Definition A.3.1.5 of Higher Topos Theory












3












$begingroup$


I am now reading the book Higher Topos Theory. In A.3.1.5, it gives the definition
of a $mathbf{S}$-enriched model category, where $mathbf{S}$ is a monoidal model category. But in the book model structures are introduced only on $mathsf{Set}$-enriched categories.




So, what does a model structure on a $mathbf{S}$-enriched category mean?




Is it supposed to be that $mathbf{S}$ obtains a forgetful functor to $mathsf{Set}$, and the model structure is defined on the category with respect to the $mathsf{Set}$ enrichment, or is it something else?






higher-category-theory model-categories







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Mar 11 at 9:09


















3












$begingroup$


I am now reading the book Higher Topos Theory. In A.3.1.5, it gives the definition
of a $mathbf{S}$-enriched model category, where $mathbf{S}$ is a monoidal model category. But in the book model structures are introduced only on $mathsf{Set}$-enriched categories.




So, what does a model structure on a $mathbf{S}$-enriched category mean?




Is it supposed to be that $mathbf{S}$ obtains a forgetful functor to $mathsf{Set}$, and the model structure is defined on the category with respect to the $mathsf{Set}$ enrichment, or is it something else?






higher-category-theory model-categories







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Mar 11 at 9:09
















3












3








3





$begingroup$


I am now reading the book Higher Topos Theory. In A.3.1.5, it gives the definition
of a $mathbf{S}$-enriched model category, where $mathbf{S}$ is a monoidal model category. But in the book model structures are introduced only on $mathsf{Set}$-enriched categories.




So, what does a model structure on a $mathbf{S}$-enriched category mean?




Is it supposed to be that $mathbf{S}$ obtains a forgetful functor to $mathsf{Set}$, and the model structure is defined on the category with respect to the $mathsf{Set}$ enrichment, or is it something else?






higher-category-theory model-categories







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am now reading the book Higher Topos Theory. In A.3.1.5, it gives the definition
of a $mathbf{S}$-enriched model category, where $mathbf{S}$ is a monoidal model category. But in the book model structures are introduced only on $mathsf{Set}$-enriched categories.




So, what does a model structure on a $mathbf{S}$-enriched category mean?




Is it supposed to be that $mathbf{S}$ obtains a forgetful functor to $mathsf{Set}$, and the model structure is defined on the category with respect to the $mathsf{Set}$ enrichment, or is it something else?






higher-category-theory model-categories




higher-category-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 11 at 8:58









Francesco Polizzi

48.7k3132214




48.7k3132214










asked Mar 11 at 8:40









Frank KongFrank Kong

656




656












  • $begingroup$
    I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Mar 11 at 9:09




















  • $begingroup$
    I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
    $endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Mar 11 at 9:09


















$begingroup$
I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
Mar 11 at 9:09






$begingroup$
I suspect Lurie is using implicitly the lax monoidal forgetful functor $mathrm{Hom}_{mathbf{S}}(1_{mathbf{S}},-):mathbf{S}→mathrm{Set}$, although I'll confess I never really thought about it (but this gives the sensible choice of forgetful functor for both simplicial sets and chain complexes).
$endgroup$
– Denis Nardin
Mar 11 at 9:09












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5












$begingroup$

Your guess is correct, indeed. In general, given any monoidal category $(mathbf V, otimes, 1)$, and any $mathbf V$-enriched category $mathbf C$, one can always consider the underlying category $mathbf C_0$ as the ($mathbf{Set}$-)category having as objects the same objects as $mathbf C$, and as hom-sets
$$
mathbf C_0(x,y):= mathbf V(1,mathbf{Hom}_{mathbf C}(x,y))
$$
You can easily work out how to define composition, after checking that $mathbf V(1,-)$ is a lax monoidal functor, as pointed out by Denis in the comments.



Now, if $mathbf S$ is a monoidal model category, and $mathbf A$ is a $mathbf S$-enriched category, "equipping $mathbf A$ with a model structure" just means "equipping $mathbf A_0$ with a model structure", whereas to talk about a $mathbf S$-enriched model category one requires the two extra conditions spelled out in HTT A.3.1.5.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Mar 11 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – Frank Kong
    Mar 11 at 12:04












Your Answer








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%2f325158%2fdefinition-a-3-1-5-of-higher-topos-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









5












$begingroup$

Your guess is correct, indeed. In general, given any monoidal category $(mathbf V, otimes, 1)$, and any $mathbf V$-enriched category $mathbf C$, one can always consider the underlying category $mathbf C_0$ as the ($mathbf{Set}$-)category having as objects the same objects as $mathbf C$, and as hom-sets
$$
mathbf C_0(x,y):= mathbf V(1,mathbf{Hom}_{mathbf C}(x,y))
$$
You can easily work out how to define composition, after checking that $mathbf V(1,-)$ is a lax monoidal functor, as pointed out by Denis in the comments.



Now, if $mathbf S$ is a monoidal model category, and $mathbf A$ is a $mathbf S$-enriched category, "equipping $mathbf A$ with a model structure" just means "equipping $mathbf A_0$ with a model structure", whereas to talk about a $mathbf S$-enriched model category one requires the two extra conditions spelled out in HTT A.3.1.5.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Mar 11 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – Frank Kong
    Mar 11 at 12:04
















5












$begingroup$

Your guess is correct, indeed. In general, given any monoidal category $(mathbf V, otimes, 1)$, and any $mathbf V$-enriched category $mathbf C$, one can always consider the underlying category $mathbf C_0$ as the ($mathbf{Set}$-)category having as objects the same objects as $mathbf C$, and as hom-sets
$$
mathbf C_0(x,y):= mathbf V(1,mathbf{Hom}_{mathbf C}(x,y))
$$
You can easily work out how to define composition, after checking that $mathbf V(1,-)$ is a lax monoidal functor, as pointed out by Denis in the comments.



