on chain complexes/model structure on cosimplicial abelian groups
related by the Dold-Kan correspondence
(slice model structure)
For $\mathcal{C}$ a model category and $X \in \mathcal{C}$ any object, the slice category $\mathcal{C}_{/X}$ as well as the coslice category $\mathcal{C}^{X/}$ inherit themselves structures of model categories, whose fibrations, cofibrations and weak equivalences are precisely the morphism whose images under the forgetful functors $\mathcal{C}_{/X} \to \mathcal{C}$ or $\mathcal{C}^{X/} \to \mathcal{C}$ are fibrations, cofibrations or weak equivalences, respectively, in $\mathcal{C}$.
(Hirschhorn 2002, Thm. 7.6.5, May & Ponto 2012, Th. 15.3.6)
If $\mathcal{C}$ is
then so are $\mathcal{C}_{/X}$ and $\mathcal{C}^{X/}$.
More in detail, if $I,J \subset Mor(\mathcal{C})$ are the classes of generating cofibrations and of generating acylic cofibrations of $\mathcal{C}$, respectively, then
(Hirschhorn 05, May & Ponto 2012, Th. 15.3.6).
If $\mathcal{C}$ is a combinatorial model category, then so is $\mathcal{C}_{/X}$.
By basic properties of locally presentable categories they are stable under slicing. Hence with $\mathcal{C}$ locally presentable also $\mathcal{C}_{/X}$ is, and by prop. with $\mathcal{C}$ cofibrantly generated also $\mathcal{C}_{/X}$ is.
If $\mathcal{C}$ is an cartesian enriched model category?, then so is $\mathcal{C}_{/X}$.
By basic properties of cartesian enriched categories? they are stable under slicing, where tensoring is computed in $\mathcal{C}$. Hence with $\mathcal{C}$ enriched also $\mathcal{C}_{/X}$ is. The pushout product axiom now follows from the fact that in overcategories pushouts can be computed in the underlying category $\mathcal{C}$. The unit axiom follows from the unit axiom of $\mathcal{C}$ using the fact that tensorings are computed in $\mathcal{C}$.
When restricted to fibrant objects, the operation of forming the model structure on an overcategory presents the operation of forming the over (∞,1)-category of an (∞,1)-category.
More explicitly, for any model category $\mathcal{C}$, let
denote the localization of an (infinity,1)-category|localization]] (as an (∞,1)-category) inverting the weak equivalences (as e.g. given by simplicial localization; see also the model structure on relative categories). Then:
If $\mathcal{C}$ is a model category and $X \in \mathcal{C}$ is fibrant, then $\gamma$ (1) induces an (∞,1)-functor $\mathcal{C}/X \to L_W(\mathcal{C})/\gamma(X)$, which in turn induces an equivalence of (∞,1)-categories
This main result is corollary 7.6.13 of Cisinski 20. Model categories are (∞,1)-categories with weak equivalences and fibrations as defined in Cisinski Def. 7.4.12.
We spell out a proof for the special case that $\mathcal{C}$ carries the extra structure of a simplicial model category (this proof was written in 2011 when no comparable statement seemed to be available in the literature):
If $\mathcal{C}$ is a simplicial model category and $X \in \mathcal{C}$ is fibrant, then the overcategory $\mathcal{C}/X$ with the above slice model structure is a presentation of the over-(∞,1)-category $L_W \mathcal{C} / \gamma(X)$: we have an equivalence of (∞,1)-categories
We write equivalently $(-)^\circ \coloneqq L_W(-)$.
It is clear that we have an essentially surjective (∞,1)-functor $\mathcal{C}^\circ/X \to (\mathcal{C}/X)^\circ$. What has to be shown is that this is a full and faithful (∞,1)-functor in that it is an equivalence on all hom-∞-groupoids $\mathcal{C}^\circ/X(a,b) \simeq (\mathcal{C}/X)^\circ(a,b)$.
To see this, notice that the hom-space in an over-(∞,1)-category $\mathcal{C}^\circ/X$ between objects $a \colon A \to X$ and $b \colon B \to X$ is given (as discussed there) by the (∞,1)-pullback
in ∞Grpd.
