Re: [HoTT] Quillen model structure

[Steve Awodey <awo...@cmu.edu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9849 bytes --]

Ok, I think I see what you are saying:

we can generate an *algebraic wfs* using the generators I gave previously (regarded as a *category*, with pullback squares of monos, etc., as arrows), and then take the underlying (non-algebraic) wfs by closing under retracts, as usual, and the result is then cofibrantly generated by the *set* of maps you are describing, which consists of quotients of the original ones.

generators aside, the cofibrations are all the monos, and the fibrations have the RLP w/resp. to all push-out products m xo d : U >—> B x I, where m : A >—> B is any mono, j : B —> I is some indexing making m an I-indexed family of monos, d : I —> I x I is regarded as a generic point of I over I, and the pushout-product  

m xo d : I^n +_A (A x I)  >—>  B x I

is formed over I as previously described.

yes?

Steve


> On Jun 14, 2018, at 12:27 PM, Steve Awodey <awo...@cmu.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 14, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Christian Sattler <sattler....@gmail.com <mailto:sattler....@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Steve Awodey <awo...@cmu.edu <mailto:awo...@cmu.edu>> wrote:
>> but they are cofibrantly generated:
>> 
>> - the cofibrations can be taken to be all monos (say), which are generated by subobjects of cubes as usual, and 
>> 
>> - the trivial cofibrations are generated by certain subobjects U >—> I^{n+1} , where the U are pushout-products of the form  I^n +_A (A x I) for all A >—> I^n cofibrant and there is some indexing I^n —> I .  In any case, a small set of generating trivial cofibrations.
>> 
>> Those would be the objects of a category of algebraic generators. For generators of the underlying weak factorization systems, one would take any cellular model S of monomorphisms, here for example ∂□ⁿ/G → □ⁿ/G where G ⊆ Aut(□ⁿ) and ∂□ⁿ denotes the maximal no-trivial subobject,
> 
> this determines the same class of cofibrations as simply taking *all* subobjects of representables, which is already a set.  There is no reason to act by Aut(n), etc., here.
> 
>> and for trivial cofibrations the corresponding generators Σ_I (S_{/I} hat(×)_{/I} d) with d : I → I² the diagonal (seen as living over I), i.e. □ⁿ/G +_{∂□ⁿ/G} I × ∂□ⁿ/G → I × □ⁿ/G for all n, G, and □ⁿ/G → I.
> 
> sorry, I can’t read your notation.
> 
> the generating trivial cofibrations I stated are the following:
> 
> take any “indexing” map j : I^n —> I and a mono m : A >—> I^n, which we can also regard as a mono over I by composition with j.  Over I we also have the generic point d : I —> I x I , so we can make a push-out product of d and m over I , say m xo d : U >—> I^n x I .  Then we forget the indexing over I to end up with the description I already gave, namely:
> 
> U =  I^n +_A (A x I)
> 
> where the indexing j is built into the pushout over A.  
> 
> A more direct description is this: 
> 
> let h : I^n —> I^n x I be the graph of j,
> let g : A —> A x I be the graph of j.m, 
> there is a commutative square:
> 
> 		g
> 	A —— >	A x I
> 	|		|
> m	|		|	m x I
> 	|		|
> 	v		v
> 	I^n ——>  I^n x I
> 	|	h
> j	|
> 	v
> 	I
> 
> put the usual pushout U = I^n +_A (A x I) inside it, 
> and the comprison map U —> I^n x I is the m xo d mentioned above.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> > 
>> > 3. They might be a Grothendieck (oo,1)-topos after all.
>> > 
>> > I don't know which of these is most likely; they all seem strange.
>> > 
>> 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 1:50 PM, Steve Awodey <awo...@cmu.edu <mailto:awo...@cmu.edu>> wrote:
>> >> oh, interesting!
>> >> because it’s not defined over sSet, but is covered by it.
>> >> 
>> >>> On Jun 13, 2018, at 10:33 PM, Michael Shulman <shu...@sandiego.edu <mailto:shu...@sandiego.edu>> wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>> This is very interesting.  Does it mean that the (oo,1)-category
>> >>> presented by this model category of cartesian cubical sets is a
>> >>> (complete and cocomplete) elementary (oo,1)-topos that is not a
>> >>> Grothendieck (oo,1)-topos?
>> >>> 
>> >>> On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 6:31 AM, Thierry Coquand
>> >>> <Thierry...@cse.gu.se <mailto:Thierry...@cse.gu.se>> wrote:
>> >>>> The attached note contains two connected results:
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> (1) a concrete description of the trivial cofibration-fibration
>> >>>> factorisation for cartesian
>> >>>> cubical sets
