What are the advantages of simplicial model categories over non-simplicial ones?Cubical vs. simplicial singular homology What are surprising examples of Model Categories?How many model categories have the same weak equivalences?Model category structure on categories enriched over quasi-coherent sheavesWhat is the homotopy theory of categories?Is the simplicial completion of a localizer always a bousfield localization of the injective model structure?What are the higher morphisms between enriched higher categories?Localizations of model categories and $infty$-categoriesInteraction of Grothendieck Construction with Coherent NerveColimits in the category of simplicial categoriesExplicit data for $E_n$-monoidal model and simplicial categories

What are the advantages of simplicial model categories over non-simplicial ones?


Cubical vs. simplicial singular homology What are surprising examples of Model Categories?How many model categories have the same weak equivalences?Model category structure on categories enriched over quasi-coherent sheavesWhat is the homotopy theory of categories?Is the simplicial completion of a localizer always a bousfield localization of the injective model structure?What are the higher morphisms between enriched higher categories?Localizations of model categories and $infty$-categoriesInteraction of Grothendieck Construction with Coherent NerveColimits in the category of simplicial categoriesExplicit data for $E_n$-monoidal model and simplicial categories













7












$begingroup$


Of course, there are general results allowing one to replace a model category with a simplicial one. But suppose I want to stay in my original non-simplicial model category (say for some reason I'm a fan of quasicategories, for example). What do I miss out on?



I think the idea is supposed to be: the mapping spaces in a simplicial model category are functorial on the nose, rather than something which must be treated in an ad-hoc manner. But I'd like to better understand how this plays out.



Questions:



  1. What constructions / results are only available for simplicial model categories, and not for non-simplicial model categories?


  2. What constructions / results were originally proven for simplicial model categories and only later adapted to the non-simplicial case, or else are easier in the simplicial case?


  3. When adapting results to the non-simplicial case, are the issues mainly set-theoretical, or are there other issues?


For example, there are general results on existence of Bousfield localization which require enrichment of the model structure; in order to get by without enrichment one needs to assume combinatorialness -- but this is basically a set-theoretical restriction.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    In my answer to mathoverflow.net/questions/3656/… I give some specific advantages of cubical methods in algebraic topology, but I am well aware that simplicial methods have been much more widely developed than cubical ones- see the other answers on this page! I am all for development, comparison and evaluation.
    $endgroup$
    – Ronnie Brown
    Mar 22 at 21:56















7












$begingroup$


Of course, there are general results allowing one to replace a model category with a simplicial one. But suppose I want to stay in my original non-simplicial model category (say for some reason I'm a fan of quasicategories, for example). What do I miss out on?



I think the idea is supposed to be: the mapping spaces in a simplicial model category are functorial on the nose, rather than something which must be treated in an ad-hoc manner. But I'd like to better understand how this plays out.



Questions:



  1. What constructions / results are only available for simplicial model categories, and not for non-simplicial model categories?


  2. What constructions / results were originally proven for simplicial model categories and only later adapted to the non-simplicial case, or else are easier in the simplicial case?


  3. When adapting results to the non-simplicial case, are the issues mainly set-theoretical, or are there other issues?


For example, there are general results on existence of Bousfield localization which require enrichment of the model structure; in order to get by without enrichment one needs to assume combinatorialness -- but this is basically a set-theoretical restriction.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    In my answer to mathoverflow.net/questions/3656/… I give some specific advantages of cubical methods in algebraic topology, but I am well aware that simplicial methods have been much more widely developed than cubical ones- see the other answers on this page! I am all for development, comparison and evaluation.
    $endgroup$
    – Ronnie Brown
    Mar 22 at 21:56













7












7








7


2



$begingroup$


Of course, there are general results allowing one to replace a model category with a simplicial one. But suppose I want to stay in my original non-simplicial model category (say for some reason I'm a fan of quasicategories, for example). What do I miss out on?



I think the idea is supposed to be: the mapping spaces in a simplicial model category are functorial on the nose, rather than something which must be treated in an ad-hoc manner. But I'd like to better understand how this plays out.



Questions:



  1. What constructions / results are only available for simplicial model categories, and not for non-simplicial model categories?


  2. What constructions / results were originally proven for simplicial model categories and only later adapted to the non-simplicial case, or else are easier in the simplicial case?


  3. When adapting results to the non-simplicial case, are the issues mainly set-theoretical, or are there other issues?


For example, there are general results on existence of Bousfield localization which require enrichment of the model structure; in order to get by without enrichment one needs to assume combinatorialness -- but this is basically a set-theoretical restriction.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Of course, there are general results allowing one to replace a model category with a simplicial one. But suppose I want to stay in my original non-simplicial model category (say for some reason I'm a fan of quasicategories, for example). What do I miss out on?



I think the idea is supposed to be: the mapping spaces in a simplicial model category are functorial on the nose, rather than something which must be treated in an ad-hoc manner. But I'd like to better understand how this plays out.



Questions:



  1. What constructions / results are only available for simplicial model categories, and not for non-simplicial model categories?


  2. What constructions / results were originally proven for simplicial model categories and only later adapted to the non-simplicial case, or else are easier in the simplicial case?