Let $A \in C$ be a cofibrant representative and $b \colon B \to X$ be a fibration representative in $C$ (which always exists) of the objects of these names in $C^\circ$, respectively. In terms of these we have a cofibration
in $\mathcal{C}/X$, exhibiting $a$ as a cofibrant object of $\mathcal{C}/X$; and a fibration
in $\mathcal{C}/X$, exhibiting $b$ as a fibrant object in $\mathcal{C}/X$.
Moreover, the diagram in sSet given by
is
a pullback diagram in sSet (by the definition of morphism in an ordinary overcategory);
a homotopy pullback in the model structure on simplicial sets, because by the pullback power axiom on the sSet${}_{Quillen}$ enriched model category $C$ and the above (co)fibrancy assumptions, all objects are Kan complexes and the right vertical morphism is a Kan fibration;
has in the top left the correct derived hom-space in $C/X$ (since $a$ is cofibrant and $b$ fibrant).
This means that this correct hom-space $\mathcal{C}/X(a,b) \simeq (\mathcal{C}/X)^\circ(a,b) \in sSet$ is indeed a model for $\mathcal{C}^\circ/X(a,b) \in \infty Grpd$.
(left base change Quillen adjunction)
For $\mathcal{C}$ a model category and $c_1 \xrightarrow{f} c_2$ any morphism in $\mathcal{C}$, the left base change adjunction $(f_1 \dashv f^\ast)$ along $f$ (where $f_!$ is postcomposition with and $f^\ast$ is pullback along $f$) is a Quillen adjunction:
Since the left adjoint $f_1$ is the postcomposition operation, it manifestly preserves the classes of underlying morphisms, hence in particular preserves the classes of (acyclic) cofibrations in the slice model structure (by Prop. ), hence is a left Quillen functor.
(left base change Quillen equivalence)
Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a model category, and $\phi \colon S \overset{ \in \mathrm{W} }{\longrightarrow} T$ be a weak equivalence in $\mathcal{C}$.
Then the left base change Quillen adjunction along $\phi$ (Prop. ) is a Quillen equivalence
if and only if $\phi$ has this property:
$(\ast)$ The pullback (base change) of $\phi$ along any fibration is still a weak equivalence.
$\mathcal{C}$ is right proper, or
$\phi$ is an acyclic fibration, or
both $S$ and $T$ are fibrant objects
(for the first this follows by definition; for the second by the fact that $\phi^\ast$ is a right Quillen functor by Prop. ; for the third by this Prop. on recognizing homotopy pullbacks).
Using the characterization of Quillen equivalences by derived adjuncts (here), the base change adjunction is a Quillen equivalence iff for
any cofibrant object $X \to S$ in the slice over $S$ (i.e. $X$ is cofibrant in $\mathcal{C}$)
and a fibrant object $p \colon Y \to T$ in the slice over $T$ (i.e. $p$ is a fibration in $\mathcal{C}$),
we have that
(1) $X \to \phi^*(Y) = S \times_T Y$ is a weak equivalence
iff
(2) $\phi_!(X) \to Y$ is a weak equivalence.
But the latter morphism is the top composite in the following commuting diagram:
Hence the two-out-of-three-property says that (1) is equivalent to (2) if $p^\ast \phi$ is a weak equivalence.
Conversely, taking $X \to \phi^\ast(X)$ to be a weak equivalence (hence a cofibrant resolution of $\phi^\ast(X)$), two-out-of-three implies that if $(\phi_! \dashv \phi^\ast)$ is a Quillen equivalence, then $p^\ast \phi$ is a weak equivalence.
In particular:
The following are equivalent:
$\mathcal{C}$ is a right proper model category.
If $f \colon c_1 \to c_2$ is any weak equivalence in $\mathcal{C}$, then the left base change Quillen adjunction $(f_! \dashv f^\ast)$ (from Prop. ) is a Quillen equivalence.
This is due to Rezk 02, Prop. 2.5.
