Localization of a model category with respect to a class of maps









up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I am little bit lost with the following (standard?) problem in model categories.



Suppose we have a Quillen adjunction between combinatorial model categories:



$$L:Mleftrightarrow N: R $$



and let $(M,Cof,Fib, WE)$ denote the model structure on $M$. I would like to know if it is possible to define a new model structure $(M, Cof, Fib^', WE^')$ such that $f in WE^'$ if and only if $L(f)$ is a weak equivalence in $N$ ?










share|cite|improve this question



























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    I am little bit lost with the following (standard?) problem in model categories.



    Suppose we have a Quillen adjunction between combinatorial model categories:



    $$L:Mleftrightarrow N: R $$



    and let $(M,Cof,Fib, WE)$ denote the model structure on $M$. I would like to know if it is possible to define a new model structure $(M, Cof, Fib^', WE^')$ such that $f in WE^'$ if and only if $L(f)$ is a weak equivalence in $N$ ?










    share|cite|improve this question

























      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      I am little bit lost with the following (standard?) problem in model categories.



      Suppose we have a Quillen adjunction between combinatorial model categories:



      $$L:Mleftrightarrow N: R $$



      and let $(M,Cof,Fib, WE)$ denote the model structure on $M$. I would like to know if it is possible to define a new model structure $(M, Cof, Fib^', WE^')$ such that $f in WE^'$ if and only if $L(f)$ is a weak equivalence in $N$ ?










      share|cite|improve this question















      I am little bit lost with the following (standard?) problem in model categories.



      Suppose we have a Quillen adjunction between combinatorial model categories:



      $$L:Mleftrightarrow N: R $$



      and let $(M,Cof,Fib, WE)$ denote the model structure on $M$. I would like to know if it is possible to define a new model structure $(M, Cof, Fib^', WE^')$ such that $f in WE^'$ if and only if $L(f)$ is a weak equivalence in $N$ ?







      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 Nov 11 at 19:42









      David White

      11.4k460100




      11.4k460100










      asked Nov 11 at 19:12









      ABC

      604




      604




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted










          This is a very well-studied problem. Hirschhorn's book proves that, if $M$ is left proper and cellular then localization exists with respect to a set of maps. Jeff Smith figured out how to replace cellular by combinatorial; a nice write-up is in Barwick's paper On Left and Right Model Categories and Left and Right Localizations. For a general class of maps, the existence of the localization is conjecturally equivalent to Vopenka's principle. See The orthogonal subcategory problem in homotopy theory by Casacuberta and Chorny (and, also, Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small).



          However, if the class of maps is accessible then Lurie shows how to construct the localization, in Section 5.5 of Higher Topos Theory. Since you start with a left Quillen functor between combinatorial model categories, for you this means $L$ should be an accessible functor and the weak equivalences of $N$ should be of small generation (see Prop 5.5.4.16).






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
            – ABC
            Nov 11 at 20:02










          • Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
            – David White
            Nov 12 at 14:15










          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',
          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%2f315092%2flocalization-of-a-model-category-with-respect-to-a-class-of-maps%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








          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted










          This is a very well-studied problem. Hirschhorn's book proves that, if $M$ is left proper and cellular then localization exists with respect to a set of maps. Jeff Smith figured out how to replace cellular by combinatorial; a nice write-up is in Barwick's paper On Left and Right Model Categories and Left and Right Localizations. For a general class of maps, the existence of the localization is conjecturally equivalent to Vopenka's principle. See The orthogonal subcategory problem in homotopy theory by Casacuberta and Chorny (and, also, Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small).



          However, if the class of maps is accessible then Lurie shows how to construct the localization, in Section 5.5 of Higher Topos Theory. Since you start with a left Quillen functor between combinatorial model categories, for you this means $L$ should be an accessible functor and the weak equivalences of $N$ should be of small generation (see Prop 5.5.4.16).