  3. When adapting results to the non-simplicial case, are the issues mainly set-theoretical, or are there other issues?


For example, there are general results on existence of Bousfield localization which require enrichment of the model structure; in order to get by without enrichment one needs to assume combinatorialness -- but this is basically a set-theoretical restriction.







at.algebraic-topology ct.category-theory homotopy-theory model-categories






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 22 at 15:49









David White

13.1k462105




13.1k462105










asked Mar 22 at 15:05









Tim CampionTim Campion

14.7k355128




14.7k355128











  • $begingroup$
    In my answer to mathoverflow.net/questions/3656/… I give some specific advantages of cubical methods in algebraic topology, but I am well aware that simplicial methods have been much more widely developed than cubical ones- see the other answers on this page! I am all for development, comparison and evaluation.
    $endgroup$
    – Ronnie Brown
    Mar 22 at 21:56
















  • $begingroup$
    In my answer to mathoverflow.net/questions/3656/… I give some specific advantages of cubical methods in algebraic topology, but I am well aware that simplicial methods have been much more widely developed than cubical ones- see the other answers on this page! I am all for development, comparison and evaluation.
    $endgroup$
    – Ronnie Brown
    Mar 22 at 21:56















$begingroup$
In my answer to mathoverflow.net/questions/3656/… I give some specific advantages of cubical methods in algebraic topology, but I am well aware that simplicial methods have been much more widely developed than cubical ones- see the other answers on this page! I am all for development, comparison and evaluation.
$endgroup$
– Ronnie Brown
Mar 22 at 21:56




$begingroup$
In my answer to mathoverflow.net/questions/3656/… I give some specific advantages of cubical methods in algebraic topology, but I am well aware that simplicial methods have been much more widely developed than cubical ones- see the other answers on this page! I am all for development, comparison and evaluation.
$endgroup$
– Ronnie Brown
Mar 22 at 21:56










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

(1) The main benefit of a simplicial model category structure is explicit formulas for (co)simplicial resolutions. Remark 5.2.10 in Hovey's book identifies the functor $Amapsto tildeA^m = Aotimes Delta[m]$ as a cosimplicial resolution (over all $m$, obviously), if $A$ is cofibrant. I needed this in my thesis, specifically Corollary 6.7 here, and was never able to figure out how to get away from the simplicial assumption in that proof. There's also an analogous formula for simplicial resolutions of fibrant objects.



(3) I'm not aware of any Bousfield localization results that need $M$ to be a simplicial model category. They usually need simplicial mapping spaces, but those are easy to get from a framing, which exists whenever $M$ is cofibrantly generated (see Chapter 5 of Hovey's book) and not necessarily combinatorial. When adapting to the non-simplicial case, usually just a little bit more care is needed to deal with the framings. A good example is how early work of Rezk was always set in simplicial model categories, and later work was not (these are good examples for your question (2)). Authors usually leave out the details of making the simplicial framings work, and that's because it's really quite easy if all you need are simplicial mapping spaces and their connection to (co)fibrant objects and weak equivalences.



(2) Here are some explicit examples. Dugger's universal homotopy theory paper (and other papers of his from this era), Gutierrez-Roitzheim work with framings and localization, Barnes-Roitzheim framings and Bousfield localization, Rezk's thesis is written for simplicial model categories but works much more generally, and part of that general story is in my paper with Gutierrez.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    6












    $begingroup$

    I believe the main reasons enriched model category are simpler boils down to:



    Tensoring and co-tensoring by $Delta[1]$ gives very well behaved path objects and cylinder objects adjoint to each other



    Slightly more generally, (co)tensoring by more general simplicial set gives an explicit construction of the (co)tensorization by spaces, and this also allows to recover the enrichment in spaces using the simplicial hom between cofibrant and fibrant object. But cylinder object plays a very special role in this story.



    Having such well behaved cylinders makes the construction of model structure considerably easier, this is very apparent in M.Olschok works (see his theorem 3.16).



    In fact I claim the following:



    Theorem: Let $C$ be a presentable simplicially enriched category. Let $I$ and $J$ be sets of morphism in $C$ such that $J subset I-Cof$ (or more generally, $J$ are cofibration in the sense below). I'm also assuming* that the domain of every arrow in $I$ and $J$ is cofibrant in the sense below.



    Then there is a simplicial combinatorial left semi-model structure on $C$ such that:



    • The cofibrations are generated by $I$ as a simplicially enriched class of cofibration, i.e. they are generated in the naive sense by the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes I $.


    • The fibrations between fibrant objects are characterized by the right lifting property against the $(Lambda^k[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n] )widehatotimes I$ and the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes J$.


    • and Obviously, The trivial fibrations are characterized by the right lifting property against the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes I $.


    where $otimes$ denotes the tensoring by simplicial sets, and $widehatotimes$ denotes the corresponding corner-product/pushout-product.



    This type of theorem makes it incredibly easy to construct simplicial model categories. For example, knowing this it is immediate the left bousfield localization exists, or that left transfer along simplicial adjunction essentially always exists.



    The proof of this theorem is not available yet (in preparation, it should be available before in a few month).
    Though some very similar result are already available: if you add the assumption that every object in $C$ is cofibrant, then this should follows from Olschok's theorem 3.16 quoted above applied to the cylinder functor given by tensoring by $Delta[1]$ (maybe with a little bit of work to check that the definition of the class of fibration and cofibration match those I have given). And If you are ok with getting something weaker than a left semi-model structure, this follows from my theorem 3.2.1 here (which produce what I call a "weak model structure").



