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.
In the canonical model category Cat we can get a very explicit description of the factorization systems and (in e.g. Rezk's note on the model structure). Is there anything like this for the Lack model structure in 2Cat?
Lack does most of this in the original paper. Fibrations are equiv-fibrations, equivalences are bi-equivalences, cofibrant objects are exactly those with free underlying category. Cofibrations don't get quite as an explicit characterization as isocofibrations do in the case of Cat; they're maps whose underlying functor lifts against full+surjective-on-objects functors, though, which is at least better than what you get straight from the construction of the model structure.
I mean given a 2-functor between 2-categories, an explicit description of the factorization as e.g. a trivial cofibration followed by a fibration
Lack's papers don't do that because, as with most model categories, his argument factors through some stronger result
But for instance, given any functor between categories, an explicit factorization is given as follows. Let be the categories whose objects are tuples , where is an isomorphism, the hom-set between and is . Define by sending to , and by sending to . Then you can check that , that is a trivial cofibration (equivalence surjective on objects)< and that is an isofibration.
I was wondering if we have something similar for 2Cat, but calculations with my colleague are suggesting that the obvious generalization doesn't work.
(The obvious generalization starts with a 2-functor and is defined as the 2-category which has as objects, where is adjoint equivalence data between and )