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
            – ABC
            Nov 11 at 20:02










          • Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
            – David White
            Nov 12 at 14:15














          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted










          This is a very well-studied problem. Hirschhorn's book proves that, if $M$ is left proper and cellular then localization exists with respect to a set of maps. Jeff Smith figured out how to replace cellular by combinatorial; a nice write-up is in Barwick's paper On Left and Right Model Categories and Left and Right Localizations. For a general class of maps, the existence of the localization is conjecturally equivalent to Vopenka's principle. See The orthogonal subcategory problem in homotopy theory by Casacuberta and Chorny (and, also, Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small).



          However, if the class of maps is accessible then Lurie shows how to construct the localization, in Section 5.5 of Higher Topos Theory. Since you start with a left Quillen functor between combinatorial model categories, for you this means $L$ should be an accessible functor and the weak equivalences of $N$ should be of small generation (see Prop 5.5.4.16).






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
            – ABC
            Nov 11 at 20:02










          • Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
            – David White
            Nov 12 at 14:15












          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          8
          down vote



          accepted






          This is a very well-studied problem. Hirschhorn's book proves that, if $M$ is left proper and cellular then localization exists with respect to a set of maps. Jeff Smith figured out how to replace cellular by combinatorial; a nice write-up is in Barwick's paper On Left and Right Model Categories and Left and Right Localizations. For a general class of maps, the existence of the localization is conjecturally equivalent to Vopenka's principle. See The orthogonal subcategory problem in homotopy theory by Casacuberta and Chorny (and, also, Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small).



          However, if the class of maps is accessible then Lurie shows how to construct the localization, in Section 5.5 of Higher Topos Theory. Since you start with a left Quillen functor between combinatorial model categories, for you this means $L$ should be an accessible functor and the weak equivalences of $N$ should be of small generation (see Prop 5.5.4.16).






          share|cite|improve this answer












          This is a very well-studied problem. Hirschhorn's book proves that, if $M$ is left proper and cellular then localization exists with respect to a set of maps. Jeff Smith figured out how to replace cellular by combinatorial; a nice write-up is in Barwick's paper On Left and Right Model Categories and Left and Right Localizations. For a general class of maps, the existence of the localization is conjecturally equivalent to Vopenka's principle. See The orthogonal subcategory problem in homotopy theory by Casacuberta and Chorny (and, also, Definable orthogonality classes in accessible categories are small).



          However, if the class of maps is accessible then Lurie shows how to construct the localization, in Section 5.5 of Higher Topos Theory. Since you start with a left Quillen functor between combinatorial model categories, for you this means $L$ should be an accessible functor and the weak equivalences of $N$ should be of small generation (see Prop 5.5.4.16).







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 11 at 19:41









          David White

          11.4k460100




          11.4k460100











          • I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
            – ABC
            Nov 11 at 20:02










          • Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
            – David White
            Nov 12 at 14:15
















          • I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
            – ABC
            Nov 11 at 20:02










          • Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
            – David White
            Nov 12 at 14:15















          I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
          – ABC
          Nov 11 at 20:02




          I had a look to the Prop 5.5.4.16, it is written in terms of infinite categories. Unfortunately, I'm not used to that language. But If I understand the statement there, then the model categorical interpretation seems to be different in the sense that he uses the derived functor of L and not L... But I'm not sure about my interpretation... :)
          – ABC
          Nov 11 at 20:02












          Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
          – David White
          Nov 12 at 14:15




          Most of the model categorical proof is formal, and Hirschhorn does a nice job breaking it down into a series of lemmas. Lurie's proof handles the really hard part (as does Smith's proof, and Hirschhorn's via cellularity, based on Bousfield's original argument). So, you can plug Lurie's proof into a model categorical setting just as easily. See Barwick's paper to understand this better.
          – David White
          Nov 12 at 14:15

















          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.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • 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.

          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%2f315092%2flocalization-of-a-model-category-with-respect-to-a-class-of-maps%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

          Top Tejano songwriter Luis Silva dead of heart attack at 64

          政党

          天津地下鉄3号線