    (Regarding the assumption (*) it can actually be removed, but some modification needs to be made to the statement to keep it correct, and they are a bit to complicated to be explained here... also I don't understand them very well so far)




    Another concrete example of interest, which I think could also be somehow attributed to the theorem above, is the construction by Ching & Riehl of a model structure on the category of algebraically cofibrant objects of a Simplicial model category $C$, Quillen equivalent to $C$. Somehow a dual of the well known Nikolaus construction.



    This construction uses in an essentially way that the category is simplicial, and more precisely that the the "cofibrant replacement comonad" used to define the category of algebraically cofibrant object is a simplicially enriched monad. This makes the category of cofibrant objects a simplicial category, and makes it easy to put a model structure on it.



    In fact, I claim that this result fails without simplicial enrichment. More precisely, if you take $C$ to be the category of simplicial sets, and consider the (non-simplicial) algebraic weak factorization system generated by the $partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]$ then this category of algebraically cofibrant object has very few model structure, and they are all essentially trivial (their $infty$-categorical localization are actually posets).



    Unfortunately the proof of this last claim rellies on a lot of so far unpublished things so I'm not sure I can explain it on MO.



    (This being said Ching & Riehl result might actually be true for any combinatorial model category as soon as one only wants a right semi-model structure on the category of algebraically cofibrant objects... but I don't know a proof of this)




    A final remark: I don't think these things are specifically about "simplicial model category", it is more about the difference between enriched model categories on non-enriched ones. You can do similar construction for essentially any kind of enrichment.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      A simple example of a category of algebraically cofibrant objects on which the left-induced model structure does not exist is as follows. There is a (cof. gen.) model structure on Cat in which a functor is a weak equivalence iff its poset-reflection is an isomorphism, and for which the pair of morphisms $0 to 1$ and $1 + 1 to 0<1$ form a set of generating cofibrations. The cofibrant replacement comonad generated by this set is the "free category" comonad on Cat, whose category of coalgebras is equivalent to the category Gph of (directed) graphs. But on Gph there (...)
      $endgroup$
      – Alexander Campbell
      Mar 22 at 20:46











    • $begingroup$
      (...) exists no model structure left-induced along the "free" functor Gph $to$ Cat: for instance, the morphism $1+1 to 1$ (where 1 is the graph with a single vertex and no edges) does not factorise as a "cofibration" (i.e. monomorphism) followed by a "weak equivalence".
      $endgroup$
      – Alexander Campbell
      Mar 22 at 20:50











    • $begingroup$
      Yes, that is nice ! the example I mentioned actually worked essentially the same way, but with more "level" than justs two, which makes the combinatorics involved a lot more complicated.
      $endgroup$
      – Simon Henry
      Mar 22 at 21:17












    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%2f326059%2fwhat-are-the-advantages-of-simplicial-model-categories-over-non-simplicial-ones%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    9












    $begingroup$

    (1) The main benefit of a simplicial model category structure is explicit formulas for (co)simplicial resolutions. Remark 5.2.10 in Hovey's book identifies the functor $Amapsto tildeA^m = Aotimes Delta[m]$ as a cosimplicial resolution (over all $m$, obviously), if $A$ is cofibrant. I needed this in my thesis, specifically Corollary 6.7 here, and was never able to figure out how to get away from the simplicial assumption in that proof. There's also an analogous formula for simplicial resolutions of fibrant objects.



    (3) I'm not aware of any Bousfield localization results that need $M$ to be a simplicial model category. They usually need simplicial mapping spaces, but those are easy to get from a framing, which exists whenever $M$ is cofibrantly generated (see Chapter 5 of Hovey's book) and not necessarily combinatorial. When adapting to the non-simplicial case, usually just a little bit more care is needed to deal with the framings. A good example is how early work of Rezk was always set in simplicial model categories, and later work was not (these are good examples for your question (2)). Authors usually leave out the details of making the simplicial framings work, and that's because it's really quite easy if all you need are simplicial mapping spaces and their connection to (co)fibrant objects and weak equivalences.



    (2) Here are some explicit examples. Dugger's universal homotopy theory paper (and other papers of his from this era), Gutierrez-Roitzheim work with framings and localization, Barnes-Roitzheim framings and Bousfield localization, Rezk's thesis is written for simplicial model categories but works much more generally, and part of that general story is in my paper with Gutierrez.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      9












      $begingroup$

      (1) The main benefit of a simplicial model category structure is explicit formulas for (co)simplicial resolutions. Remark 5.2.10 in Hovey's book identifies the functor $Amapsto tildeA^m = Aotimes Delta[m]$ as a cosimplicial resolution (over all $m$, obviously), if $A$ is cofibrant. I needed this in my thesis, specifically Corollary 6.7 here, and was never able to figure out how to get away from the simplicial assumption in that proof. There's also an analogous formula for simplicial resolutions of fibrant objects.