Now, if $mathbf S$ is a monoidal model category, and $mathbf A$ is a $mathbf S$-enriched category, "equipping $mathbf A$ with a model structure" just means "equipping $mathbf A_0$ with a model structure", whereas to talk about a $mathbf S$-enriched model category one requires the two extra conditions spelled out in HTT A.3.1.5.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Mar 11 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – Frank Kong
    Mar 11 at 12:04














5












5








5





$begingroup$

Your guess is correct, indeed. In general, given any monoidal category $(mathbf V, otimes, 1)$, and any $mathbf V$-enriched category $mathbf C$, one can always consider the underlying category $mathbf C_0$ as the ($mathbf{Set}$-)category having as objects the same objects as $mathbf C$, and as hom-sets
$$
mathbf C_0(x,y):= mathbf V(1,mathbf{Hom}_{mathbf C}(x,y))
$$
You can easily work out how to define composition, after checking that $mathbf V(1,-)$ is a lax monoidal functor, as pointed out by Denis in the comments.



Now, if $mathbf S$ is a monoidal model category, and $mathbf A$ is a $mathbf S$-enriched category, "equipping $mathbf A$ with a model structure" just means "equipping $mathbf A_0$ with a model structure", whereas to talk about a $mathbf S$-enriched model category one requires the two extra conditions spelled out in HTT A.3.1.5.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Your guess is correct, indeed. In general, given any monoidal category $(mathbf V, otimes, 1)$, and any $mathbf V$-enriched category $mathbf C$, one can always consider the underlying category $mathbf C_0$ as the ($mathbf{Set}$-)category having as objects the same objects as $mathbf C$, and as hom-sets
$$
mathbf C_0(x,y):= mathbf V(1,mathbf{Hom}_{mathbf C}(x,y))
$$
You can easily work out how to define composition, after checking that $mathbf V(1,-)$ is a lax monoidal functor, as pointed out by Denis in the comments.



Now, if $mathbf S$ is a monoidal model category, and $mathbf A$ is a $mathbf S$-enriched category, "equipping $mathbf A$ with a model structure" just means "equipping $mathbf A_0$ with a model structure", whereas to talk about a $mathbf S$-enriched model category one requires the two extra conditions spelled out in HTT A.3.1.5.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Mar 11 at 9:15









Stefano AriottaStefano Ariotta

38148




38148








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Mar 11 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – Frank Kong
    Mar 11 at 12:04














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
    $endgroup$
    – Theo Johnson-Freyd
    Mar 11 at 11:22










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for your help!
    $endgroup$
    – Frank Kong
    Mar 11 at 12:04








1




1




$begingroup$
Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
$endgroup$
– Theo Johnson-Freyd
Mar 11 at 11:22




$begingroup$
Now I'm worried about Mike Shulman's question mathoverflow.net/questions/322917.
$endgroup$
– Theo Johnson-Freyd
Mar 11 at 11:22












$begingroup$
Thanks for your help!
$endgroup$
– Frank Kong
Mar 11 at 12:04




$begingroup$
Thanks for your help!
$endgroup$
– Frank Kong
Mar 11 at 12:04


















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%2f325158%2fdefinition-a-3-1-5-of-higher-topos-theory%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

Aardman Animations

Image
Aardman Animations, Ltd. Aardman Animations Tipo privada Atividade Animação em stop-motion , Animação em CGI Fundação 1972 Fundador(es) Peter Lord David Sproxton Sede Bristol, Inglaterra  Reino Unido Proprietário(s) Dreamworks Pessoas-chave Peter Lord David Sproxton Nick Park Divisões Aardman Features Aardman Digital Aardman Commercials Aardman Broadcast Aardman International Aardman Rights Aardman Effects Aardman 3-D Systems Aardman Nathan Love AardBoiled Website oficial aardman.com
Read more

Are they similar matrix

Image
0 $begingroup$ Do $begin{bmatrix} 0&i&0\0&0&1\0&0&0 end{bmatrix} $ and $begin{bmatrix} 0&0&0\-i&0&0\0&1&0 end{bmatrix} $ are similar.Is this True/false Clearly both are nilpotent and one is conjucate transpose of other but how to know if they are similar.i'm stuck. Please help me linear-algebra vector-spaces eigenvalues-eigenvectors generalizedeigenvector share | cite | improve this question edited Dec 10 '18 at 6:38 Vasanth Kris asked Dec 10 '18 at 6:19
Read more

“minimization” problem in Euclidean space related to orthonormal basis

Image
3 $begingroup$ I have stumbled upon an exercice for second year undegraduate student majoring in economics which I find quite demanding. I have an idea for the solution, but it seems awfully complicated, and I am wondering if there was a simpler way to solve it. This goes as follows: Let $(E, langle, rangle)$ be a euclidean space of dimension $n geq 2$ . 1) For any $x in E$ , show that $||x|| = sqrt{n}$ if and only if there exists $(e_1, dots, e_n)$ an orthonormal basis of $E$ such that $x =e_1+ ldots + e_n$ . 2) For any $(x,y) in E$ , show that $||x|| = sqrt{n}$ , $||y|| = sqrt{frac{n(n+1)(2n+1)}{6}}$ and $langle x,y rangle = frac{n(n+1)}{2}$ if and only if there eixsts $(e_1, ldots, e_n)$ an orthonormal basis of $E$ such that $x = e_1 + ldots + e_n$ and $y = e_1 + 2e_2 + ldots + ne_n$ The first q
Read more