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.
Look at this theorem. How can one deduce from that theorem that whenever and are both composites of and , then is homotopic to ?
Recall that a simplicial set is called a contractible Kan complex if the unique map is a trivial Kan fibration. In the above theorem I interpret "contractible Kan complex" as something like "essentially a singleton", so that intuitively, the theorem says that the space of all composition witnesses with and is essentially a singleton. (And intuitively, if such a is unique, then in particular the composition of and is unique, which motivates the first question.)
Does that make sense: is a trivial Kan fibration something like a bijection, isomorphism, or equivalence between simplicial sets? If not, what is a trivial Kan fibration intuitively?
Let be a directed graph and an -category. This theorem says that there exists a trivial Kan fibration . ( denotes exponential objects, is the path category of the directed graph , and is the -dimensional simplicial set corresponding to .) Does that imply that there is a bijection between the functors (simplicial maps) from to and the simplicial maps from to ? (A related fact I know is that an inner anodyne map is a bijection on vertices.)
Leopold Schlicht said:
Look at this theorem. How can one deduce from that theorem that whenever and are both composites of and , then is homotopic to ?
If you apply the definition of a trivial Kan fibration in the case to this situation, you obtain a map constant on (that is, a homotopy between the compositions, seen as 2-simplices); in particuar, you obtain the homotopy between the composites you're looking for as the restriction along .
Does that imply that there is a bijection between the functors (simplicial maps) from to and the simplicial maps from to ? (A related fact I know is that an inner anodyne map is a bijection on vertices.)
Not a bijection in general: consider the case , so that (as above, injectivity is up to homotopy).
A trivial Kan fibration is a special sort of equivalence.
@Andrea Gentili Thanks!
If you apply the definition of a trivial Kan fibration in the case to this situation, you obtain a map constant on (that is, a homotopy between the compositions, seen as 2-simplices); in particuar, you obtain the homotopy between the composites you're looking for as the restriction along .
What do you mean by "to this situation"? The only thing I can imagine is the following: let be a witness of and be a witness of . Since is a contractible Kan complex, every map can be extended to a map . Now we could plug in as the map . But I don't see how a map of the type appears.
@Mike Shulman Thanks. Can you make that more precise?
Any trivial Kan fibration is a simplicial homotopy equivalence. See for instance Corollary 1.4.5.5 here.
I didn't know that that's what is called a "simplicial homotopy equivalence". Thanks. I interpret this corollary as saying that a trivial Kan fibration is (surjective) and (injective up to homotopy) (as Andrea already said).
You understood correctly. Once you have the map , you have to keep in mind that can be seen as a subspace of , so that you have a map , that, by adjunction, gives you the map .
Thanks! I now see how to get the map . Are you then using Corollary 1.3.3.7 to obtain a homotopy from that map ?
Mike Shulman said:
Any trivial Kan fibration is a simplicial homotopy equivalence. See for instance Corollary 1.4.5.5 here.
Ah, here is that statement. Also, if both the domain and the codomain of a trivial Kan fibration are -categories, then the trivial Kan fibration is an equivalence of -categories.
Are you then using Corollary 1.3.3.7 to obtain a homotopy from that map ?
Yes (the conditions of the corollary are satisfied since the original map factorizes through ).
Thanks!