      (3) I'm not aware of any Bousfield localization results that need $M$ to be a simplicial model category. They usually need simplicial mapping spaces, but those are easy to get from a framing, which exists whenever $M$ is cofibrantly generated (see Chapter 5 of Hovey's book) and not necessarily combinatorial. When adapting to the non-simplicial case, usually just a little bit more care is needed to deal with the framings. A good example is how early work of Rezk was always set in simplicial model categories, and later work was not (these are good examples for your question (2)). Authors usually leave out the details of making the simplicial framings work, and that's because it's really quite easy if all you need are simplicial mapping spaces and their connection to (co)fibrant objects and weak equivalences.



      (2) Here are some explicit examples. Dugger's universal homotopy theory paper (and other papers of his from this era), Gutierrez-Roitzheim work with framings and localization, Barnes-Roitzheim framings and Bousfield localization, Rezk's thesis is written for simplicial model categories but works much more generally, and part of that general story is in my paper with Gutierrez.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        9












        9








        9





        $begingroup$

        (1) The main benefit of a simplicial model category structure is explicit formulas for (co)simplicial resolutions. Remark 5.2.10 in Hovey's book identifies the functor $Amapsto tildeA^m = Aotimes Delta[m]$ as a cosimplicial resolution (over all $m$, obviously), if $A$ is cofibrant. I needed this in my thesis, specifically Corollary 6.7 here, and was never able to figure out how to get away from the simplicial assumption in that proof. There's also an analogous formula for simplicial resolutions of fibrant objects.



        (3) I'm not aware of any Bousfield localization results that need $M$ to be a simplicial model category. They usually need simplicial mapping spaces, but those are easy to get from a framing, which exists whenever $M$ is cofibrantly generated (see Chapter 5 of Hovey's book) and not necessarily combinatorial. When adapting to the non-simplicial case, usually just a little bit more care is needed to deal with the framings. A good example is how early work of Rezk was always set in simplicial model categories, and later work was not (these are good examples for your question (2)). Authors usually leave out the details of making the simplicial framings work, and that's because it's really quite easy if all you need are simplicial mapping spaces and their connection to (co)fibrant objects and weak equivalences.



        (2) Here are some explicit examples. Dugger's universal homotopy theory paper (and other papers of his from this era), Gutierrez-Roitzheim work with framings and localization, Barnes-Roitzheim framings and Bousfield localization, Rezk's thesis is written for simplicial model categories but works much more generally, and part of that general story is in my paper with Gutierrez.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        (1) The main benefit of a simplicial model category structure is explicit formulas for (co)simplicial resolutions. Remark 5.2.10 in Hovey's book identifies the functor $Amapsto tildeA^m = Aotimes Delta[m]$ as a cosimplicial resolution (over all $m$, obviously), if $A$ is cofibrant. I needed this in my thesis, specifically Corollary 6.7 here, and was never able to figure out how to get away from the simplicial assumption in that proof. There's also an analogous formula for simplicial resolutions of fibrant objects.



        (3) I'm not aware of any Bousfield localization results that need $M$ to be a simplicial model category. They usually need simplicial mapping spaces, but those are easy to get from a framing, which exists whenever $M$ is cofibrantly generated (see Chapter 5 of Hovey's book) and not necessarily combinatorial. When adapting to the non-simplicial case, usually just a little bit more care is needed to deal with the framings. A good example is how early work of Rezk was always set in simplicial model categories, and later work was not (these are good examples for your question (2)). Authors usually leave out the details of making the simplicial framings work, and that's because it's really quite easy if all you need are simplicial mapping spaces and their connection to (co)fibrant objects and weak equivalences.



        (2) Here are some explicit examples. Dugger's universal homotopy theory paper (and other papers of his from this era), Gutierrez-Roitzheim work with framings and localization, Barnes-Roitzheim framings and Bousfield localization, Rezk's thesis is written for simplicial model categories but works much more generally, and part of that general story is in my paper with Gutierrez.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Mar 22 at 15:49









        David WhiteDavid White

        13.1k462105




        13.1k462105





















            6












            $begingroup$

            I believe the main reasons enriched model category are simpler boils down to:



            Tensoring and co-tensoring by $Delta[1]$ gives very well behaved path objects and cylinder objects adjoint to each other



            Slightly more generally, (co)tensoring by more general simplicial set gives an explicit construction of the (co)tensorization by spaces, and this also allows to recover the enrichment in spaces using the simplicial hom between cofibrant and fibrant object. But cylinder object plays a very special role in this story.



            Having such well behaved cylinders makes the construction of model structure considerably easier, this is very apparent in M.Olschok works (see his theorem 3.16).



            In fact I claim the following:



            Theorem: Let $C$ be a presentable simplicially enriched category. Let $I$ and $J$ be sets of morphism in $C$ such that $J subset I-Cof$ (or more generally, $J$ are cofibration in the sense below). I'm also assuming* that the domain of every arrow in $I$ and $J$ is cofibrant in the sense below.



            Then there is a simplicial combinatorial left semi-model structure on $C$ such that:



            • The cofibrations are generated by $I$ as a simplicially enriched class of cofibration, i.e. they are generated in the naive sense by the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes I $.


            • The fibrations between fibrant objects are characterized by the right lifting property against the $(Lambda^k[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n] )widehatotimes I$ and the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes J$.


