Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 4th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI added a bit to [[category of simplices]], including the fact that the category of nondegenerate simplices is final and thus colimits can be computed using only that, and that the nerve of the category of simplices itself is colimit-preserving.

   I added a bit to category of simplices, including the fact that the category of nondegenerate simplices is final and thus colimits can be computed using only that, and that the nerve of the category of simplices itself is colimit-preserving.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorEmily Riehl
   • CommentTimeApr 5th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Emily Riehl
   Format: MarkdownItexThis relates to a question I was thinking about today. How do you prove that the ``last vertex map'' $N(\Delta \downarrow X) \to X$ is a weak equivalence for any simplicial set? Because the colimits over the category of simplices are homotopy colimits, by your remarks on cocontinuity, it would suffice to prove this in the case $X=\Delta^n$. But then both $N(\Delta \downarrow \Delta^n)$ and $\Delta^n$ are nerves of categories, and I suppose it's reasonably clear that the functor $\Delta \downarrow \Delta^n \to [n]$ is final. Does this make any sense?

   This relates to a question I was thinking about today. How do you prove that the “last vertex map” $N(\Delta \downarrow X)\to X$ is a weak equivalence for any simplicial set? Because the colimits over the category of simplices are homotopy colimits, by your remarks on cocontinuity, it would suffice to prove this in the case $X={\Delta }^n$. But then both $N(\Delta \downarrow {\Delta }^n)$ and ${\Delta }^n$ are nerves of categories, and I suppose it’s reasonably clear that the functor $\Delta \downarrow {\Delta }^n\to [n]$ is final. Does this make any sense?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 6th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexHmm, yes, that makes sense. Actually, 4.2.3.14 in *Higher Topos Theory* asserts that $N(\Delta\downarrow X)\to X$ is a final map for any simplicial set $X$.

   Hmm, yes, that makes sense. Actually, 4.2.3.14 in Higher Topos Theory asserts that $N(\Delta \downarrow X)\to X$ is a final map for any simplicial set $X$.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 1st 2013
   • (edited Feb 1st 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexSomebody kindly pointed out by email to me that there was a false statement in the entry _[[category of simplicies]]_ (that the non-degenerate $n$-simplices of $X$ are equivalently the monos $\Delta^n \to X$). I have fixed that and in the course of this I have tried to slightly polish the entry a bit more. Added formal proposition-environments, stated the relation to [[barycentric subdivision]] and added a textbook reference. More could be done here. But I am out of time now.

   Somebody kindly pointed out by email to me that there was a false statement in the entry category of simplicies (that the non-degenerate $n$-simplices of $X$ are equivalently the monos ${\Delta }^n\to X$).

   I have fixed that and in the course of this I have tried to slightly polish the entry a bit more. Added formal proposition-environments, stated the relation to barycentric subdivision and added a textbook reference.

   More could be done here. But I am out of time now.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorrognes
   • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: rognes
   Format: TextThe statement that the nerve of the category of non-degenerate simplices is a model for the barycentric subdivision is still wrong. At least if by barycentric subdivision you mean Kan (normal) subdivision, as the link to barycentric subdivision suggests. Think about X = \Delta^2/\partial\Delta^2, for instance. It helps if the simplicial set is what Waldhausen calls non-singular, i.e., each non-degenerate simplex is embedded. Then the category of non-degenerate simplices is a partially ordered set, and its nerve is the same as Kan's subdivision.

   The statement that the nerve of the category of non-degenerate simplices is a model for the barycentric subdivision is still wrong. At least if by barycentric subdivision you mean Kan (normal) subdivision, as the link to barycentric subdivision suggests. Think about X = \Delta^2/\partial\Delta^2, for instance. It helps if the simplicial set is what Waldhausen calls non-singular, i.e., each non-degenerate simplex is embedded. Then the category of non-degenerate simplices is a partially ordered set, and its nerve is the same as Kan's subdivision.
6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexMaybe we should rather add more comments to the entry on barycentric subdivision then. For instance Lurie in [[HTT]], variant 4.2.3.15 uses the term as I did.

   Maybe we should rather add more comments to the entry on barycentric subdivision then. For instance Lurie in HTT, variant 4.2.3.15 uses the term as I did.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexOkay, I have edited a bit further. (But I do need to look into something else now. Feel free to hit the edit-button if there is more you'd want to see clarified.)

   Okay, I have edited a bit further.

   (But I do need to look into something else now. Feel free to hit the edit-button if there is more you’d want to see clarified.)