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> It follows from this using results of section 2 of Christian Sattler’s
>> >>>> paper
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.06911 <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.06911>
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> that we have a model structure on cartesian cubical sets (that we can call
>> >>>> “type-theoretic”
>> >>>> since it is built on ideas coming from type theory), which can be done in a
>> >>>> constructive
>> >>>> setting. The fibrant objects of this model structure form a model of type
>> >>>> theory with universes
>> >>>> (and conversely the fact that we have a fibrant universe is a crucial
>> >>>> component in the proof
>> >>>> that we have a model structure).
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> I described essentially the same argument for factorisation in a message
>> >>>> to this list last year
>> >>>> July 6, 2017 (for another notion of cubical sets however): no quotient
>> >>>> operation is involved
>> >>>> in contrast with the "small object argument”.
>> >>>> This kind of factorisation has been described in a more general framework
>> >>>> in the paper of Andrew Swan
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07588 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.07588>
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Since there is a canonical geometric realisation of cartesian cubical sets
>> >>>> (realising the formal
>> >>>> interval as the real unit interval [0,1]) a natural question is if this is a
>> >>>> Quillen equivalence.
>> >>>> The second result, due to Christian Sattler, is that
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> (2) the geometric realisation map is -not- a Quillen equivalence.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> I believe that this result should be relevant even for people interested in
>> >>>> the more syntactic
>> >>>> aspects of type theory. It implies that  if we extend cartesian cubical type
>> >>>> theory
>> >>>> with a type  which is a HIT built from a primitive symmetric square q(x,y) =
>> >>>> q(y,z), we get a type
>> >>>> which should be contractible (at least its geometric realisation is) but we
>> >>>> cannot show this in
>> >>>> cartesian cubical type theory.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> It is thus important to understand better what is going on, and this is why
>> >>>> I post this note,
>> >>>> The point (2) is only a concrete description of Sattler’s argument he
>> >>>> presented last week at the HIM
>> >>>> meeting. Ulrik Buchholtz has (independently)
>> >>>> more abstract proofs of similar results (not for cartesian cubical sets
>> >>>> however), which should bring
>> >>>> further lights on this question.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> Note that this implies that the canonical map   Cartesian cubes -> Dedekind
>> >>>> cubes (corresponding
>> >>>> to distributive lattices) is also not a Quillen equivalence (for their
>> >>>> respective type theoretic model
>> >>>> structures). Hence, as noted by Steve, this implies that the model structure
>> >>>> obtained by transfer
>> >>>> and described at
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> https://ncatlab.org/hottmuri/files/awodeyMURI18.pdf <https://ncatlab.org/hottmuri/files/awodeyMURI18.pdf>
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> is not equivalent to the type-theoretic model structure.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>>  Thierry
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> PS: Many thanks to Steve, Christian, Ulrik, Nicola and Dan for discussions
>> >>>> about this last week in Bonn.
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> >>>> "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> >>>> email to HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com <mailto:HomotopyTypeTheo...@googlegroups.com>.
>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>> >>> 
>> >>> --
>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com <mailto:HomotopyTypeTheo...@googlegroups.com>.
>> >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>> >> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com <mailto:HomotopyTypeTheo...@googlegroups.com>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com <mailto:HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Homotopy Type Theory" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com <mailto:HomotopyTypeThe...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 18968 bytes --]