            • and Obviously, The trivial fibrations are characterized by the right lifting property against the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes I $.


            where $otimes$ denotes the tensoring by simplicial sets, and $widehatotimes$ denotes the corresponding corner-product/pushout-product.



            This type of theorem makes it incredibly easy to construct simplicial model categories. For example, knowing this it is immediate the left bousfield localization exists, or that left transfer along simplicial adjunction essentially always exists.



            The proof of this theorem is not available yet (in preparation, it should be available before in a few month).
            Though some very similar result are already available: if you add the assumption that every object in $C$ is cofibrant, then this should follows from Olschok's theorem 3.16 quoted above applied to the cylinder functor given by tensoring by $Delta[1]$ (maybe with a little bit of work to check that the definition of the class of fibration and cofibration match those I have given). And If you are ok with getting something weaker than a left semi-model structure, this follows from my theorem 3.2.1 here (which produce what I call a "weak model structure").



            (Regarding the assumption (*) it can actually be removed, but some modification needs to be made to the statement to keep it correct, and they are a bit to complicated to be explained here... also I don't understand them very well so far)




            Another concrete example of interest, which I think could also be somehow attributed to the theorem above, is the construction by Ching & Riehl of a model structure on the category of algebraically cofibrant objects of a Simplicial model category $C$, Quillen equivalent to $C$. Somehow a dual of the well known Nikolaus construction.



            This construction uses in an essentially way that the category is simplicial, and more precisely that the the "cofibrant replacement comonad" used to define the category of algebraically cofibrant object is a simplicially enriched monad. This makes the category of cofibrant objects a simplicial category, and makes it easy to put a model structure on it.



            In fact, I claim that this result fails without simplicial enrichment. More precisely, if you take $C$ to be the category of simplicial sets, and consider the (non-simplicial) algebraic weak factorization system generated by the $partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]$ then this category of algebraically cofibrant object has very few model structure, and they are all essentially trivial (their $infty$-categorical localization are actually posets).



            Unfortunately the proof of this last claim rellies on a lot of so far unpublished things so I'm not sure I can explain it on MO.



            (This being said Ching & Riehl result might actually be true for any combinatorial model category as soon as one only wants a right semi-model structure on the category of algebraically cofibrant objects... but I don't know a proof of this)




            A final remark: I don't think these things are specifically about "simplicial model category", it is more about the difference between enriched model categories on non-enriched ones. You can do similar construction for essentially any kind of enrichment.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              A simple example of a category of algebraically cofibrant objects on which the left-induced model structure does not exist is as follows. There is a (cof. gen.) model structure on Cat in which a functor is a weak equivalence iff its poset-reflection is an isomorphism, and for which the pair of morphisms $0 to 1$ and $1 + 1 to 0<1$ form a set of generating cofibrations. The cofibrant replacement comonad generated by this set is the "free category" comonad on Cat, whose category of coalgebras is equivalent to the category Gph of (directed) graphs. But on Gph there (...)
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander Campbell
              Mar 22 at 20:46











            • $begingroup$
              (...) exists no model structure left-induced along the "free" functor Gph $to$ Cat: for instance, the morphism $1+1 to 1$ (where 1 is the graph with a single vertex and no edges) does not factorise as a "cofibration" (i.e. monomorphism) followed by a "weak equivalence".
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander Campbell
              Mar 22 at 20:50











            • $begingroup$
              Yes, that is nice ! the example I mentioned actually worked essentially the same way, but with more "level" than justs two, which makes the combinatorics involved a lot more complicated.
              $endgroup$
              – Simon Henry
              Mar 22 at 21:17
















            6












            $begingroup$

            I believe the main reasons enriched model category are simpler boils down to:



            Tensoring and co-tensoring by $Delta[1]$ gives very well behaved path objects and cylinder objects adjoint to each other



            Slightly more generally, (co)tensoring by more general simplicial set gives an explicit construction of the (co)tensorization by spaces, and this also allows to recover the enrichment in spaces using the simplicial hom between cofibrant and fibrant object. But cylinder object plays a very special role in this story.



            Having such well behaved cylinders makes the construction of model structure considerably easier, this is very apparent in M.Olschok works (see his theorem 3.16).



            In fact I claim the following:



            Theorem: Let $C$ be a presentable simplicially enriched category. Let $I$ and $J$ be sets of morphism in $C$ such that $J subset I-Cof$ (or more generally, $J$ are cofibration in the sense below). I'm also assuming* that the domain of every arrow in $I$ and $J$ is cofibrant in the sense below.



            Then there is a simplicial combinatorial left semi-model structure on $C$ such that:



            • The cofibrations are generated by $I$ as a simplicially enriched class of cofibration, i.e. they are generated in the naive sense by the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes I $.


            • The fibrations between fibrant objects are characterized by the right lifting property against the $(Lambda^k[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n] )widehatotimes I$ and the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes J$.


            • and Obviously, The trivial fibrations are characterized by the right lifting property against the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes I $.


            where $otimes$ denotes the tensoring by simplicial sets, and $widehatotimes$ denotes the corresponding corner-product/pushout-product.



            This type of theorem makes it incredibly easy to construct simplicial model categories. For example, knowing this it is immediate the left bousfield localization exists, or that left transfer along simplicial adjunction essentially always exists.