(slice Quillen adjunctions)
Given a Quillen adjunction
then:
for any object $b \in \mathcal{C}$ the sliced adjunction over $b$ is a Quillen adjunction between the corresponding slice model categories (Prop. ):
for any object $b \in \mathcal{D}$ the sliced adjunction over $b$ is a Quillen adjunction between the corresponding slice model categories (Prop. ):
(e.g. Li 2016, Prop. 2.5 (2))
Consider the first case: By the nature of the sliced adjunction, its left adjoint $L_{/b}$ acts as $L$ on underlying morphisms. But since $L$ is assumed to be a left Quillen functor and since the (acyclic) cofibrations of the slice model structure are those of underlying morphisms (Prop. ), $L_{/b}$ preserves them and is hence itself a left Quillen functor.
The second case is directly analogous: Here it is evident that $R_{/b}$ is a right Quillen functor, since it acts via $R$ on underlying morphisms, and $R$ is right Quillen by assumption.
(sliced Quillen equivalences)
Consider a Quillen equivalence
Then:
It is sufficient to check that the derived adjunction unit and derived adjunction counit are weak equivalences (…)
The classical model structure on pointed topological spaces is the model structure on the undercategory under the point (the category of pointed objects) of the classical model structure on topological spaces.
(induced Quillen adjunction on model categories of pointed objects)
Given a Quillen adjunction between model categories
there is induced a Quillen adjunction between the corresponding model categories of pointed objects
where
the right adjoint acts directly as $R$ on the triangular commuting diagrams in $\mathcal{C}$ that define the morphisms in $\mathcal{C}^{\ast\!/}$;
the left adjoint is the composite of the corresponding direct application of $L$ followed by pushout along the adjunction counit $L(\ast) \simeq L \circ R(\ast) \xrightarrow{ \;\epsilon_\ast \; } \ast$ (using that $R(\ast) \simeq \ast$ since right adjoints preserve limits and hence terminal objects):
It is fairly straightforward to check this directly (e.g. Hovey 1999, Prop. 1.3.5), but it is also a special case of Prop. — to make this explicit, notice that passing to opposite categories with their opposite model structures turns the original Quillen adjunction into the opposite Quillen adjunction:
Now the passage to pointed objects corresponds to slicing (instead of co-slicing), since
whence item (1) in Prop. says that there is a Quillen adjunction of the form
hence with opposite Quillen adjunction of the required form
with $R^{op}$ acting directly as $R$ on underlying diagrams, and with $L^{op}$ acting as the composite of $L$ following by pullback – in $\mathcal{C}^{op}$ – along the adjunction unit of $(R^{op} \dashv L^{op})$. Since the component morphism of the unit of the opposite adjunction $(R^{op} \dashv L^{op})$ is that of the adjunction unit of $(L \dashv R)$, and since pullback in an opposite category is pushout in the original category, this implies the claim.
model structure on an over-category
Philip Hirschhorn, Theorem 7.6.5 of: Model Categories and Their Localizations, AMS Math. Survey and Monographs Vol 99 (2002) (ISBN:978-0-8218-4917-0, pdf toc, pdf)
Philip Hirschhorn, Overcategories and undercategories of model categories, 2005 (pdf, arXiv:1507.01624)
Peter May, Kate Ponto, Thm. 15.3.6 in: More concise algebraic topology, University of Chicago Press (2012) (ISBN:9780226511795, pdf)
Zhi-Wei Li, A note on the model (co-)slice categories, Chinese Annals of Mathematics, Series B volume 37, pages 95–102 (2016) (arXiv:1402.2033, doi:10.1007/s11401-015-0955-z)
See also:
Charles Rezk, Every homotopy theory of simplicial algebras admits a proper model, Topology and its Applications, Volume 119, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 65-94, (doi:10.1016/S0166-8641(01)00057-8, arXiv:math/0003065)
Denis-Charles Cisinski, Higher category theory and homotopical algebra, 2020 (pdf)
Last revised on August 20, 2021 at 06:28:10. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.