simplicial objects in a model category

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP












4












$begingroup$


Suppose that we have a (combinatorial if necessary) model category $M$, and let $F:Delta^oprightarrow M$ a simplicial object in $M$, such that for any natural number $n$, $F([n])$ is a fibrant object in $M$.
We define a new object $X= colim_n F([n]) $. Is it true that $X$ is a fibrant object ?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    4












    $begingroup$


    Suppose that we have a (combinatorial if necessary) model category $M$, and let $F:Delta^oprightarrow M$ a simplicial object in $M$, such that for any natural number $n$, $F([n])$ is a fibrant object in $M$.
    We define a new object $X= colim_n F([n]) $. Is it true that $X$ is a fibrant object ?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      4












      4








      4


      1



      $begingroup$


      Suppose that we have a (combinatorial if necessary) model category $M$, and let $F:Delta^oprightarrow M$ a simplicial object in $M$, such that for any natural number $n$, $F([n])$ is a fibrant object in $M$.
      We define a new object $X= colim_n F([n]) $. Is it true that $X$ is a fibrant object ?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Suppose that we have a (combinatorial if necessary) model category $M$, and let $F:Delta^oprightarrow M$ a simplicial object in $M$, such that for any natural number $n$, $F([n])$ is a fibrant object in $M$.
      We define a new object $X= colim_n F([n]) $. Is it true that $X$ is a fibrant object ?







      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










      asked Feb 21 at 19:03









      ParisParis

      1154




      1154




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          7












          $begingroup$

          No, it is not.



          If what you mean by $rm colim_n$ is the actual colimit of $F$ as a diagram of shape $Delta$, then this colimit is isomorphic to the coequalizer of the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$. Coequalizers rarely preserve fibrancy, and with a little thought we can think of a counterexample that extends to a simplicial object. Let $M$ be a model category in which coproducts of fibrant objects are fibrant (e.g. simplicial sets), and let $G:Dto M$ be any diagram of fibrant objects whose colimit is not fibrant (such as a cospan $X leftarrow Delta[0] to Y$ in simplicial sets for almost any Kan complexes $X$ and $Y$). Let $F$ be the simplicial bar construction of $G$, with $F([n]) = coprod_d_0 to cdots to d_n G(d_0)$. Then each $F([n])$ is fibrant by our assumptions on $M$ and $G$, but the colimit of $F$ is the coequalizer of $coprod_d_0to d_1 G(d_0) rightrightarrows coprod_d G(d)$, which is just the colimit of $G$ (it is the usual computation of colimits in terms of coproducts and coequalizers).



          If instead what you mean by $rm colim_n$ is actually the geometric realization, then there is an even easier counterexample. Let $M$ be simplicial sets, let $X$ be a simplicial set that is not a Kan complex, and let $F([n]) = X_n$ regarded as a discrete simplicial set. Discrete simplicial sets are Kan complexes, so each $F([n])$ is fibrant, but the geometric realization of $F$ is just $X$ itself, which is not fibrant.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I see, do you think it is still false if we impose that the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$ are fibrations ?
            $endgroup$
            – Paris
            Feb 21 at 20:36







          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @Paris Yes, probably. Colimits rarely preserve fibrant objects and fibrations.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Shulman
            Feb 22 at 0:00










          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%2f323768%2fsimplicial-objects-in-a-model-category%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









          7












          $begingroup$

          No, it is not.



          If what you mean by $rm colim_n$ is the actual colimit of $F$ as a diagram of shape $Delta$, then this colimit is isomorphic to the coequalizer of the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$. Coequalizers rarely preserve fibrancy, and with a little thought we can think of a counterexample that extends to a simplicial object. Let $M$ be a model category in which coproducts of fibrant objects are fibrant (e.g. simplicial sets), and let $G:Dto M$ be any diagram of fibrant objects whose colimit is not fibrant (such as a cospan $X leftarrow Delta[0] to Y$ in simplicial sets for almost any Kan complexes $X$ and $Y$). Let $F$ be the simplicial bar construction of $G$, with $F([n]) = coprod_d_0 to cdots to d_n G(d_0)$. Then each $F([n])$ is fibrant by our assumptions on $M$ and $G$, but the colimit of $F$ is the coequalizer of $coprod_d_0to d_1 G(d_0) rightrightarrows coprod_d G(d)$, which is just the colimit of $G$ (it is the usual computation of colimits in terms of coproducts and coequalizers).



          If instead what you mean by $rm colim_n$ is actually the geometric realization, then there is an even easier counterexample. Let $M$ be simplicial sets, let $X$ be a simplicial set that is not a Kan complex, and let $F([n]) = X_n$ regarded as a discrete simplicial set. Discrete simplicial sets are Kan complexes, so each $F([n])$ is fibrant, but the geometric realization of $F$ is just $X$ itself, which is not fibrant.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I see, do you think it is still false if we impose that the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$ are fibrations ?
            $endgroup$
            – Paris
            Feb 21 at 20:36







          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @Paris Yes, probably. Colimits rarely preserve fibrant objects and fibrations.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Shulman
            Feb 22 at 0:00















          7












          $begingroup$

          No, it is not.



          If what you mean by $rm colim_n$ is the actual colimit of $F$ as a diagram of shape $Delta$, then this colimit is isomorphic to the coequalizer of the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$. Coequalizers rarely preserve fibrancy, and with a little thought we can think of a counterexample that extends to a simplicial object. Let $M$ be a model category in which coproducts of fibrant objects are fibrant (e.g. simplicial sets), and let $G:Dto M$ be any diagram of fibrant objects whose colimit is not fibrant (such as a cospan $X leftarrow Delta[0] to Y$ in simplicial sets for almost any Kan complexes $X$ and $Y$). Let $F$ be the simplicial bar construction of $G$, with $F([n]) = coprod_d_0 to cdots to d_n G(d_0)$. Then each $F([n])$ is fibrant by our assumptions on $M$ and $G$, but the colimit of $F$ is the coequalizer of $coprod_d_0to d_1 G(d_0) rightrightarrows coprod_d G(d)$, which is just the colimit of $G$ (it is the usual computation of colimits in terms of coproducts and coequalizers).