            The proof of this theorem is not available yet (in preparation, it should be available before in a few month).
            Though some very similar result are already available: if you add the assumption that every object in $C$ is cofibrant, then this should follows from Olschok's theorem 3.16 quoted above applied to the cylinder functor given by tensoring by $Delta[1]$ (maybe with a little bit of work to check that the definition of the class of fibration and cofibration match those I have given). And If you are ok with getting something weaker than a left semi-model structure, this follows from my theorem 3.2.1 here (which produce what I call a "weak model structure").



            (Regarding the assumption (*) it can actually be removed, but some modification needs to be made to the statement to keep it correct, and they are a bit to complicated to be explained here... also I don't understand them very well so far)




            Another concrete example of interest, which I think could also be somehow attributed to the theorem above, is the construction by Ching & Riehl of a model structure on the category of algebraically cofibrant objects of a Simplicial model category $C$, Quillen equivalent to $C$. Somehow a dual of the well known Nikolaus construction.



            This construction uses in an essentially way that the category is simplicial, and more precisely that the the "cofibrant replacement comonad" used to define the category of algebraically cofibrant object is a simplicially enriched monad. This makes the category of cofibrant objects a simplicial category, and makes it easy to put a model structure on it.



            In fact, I claim that this result fails without simplicial enrichment. More precisely, if you take $C$ to be the category of simplicial sets, and consider the (non-simplicial) algebraic weak factorization system generated by the $partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]$ then this category of algebraically cofibrant object has very few model structure, and they are all essentially trivial (their $infty$-categorical localization are actually posets).



            Unfortunately the proof of this last claim rellies on a lot of so far unpublished things so I'm not sure I can explain it on MO.



            (This being said Ching & Riehl result might actually be true for any combinatorial model category as soon as one only wants a right semi-model structure on the category of algebraically cofibrant objects... but I don't know a proof of this)




            A final remark: I don't think these things are specifically about "simplicial model category", it is more about the difference between enriched model categories on non-enriched ones. You can do similar construction for essentially any kind of enrichment.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              A simple example of a category of algebraically cofibrant objects on which the left-induced model structure does not exist is as follows. There is a (cof. gen.) model structure on Cat in which a functor is a weak equivalence iff its poset-reflection is an isomorphism, and for which the pair of morphisms $0 to 1$ and $1 + 1 to 0<1$ form a set of generating cofibrations. The cofibrant replacement comonad generated by this set is the "free category" comonad on Cat, whose category of coalgebras is equivalent to the category Gph of (directed) graphs. But on Gph there (...)
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander Campbell
              Mar 22 at 20:46











            • $begingroup$
              (...) exists no model structure left-induced along the "free" functor Gph $to$ Cat: for instance, the morphism $1+1 to 1$ (where 1 is the graph with a single vertex and no edges) does not factorise as a "cofibration" (i.e. monomorphism) followed by a "weak equivalence".
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander Campbell
              Mar 22 at 20:50











            • $begingroup$
              Yes, that is nice ! the example I mentioned actually worked essentially the same way, but with more "level" than justs two, which makes the combinatorics involved a lot more complicated.
              $endgroup$
              – Simon Henry
              Mar 22 at 21:17














            6












            6








            6





            $begingroup$

            I believe the main reasons enriched model category are simpler boils down to:



            Tensoring and co-tensoring by $Delta[1]$ gives very well behaved path objects and cylinder objects adjoint to each other



            Slightly more generally, (co)tensoring by more general simplicial set gives an explicit construction of the (co)tensorization by spaces, and this also allows to recover the enrichment in spaces using the simplicial hom between cofibrant and fibrant object. But cylinder object plays a very special role in this story.



            Having such well behaved cylinders makes the construction of model structure considerably easier, this is very apparent in M.Olschok works (see his theorem 3.16).



            In fact I claim the following:



            Theorem: Let $C$ be a presentable simplicially enriched category. Let $I$ and $J$ be sets of morphism in $C$ such that $J subset I-Cof$ (or more generally, $J$ are cofibration in the sense below). I'm also assuming* that the domain of every arrow in $I$ and $J$ is cofibrant in the sense below.



            Then there is a simplicial combinatorial left semi-model structure on $C$ such that:



            • The cofibrations are generated by $I$ as a simplicially enriched class of cofibration, i.e. they are generated in the naive sense by the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes I $.


            • The fibrations between fibrant objects are characterized by the right lifting property against the $(Lambda^k[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n] )widehatotimes I$ and the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes J$.


            • and Obviously, The trivial fibrations are characterized by the right lifting property against the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes I $.


            where $otimes$ denotes the tensoring by simplicial sets, and $widehatotimes$ denotes the corresponding corner-product/pushout-product.



            This type of theorem makes it incredibly easy to construct simplicial model categories. For example, knowing this it is immediate the left bousfield localization exists, or that left transfer along simplicial adjunction essentially always exists.



            The proof of this theorem is not available yet (in preparation, it should be available before in a few month).
            Though some very similar result are already available: if you add the assumption that every object in $C$ is cofibrant, then this should follows from Olschok's theorem 3.16 quoted above applied to the cylinder functor given by tensoring by $Delta[1]$ (maybe with a little bit of work to check that the definition of the class of fibration and cofibration match those I have given). And If you are ok with getting something weaker than a left semi-model structure, this follows from my theorem 3.2.1 here (which produce what I call a "weak model structure").



            (Regarding the assumption (*) it can actually be removed, but some modification needs to be made to the statement to keep it correct, and they are a bit to complicated to be explained here... also I don't understand them very well so far)




            Another concrete example of interest, which I think could also be somehow attributed to the theorem above, is the construction by Ching & Riehl of a model structure on the category of algebraically cofibrant objects of a Simplicial model category $C$, Quillen equivalent to $C$. Somehow a dual of the well known Nikolaus construction.



            This construction uses in an essentially way that the category is simplicial, and more precisely that the the "cofibrant replacement comonad" used to define the category of algebraically cofibrant object is a simplicially enriched monad. This makes the category of cofibrant objects a simplicial category, and makes it easy to put a model structure on it.



            In fact, I claim that this result fails without simplicial enrichment. More precisely, if you take $C$ to be the category of simplicial sets, and consider the (non-simplicial) algebraic weak factorization system generated by the $partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]$ then this category of algebraically cofibrant object has very few model structure, and they are all essentially trivial (their $infty$-categorical localization are actually posets).



            Unfortunately the proof of this last claim rellies on a lot of so far unpublished things so I'm not sure I can explain it on MO.



            (This being said Ching & Riehl result might actually be true for any combinatorial model category as soon as one only wants a right semi-model structure on the category of algebraically cofibrant objects... but I don't know a proof of this)




            A final remark: I don't think these things are specifically about "simplicial model category", it is more about the difference between enriched model categories on non-enriched ones. You can do similar construction for essentially any kind of enrichment.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            I believe the main reasons enriched model category are simpler boils down to:



            Tensoring and co-tensoring by $Delta[1]$ gives very well behaved path objects and cylinder objects adjoint to each other



            Slightly more generally, (co)tensoring by more general simplicial set gives an explicit construction of the (co)tensorization by spaces, and this also allows to recover the enrichment in spaces using the simplicial hom between cofibrant and fibrant object. But cylinder object plays a very special role in this story.



            Having such well behaved cylinders makes the construction of model structure considerably easier, this is very apparent in M.Olschok works (see his theorem 3.16).



            In fact I claim the following:



            Theorem: Let $C$ be a presentable simplicially enriched category. Let $I$ and $J$ be sets of morphism in $C$ such that $J subset I-Cof$ (or more generally, $J$ are cofibration in the sense below). I'm also assuming* that the domain of every arrow in $I$ and $J$ is cofibrant in the sense below.



            Then there is a simplicial combinatorial left semi-model structure on $C$ such that:



            • The cofibrations are generated by $I$ as a simplicially enriched class of cofibration, i.e. they are generated in the naive sense by the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes I $.


            • The fibrations between fibrant objects are characterized by the right lifting property against the $(Lambda^k[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n] )widehatotimes I$ and the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes J$.


            • and Obviously, The trivial fibrations are characterized by the right lifting property against the $(partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]) widehatotimes I $.


            where $otimes$ denotes the tensoring by simplicial sets, and $widehatotimes$ denotes the corresponding corner-product/pushout-product.



            This type of theorem makes it incredibly easy to construct simplicial model categories. For example, knowing this it is immediate the left bousfield localization exists, or that left transfer along simplicial adjunction essentially always exists.



            The proof of this theorem is not available yet (in preparation, it should be available before in a few month).
            Though some very similar result are already available: if you add the assumption that every object in $C$ is cofibrant, then this should follows from Olschok's theorem 3.16 quoted above applied to the cylinder functor given by tensoring by $Delta[1]$ (maybe with a little bit of work to check that the definition of the class of fibration and cofibration match those I have given). And If you are ok with getting something weaker than a left semi-model structure, this follows from my theorem 3.2.1 here (which produce what I call a "weak model structure").



            (Regarding the assumption (*) it can actually be removed, but some modification needs to be made to the statement to keep it correct, and they are a bit to complicated to be explained here... also I don't understand them very well so far)




            Another concrete example of interest, which I think could also be somehow attributed to the theorem above, is the construction by Ching & Riehl of a model structure on the category of algebraically cofibrant objects of a Simplicial model category $C$, Quillen equivalent to $C$. Somehow a dual of the well known Nikolaus construction.



            This construction uses in an essentially way that the category is simplicial, and more precisely that the the "cofibrant replacement comonad" used to define the category of algebraically cofibrant object is a simplicially enriched monad. This makes the category of cofibrant objects a simplicial category, and makes it easy to put a model structure on it.



            In fact, I claim that this result fails without simplicial enrichment. More precisely, if you take $C$ to be the category of simplicial sets, and consider the (non-simplicial) algebraic weak factorization system generated by the $partial Delta[n] hookrightarrow Delta[n]$ then this category of algebraically cofibrant object has very few model structure, and they are all essentially trivial (their $infty$-categorical localization are actually posets).



            Unfortunately the proof of this last claim rellies on a lot of so far unpublished things so I'm not sure I can explain it on MO.



