You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Suppose I've got an adjunction between categories C and D over a third category as below (the whole thing commutes). If I pick an object e∈E via a functor e:∗→E and pullback the whole thing along e, do I get another adjunction?
image.png
oh i just found this answer https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1735771/is-the-pullback-of-an-adjunction-along-any-functor-an-adjunction from @Kevin Arlin
I happen to be working with ∞-categories..... so does that help with the homotopical problems??
If the whole adjunction lies in the slice 2-category , which means that both functors make triangles commute and the unit and counit lie over the identity, then it's true because pullback is a 2-functor and hence preserves adjunctions.
If I read it correctly, the MSE question is only assuming that one of the functors lies in .
Oh I see.
Okay nice... I think I need to check on the (co)unit condition
okay so my unit is the identity, so that's nice, haha.
ok yesssssss it all works
:pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray:
that's nice though, i bet i can assemble that really precisely for ∞-categories from Riehl-Verity
Yeah, you'd say something like "pullback is a cosmological functor between slice cosmoi so gives a 2-functor on homotopy 2-categories." The only little thing is that slice cosmoi's objects are isofibrations, not all functors, but that's rarely a problem since every functor is equivalent to an isofibration.
ah crap but now i'm guess i'm stuck in a situation where i've got an adjunction in and i want to "lift" it to an adjunction in the slice
wait how did Mike do latex
double dollar signs, yeah :(
so in my case i'm looking at a really silly adjunction. I've got the diagram category and the subcategory , and so I'm left Kan extending along and then precomposing back again. Now I want to fix the image of . And it's sort of obvious that the functors and both admit a map "evaluation at " down to . So fix some and pullback along that. That should give me another adjunction between the two categories but with one vertex fixed at a chosen object, right?
but the difficulty, it seems, in the ∞-categorical setting, is getting that original adjunction (in ) to lift to an adjunction in .
But maybe I can reduce the amount of "checking" I need to do by working in the homotopy 2-category or something?
okay okay maybe this isn't so hard actually
haha
For the record I think the proof in the ∞-categorical setup (specifically Riehl-Verity) looks something like this:
image.png
oops that has an arrow backwards
Jonathan Beardsley has marked this topic as resolved.
I am not a moderator @Morgan Rogers (he/him) .