(∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-sheaves
Extra stuff, structure and property
locally n-connected (n,1)-topos
locally ∞-connected (∞,1)-topos, ∞-connected (∞,1)-topos
structures in a cohesive (∞,1)-topos
For ∞Grpd the (∞,1)-category of ∞-groupoids, and for a (∞,1)-category (or in fact any simplicial set), an -presheaf on is an -functor
The -category of -presheaves is the (∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-functors
A model for an -presheaf categories is the model structure on simplicial presheaves. See also the discussion at models for ∞-stack (∞,1)-toposes.
For a simplicially enriched category with Kan complexes as hom-objects, write and for the projective or injective, respectively, gloabl model structure on simplicial presheaves. Write for the full sSet-enriched subcategory on fibrant-cofibrant objects, and for the homotopy coherent nerve that sends a Kan-complex enriched category to a quasi-category.
Then there is an equivalence of quasi-categories
Similarly for the injective model structure.
Notice that the result in particular means that any -presheaf – an ”-pseudofunctor” – may be straightened or rectified to a genuine sSet-enriched functor, that respects horizontal compositions strictly.
Limits and colimits
In an ordinary category of presheaves, limits and colimits are computed objectwise, as described at limits and colimits by example. The analogous statement is true for (∞,1)-limits and colimits in an -category of -presheaves.
This is a special case of the general existence of limits and colimits in an (∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-functors. See there for more details.
For a small -category, the -category admits all small limits and colimits.
See around HTT, cor. 18.104.22.168.
As the free completion under colimits
An ordinary category of presheaves on a small category is the free cocompletion of , the free completion under forming colimits.
The analogous result holds for -category of -presheaves.
For a quasi-category with all small colimits, write for the full sub-quasi-category of the (∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-functors on those that preserve small colimits.
Composition with the Yoneda embedding induces an equivalence of quasi-categories
In terms of the model given by the model structure on simplicial presheaves, this is statement made in
which gives that article its name.
Let and be model categories, a plain category and
two plain functors. Say that a model-category theoretic factorization of through is
a Quillen adjunction
a natural weak equivalence
Let the category of such factorizations have morphisms given by natural transformations such that for all all objects the diagrams
Notice that the (∞,1)-category presented by a model category – at least by a combinatorial model category – has all (∞,1)-categorical colimits, and that the Quillen left adjoint functor presents, via its derived functor, a left adjoint (∞,1)-functor that preserves -categorical colimits. So the notion of factorization as above is really about factorizations through colimit-preserving -functors into -categories that have all colimits.
(model category presentation of free -cocompletion)
For a small category, the projective global model structure on simplicial presheaves on is universal with respect to such factorizations of functors out of :
every functor to any model category has a factorization through as above, and the category of such factorizations is contractible.
This is theorem 1.1 in
The proof is on page 30.
To produce the factorization given the functor , first notice that the ordinary Yoneda extension would be given by the left Kan extension given by the coend formula
where the dot in the integrand is the tensoring of cocomplete category over Set. To refine this to a left Quillen functor , choose a cosimplicial resolution?
of . Then set
The right adjoint of this functor is given by
For to be a Quillen adjunction, it is sufficient to check that preserves fibrations and acyclic fibrations. By definition of the projective model structure this means that for every (acyclic) fibration in we have for every object that that
is an (acyclic) fibration of simplicial sets. But this is one of the standard properties of cosimplicial resolution?s.
Finally, to find the natural weak equivalence , write for the Yoneda embedding and notice that by Yoneda reduction it follows that for we have
(where equality signs denote isomorphisms).
By the very definition of cosimplicial resolutions, there is a natural weak equivalence . We can take this to be the component of .
The (∞,1)-Yoneda embedding generates under small colimits:
a full (∞,1)-subcategory of that contains all representables and is closed under forming -colimits is already equivalent to .
Interaction with forming overcategories
The following analog of the corresponding result for 1-categories of presheaves holds for -presheaves. See functors and comma categories.
This appears as HTT, 22.214.171.124.
-subcategories of -presheaf categories
Locally presentable -categories
A reflective (∞,1)-subcategory of an -category of -presheaves is called a presentable (∞,1)-category.
If that left adjoint (∞,1)-functor to the embedding of the reflective (∞,1)-subcategory furthermore preserves finite limits, then the subcategory is an (∞,1)-category of (∞,1)-sheaves: an (∞,1)-topos
Locally presentable categories: Large categories whose objects arise from small generators under small relations.
| accessible categories | | model category theory | model toposes | | combinatorial model categories | Dugger’s theorem | left Bousfield localization of global model structures on simplicial presheaves | | | | (∞,1)-topos theory | (∞,1)-toposes | | locally presentable (∞,1)-categories |
Simpson’s theorem | accessible reflective sub-(∞,1)-categories of (∞,1)-presheaf (∞,1)-categories | |accessible (∞,1)-categories |
This is the topic of section 5.1 of