            (This being said Ching & Riehl result might actually be true for any combinatorial model category as soon as one only wants a right semi-model structure on the category of algebraically cofibrant objects... but I don't know a proof of this)




            A final remark: I don't think these things are specifically about "simplicial model category", it is more about the difference between enriched model categories on non-enriched ones. You can do similar construction for essentially any kind of enrichment.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Mar 22 at 17:47

























            answered Mar 22 at 16:13









            Simon HenrySimon Henry

            15.6k14991




            15.6k14991







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              A simple example of a category of algebraically cofibrant objects on which the left-induced model structure does not exist is as follows. There is a (cof. gen.) model structure on Cat in which a functor is a weak equivalence iff its poset-reflection is an isomorphism, and for which the pair of morphisms $0 to 1$ and $1 + 1 to 0<1$ form a set of generating cofibrations. The cofibrant replacement comonad generated by this set is the "free category" comonad on Cat, whose category of coalgebras is equivalent to the category Gph of (directed) graphs. But on Gph there (...)
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander Campbell
              Mar 22 at 20:46











            • $begingroup$
              (...) exists no model structure left-induced along the "free" functor Gph $to$ Cat: for instance, the morphism $1+1 to 1$ (where 1 is the graph with a single vertex and no edges) does not factorise as a "cofibration" (i.e. monomorphism) followed by a "weak equivalence".
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander Campbell
              Mar 22 at 20:50











            • $begingroup$
              Yes, that is nice ! the example I mentioned actually worked essentially the same way, but with more "level" than justs two, which makes the combinatorics involved a lot more complicated.
              $endgroup$
              – Simon Henry
              Mar 22 at 21:17













            • 1




              $begingroup$
              A simple example of a category of algebraically cofibrant objects on which the left-induced model structure does not exist is as follows. There is a (cof. gen.) model structure on Cat in which a functor is a weak equivalence iff its poset-reflection is an isomorphism, and for which the pair of morphisms $0 to 1$ and $1 + 1 to 0<1$ form a set of generating cofibrations. The cofibrant replacement comonad generated by this set is the "free category" comonad on Cat, whose category of coalgebras is equivalent to the category Gph of (directed) graphs. But on Gph there (...)
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander Campbell
              Mar 22 at 20:46











            • $begingroup$
              (...) exists no model structure left-induced along the "free" functor Gph $to$ Cat: for instance, the morphism $1+1 to 1$ (where 1 is the graph with a single vertex and no edges) does not factorise as a "cofibration" (i.e. monomorphism) followed by a "weak equivalence".
              $endgroup$
              – Alexander Campbell
              Mar 22 at 20:50











            • $begingroup$
              Yes, that is nice ! the example I mentioned actually worked essentially the same way, but with more "level" than justs two, which makes the combinatorics involved a lot more complicated.
              $endgroup$
              – Simon Henry
              Mar 22 at 21:17








            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            A simple example of a category of algebraically cofibrant objects on which the left-induced model structure does not exist is as follows. There is a (cof. gen.) model structure on Cat in which a functor is a weak equivalence iff its poset-reflection is an isomorphism, and for which the pair of morphisms $0 to 1$ and $1 + 1 to 0<1$ form a set of generating cofibrations. The cofibrant replacement comonad generated by this set is the "free category" comonad on Cat, whose category of coalgebras is equivalent to the category Gph of (directed) graphs. But on Gph there (...)
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Campbell
            Mar 22 at 20:46





            $begingroup$
            A simple example of a category of algebraically cofibrant objects on which the left-induced model structure does not exist is as follows. There is a (cof. gen.) model structure on Cat in which a functor is a weak equivalence iff its poset-reflection is an isomorphism, and for which the pair of morphisms $0 to 1$ and $1 + 1 to 0<1$ form a set of generating cofibrations. The cofibrant replacement comonad generated by this set is the "free category" comonad on Cat, whose category of coalgebras is equivalent to the category Gph of (directed) graphs. But on Gph there (...)
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Campbell
            Mar 22 at 20:46













            $begingroup$
            (...) exists no model structure left-induced along the "free" functor Gph $to$ Cat: for instance, the morphism $1+1 to 1$ (where 1 is the graph with a single vertex and no edges) does not factorise as a "cofibration" (i.e. monomorphism) followed by a "weak equivalence".
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Campbell
            Mar 22 at 20:50





            $begingroup$
            (...) exists no model structure left-induced along the "free" functor Gph $to$ Cat: for instance, the morphism $1+1 to 1$ (where 1 is the graph with a single vertex and no edges) does not factorise as a "cofibration" (i.e. monomorphism) followed by a "weak equivalence".
            $endgroup$
            – Alexander Campbell
            Mar 22 at 20:50













            $begingroup$
            Yes, that is nice ! the example I mentioned actually worked essentially the same way, but with more "level" than justs two, which makes the combinatorics involved a lot more complicated.
            $endgroup$
            – Simon Henry
            Mar 22 at 21:17





            $begingroup$
            Yes, that is nice ! the example I mentioned actually worked essentially the same way, but with more "level" than justs two, which makes the combinatorics involved a lot more complicated.
            $endgroup$
            – Simon Henry
            Mar 22 at 21:17


















            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f326059%2fwhat-are-the-advantages-of-simplicial-model-categories-over-non-simplicial-ones%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

            How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

            random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

            Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye