy equivalence.
If is empty, then, then it suffices to show that is non-empty. Cisinski says to pick a weak equivalence with fibrant, but we may as well just use ? Either way, we can use our previous lemma to turn the morphism from into a unique map in such that .
Now for the case when is non-empty. First, observe that a functor as above is essentially determined by a functor along with a map and a map such that the diagram
commutes in . Proposition 7.4.19 lets us perform a Reedy fibrant replacement to get a fibrewise equivalence such that is Reedy fibrant.
Let be a mrophism of valued presheaves on a finite direct category. There exists a Reedy fibration and a fibrewise equivalence such that is a composite of and .
Since is invertible, one can find a map such that is a composition of and . Moreover, we can compose with to get a map . These 3 pieces of data give us a functor , and extends to a natural transformation .
This process lets us replace with some whose underlying functor is Reedy fibrant. We then invoke proposition 7.4.8 to show that the limit of exists and is fibrant in . Moreover, the map is a cone for , so we get a map .
As is fibrant in , we can factor into a weak equivalence and a fibration . The canonical morphism along with a choice of composition with defines a map . We can then compose and to get a morphism between constant functors.
Now, let be an object, and be a component of the aforementioned natural transformation. As (which, recall, came from ) is a composition of with the inverse of , the triple defines a constant functor . A short diagram chose shows that any composition of and defines a natural transformation from to .
Corollary 7.5.17
Let be a small ∞-Category with weak equivalences and fibrations. For any infinity category with small colimits and any functor , the commutative square 7.5.11 induces an invertible map
Recall that is precomposition with , and is the extension of a functor to the localization that we compute by taking a colimit.
Motivation
This is sort of a nerve-and-realization result.
Proof
We already have a canonical map that comes from the definition of as a colimit. If we apply Proposition 6.4.9 twice to unfold the definition of , we see that this is equivalent to a map between colimits being invertible. The previous result lets us do a "final replacement" of the side where we compute the colimit over , so this map must be invertible.