          If instead what you mean by $rm colim_n$ is actually the geometric realization, then there is an even easier counterexample. Let $M$ be simplicial sets, let $X$ be a simplicial set that is not a Kan complex, and let $F([n]) = X_n$ regarded as a discrete simplicial set. Discrete simplicial sets are Kan complexes, so each $F([n])$ is fibrant, but the geometric realization of $F$ is just $X$ itself, which is not fibrant.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            I see, do you think it is still false if we impose that the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$ are fibrations ?
            $endgroup$
            – Paris
            Feb 21 at 20:36







          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @Paris Yes, probably. Colimits rarely preserve fibrant objects and fibrations.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Shulman
            Feb 22 at 0:00













          7












          7








          7





          $begingroup$

          No, it is not.



          If what you mean by $rm colim_n$ is the actual colimit of $F$ as a diagram of shape $Delta$, then this colimit is isomorphic to the coequalizer of the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$. Coequalizers rarely preserve fibrancy, and with a little thought we can think of a counterexample that extends to a simplicial object. Let $M$ be a model category in which coproducts of fibrant objects are fibrant (e.g. simplicial sets), and let $G:Dto M$ be any diagram of fibrant objects whose colimit is not fibrant (such as a cospan $X leftarrow Delta[0] to Y$ in simplicial sets for almost any Kan complexes $X$ and $Y$). Let $F$ be the simplicial bar construction of $G$, with $F([n]) = coprod_d_0 to cdots to d_n G(d_0)$. Then each $F([n])$ is fibrant by our assumptions on $M$ and $G$, but the colimit of $F$ is the coequalizer of $coprod_d_0to d_1 G(d_0) rightrightarrows coprod_d G(d)$, which is just the colimit of $G$ (it is the usual computation of colimits in terms of coproducts and coequalizers).



          If instead what you mean by $rm colim_n$ is actually the geometric realization, then there is an even easier counterexample. Let $M$ be simplicial sets, let $X$ be a simplicial set that is not a Kan complex, and let $F([n]) = X_n$ regarded as a discrete simplicial set. Discrete simplicial sets are Kan complexes, so each $F([n])$ is fibrant, but the geometric realization of $F$ is just $X$ itself, which is not fibrant.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          No, it is not.



          If what you mean by $rm colim_n$ is the actual colimit of $F$ as a diagram of shape $Delta$, then this colimit is isomorphic to the coequalizer of the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$. Coequalizers rarely preserve fibrancy, and with a little thought we can think of a counterexample that extends to a simplicial object. Let $M$ be a model category in which coproducts of fibrant objects are fibrant (e.g. simplicial sets), and let $G:Dto M$ be any diagram of fibrant objects whose colimit is not fibrant (such as a cospan $X leftarrow Delta[0] to Y$ in simplicial sets for almost any Kan complexes $X$ and $Y$). Let $F$ be the simplicial bar construction of $G$, with $F([n]) = coprod_d_0 to cdots to d_n G(d_0)$. Then each $F([n])$ is fibrant by our assumptions on $M$ and $G$, but the colimit of $F$ is the coequalizer of $coprod_d_0to d_1 G(d_0) rightrightarrows coprod_d G(d)$, which is just the colimit of $G$ (it is the usual computation of colimits in terms of coproducts and coequalizers).



          If instead what you mean by $rm colim_n$ is actually the geometric realization, then there is an even easier counterexample. Let $M$ be simplicial sets, let $X$ be a simplicial set that is not a Kan complex, and let $F([n]) = X_n$ regarded as a discrete simplicial set. Discrete simplicial sets are Kan complexes, so each $F([n])$ is fibrant, but the geometric realization of $F$ is just $X$ itself, which is not fibrant.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Feb 21 at 20:26









          Mike ShulmanMike Shulman

          37.4k485233




          37.4k485233











          • $begingroup$
            I see, do you think it is still false if we impose that the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$ are fibrations ?
            $endgroup$
            – Paris
            Feb 21 at 20:36







          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @Paris Yes, probably. Colimits rarely preserve fibrant objects and fibrations.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Shulman
            Feb 22 at 0:00
















          • $begingroup$
            I see, do you think it is still false if we impose that the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$ are fibrations ?
            $endgroup$
            – Paris
            Feb 21 at 20:36







          • 3




            $begingroup$
            @Paris Yes, probably. Colimits rarely preserve fibrant objects and fibrations.
            $endgroup$
            – Mike Shulman
            Feb 22 at 0:00















          $begingroup$
          I see, do you think it is still false if we impose that the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$ are fibrations ?
          $endgroup$
          – Paris
          Feb 21 at 20:36





          $begingroup$
          I see, do you think it is still false if we impose that the two maps $F([1]) rightrightarrows F([0])$ are fibrations ?
          $endgroup$
          – Paris
          Feb 21 at 20:36





          3




          3




          $begingroup$
          @Paris Yes, probably. Colimits rarely preserve fibrant objects and fibrations.
          $endgroup$
          – Mike Shulman
          Feb 22 at 0:00




          $begingroup$
          @Paris Yes, probably. Colimits rarely preserve fibrant objects and fibrations.
          $endgroup$
          – Mike Shulman
          Feb 22 at 0:00

















          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%2f323768%2fsimplicial-objects-in-a-model-category%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 to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

          Bahrain

          Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay