ScalingStacks

Reflowed from the official HTML conversion of the exact pinned author TeX. Original PDF pages · Original HTML. Conversion and source inventories have been checked; mathematical review remains separate.

On dd-Categories and dd-Operads

Tomer M. Schlank    Lior Yanovski

Original source: arXiv:1902.04061v1

Abstract

We extend the theory of dd-categories, by providing an explicit description of the right mapping spaces of the dd-homotopy category of an ∞\infty-category. Using this description, we deduce an invariant ∞\infty-categorical characterization of the dd-homotopy category. We then proceed to develop an analogous theory of dd-operads, which model ∞\infty-operads with (d−1)(d-1)-truncated multi-mapping spaces, and prove analogous results for them.

1 Introduction[0KFD]

Overview & Organization.

The notion of a dd-category was introduced by Lurie in [Lur09, 2.3.4], as a strict model for what we call an essentially dd-category; An ∞\infty-category all of whose mapping spaces are homotopically (d−1)(d-1)-truncated. With any ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C}, Lurie associates a dd-category hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C}, which we call the dd-homotopy category of 𝒞\mathcal{C}. While this dd-category is shown to be universal in the 1-categorical (simplicially enriched) sense among dd-categories that 𝒞\mathcal{C} is mapped to [Lur09, 2.3.4.12], the question of how does hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C} relate to 𝒞\mathcal{C} as an ∞\infty-category, is left unaddressed. The goal of this note is to fill this gap and to give an analogous treatment for operads.

In section 2, we begin by showing that the right mapping spaces of hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C} are given, upto isomorphism, by applying hd−1h_{d-1} to the right mapping spaces of 𝒞\mathcal{C} (2.13). This is the main technical result of this note, the proof of which goes through the comparison with the “middle mapping spaces”. From this we deduce that hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C} is obtained from 𝒞\mathcal{C} by (d−1)(d-1)-truncation of the mapping spaces. More precisely, we show that hdh_{d} can be promoted to a functor of ∞\infty-categories, which is left adjoint to the inclusion of the full subcategory spanned by essentially dd-categories into 𝐂𝐚𝐭∞\mathbf{Cat}_{\infty}. And furthermore, that the unit map of this adjunction is essentially surjective and is given on mapping spaces by the (d−1)(d-1)-truncation map (2.15).

In section 3, we develop a parallel theory for operads. We call an ∞\infty-operad an essentially dd-operad if all of its multi-mapping spaces are (d−1)(d-1)-truncated. We begin by defining a notion of a dd-operad (3.4) that relates to essentially dd-operads in the same way that dd-categories relate to essentially dd-categories. We then define the dd-homotopy operad functor (3.6), again by analogy with (and by means of) the dd-homotopy category functor. This is achieved by analyzing the behavior of the dd-homotopy category functor on inner and coCartesian fibrations (3.3). Finally, we bootstrap the results of section 2, to obtain analogues results for (essentially) dd-operads (3.12) and some corollaries.

This work grew out of a project whose goal is to generalize the classical Eckmann-Hilton argument to the ∞\infty-categorical setting. This application, which motivated the general theory we present here, will appear elsewhere.

Conventions.

We work in the setting of ∞\infty-categories (a.k.a. quasi-categories) and ∞\infty-operads, relying heavily on the results of [Lur09] and [Lur]. Since we have numerous references to these two foundational works, references to [Lur09] are abbreviated as T.? and those to [Lur] as A.?. As a rule, we follow the notation of [Lur09] and [Lur] whenever possible. However, we supplement this notation and deviate from it in several cases in which we believe this enhances readability:

  1. 1.

    We abuse notation by identifying an ordinary category 𝒞\mathcal{C} with its nerve N⁡(𝒞)N\left(\mathcal{C}\right).

  2. 2.

    We abbreviate the data of an ∞\infty-operad p:𝒪⊗→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗p\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} by 𝒪\mathcal{O} and reserve the notation 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} for the ∞\infty-category that is the source of pp. Similarly, given two ∞\infty-operads 𝒪\mathcal{O} and 𝒰\mathcal{U}, we write f:𝒪→𝒰f\colon\mathcal{O}\to\mathcal{U} for a map of ∞\infty-operads from 𝒪\mathcal{O} to 𝒰\mathcal{U}. The underlying ∞\infty-category of 𝒪\mathcal{O}, which in [Lur] is denoted by 𝒪⟨1⟩⊗\mathcal{O}_{\left\langle 1\right\rangle}^{\otimes}, is here denoted by 𝒪¯\underline{\mathcal{O}}.

  3. 3.

    Given two ∞\infty-operads 𝒪\mathcal{O} and 𝒰\mathcal{U}, we denote by Alg𝒪⁡(𝒰)\operatorname{Alg}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right) the ∞\infty-operad Alg𝒪⁡(𝒰)⊗→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\operatorname{Alg}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right)^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} from Example A.3.2.4.4. This is the internal mapping object induced from the closed symmetric monoidal structure on 𝐎𝐩∞\mathbf{Op}_{\infty} (see A.2.2.5.13). The underlying ∞\infty-category Alg¯𝒪​(𝒰)\underline{\operatorname{Alg}}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right) is the usual ∞\infty-category of 𝒪\mathcal{O}-algebras in 𝒰\mathcal{U} (which in [Lur] is denoted by Alg𝒪⁡(𝒰)\operatorname{Alg}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right)). Moreover, the maximal Kan sub-complex Alg¯𝒪​(𝒰)≃\underline{\operatorname{Alg}}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right)^{\simeq} is the space of morphisms Map𝐎𝐩∞⁡(𝒪,𝒰)\operatorname{Map}_{\mathbf{Op}_{\infty}}\left(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{U}\right) from 𝒪\mathcal{O} to 𝒰\mathcal{U} as objects of the ∞\infty-category 𝐎𝐩∞\mathbf{Op}_{\infty}.

2 dd-Categories[0KFE]

Recall the following definition from classical homotopy theory.

[0KE6]

Definition 2.1. For d≥0d\geq 0, a space X∈𝒮X\in\mathcal{S} is called dd-truncated if πi​(X,x)=0\pi_{i}\left(X,x\right)=0 for all i>di>d and all x∈Xx\in X. In addition, a space is called (−2)\left(-2\right)-truncated if and only if it is contractible and it is called (−1)\left(-1\right)-truncated if and only if it is either contractible or empty. We denote by 𝒮≤d\mathcal{S}_{\leq d} the full subcategory of 𝒮\mathcal{S} spanned by the dd-truncated spaces. The inclusion 𝒮≤d↪𝒮\mathcal{S}_{\leq d}\hookrightarrow\mathcal{S} admits a left adjoint and we call the unit of the adjunction the dd-truncation map.

This leads to the following definition in ∞\infty-category theory.

[0KE7]

Definition 2.2. Let d≥−1d\geq-1 be an integer. An essentially dd-category is an ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} such that for all X,Y∈𝒞X,Y\in\mathcal{C}, the mapping space Map𝒞⁡(X,Y)\operatorname{Map}_{\mathcal{C}}\left(X,Y\right) is (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncated. We denote by 𝐂𝐚𝐭d\mathbf{Cat}_{d} the full subcategory of 𝐂𝐚𝐭∞\mathbf{Cat}_{\infty} spanned by essentially dd -categories.

[0KE8]

Example 2.3. An ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} is an essentially 11-category if and only if it lies in the essential image of the nerve functor N:𝐂𝐚𝐭→𝐂𝐚𝐭∞N\colon\mathbf{Cat}\to\mathbf{Cat}_{\infty} and it is an essentially 00-category if and only if it is equivalent to the nerve of a poset.

One might hope that for an ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C}, the condition of being an essentially dd-category would coincide with the condition of begin a (d−1)(d-1)-truncated object of the presentable ∞\infty-category 𝐂𝐚𝐭∞\mathbf{Cat}_{\infty} in the sense of T.5.5.6.1. This turns out to be false. The later condition is equivalent to both spaces Map⁡(Δ0,𝒞)\operatorname{Map}(\Delta^{0},\mathcal{C}) and Map⁡(Δ1,𝒞)\operatorname{Map}(\Delta^{1},\mathcal{C}) being (d−1)(d-1)-truncated, while the former to the (d−1)(d-1)-truncatedness of the projection map

Map⁡(Δ1,𝒞)→Map⁡(Δ{0},𝒞)×Map⁡(Δ{1},𝒞).\operatorname{Map}(\Delta^{1},\mathcal{C})\to\operatorname{Map}(\Delta^{\{0\}},\mathcal{C})\times\operatorname{Map}(\Delta^{\{1\}},\mathcal{C}).

It can be deduced that a (d−1)(d-1)-truncated object of 𝐂𝐚𝐭∞\mathbf{Cat}_{\infty} is an essentially dd-category and that an essentially dd-category is a dd-truncated object of 𝐂𝐚𝐭∞\mathbf{Cat}_{\infty}. To see that both converses are false, consider on the one hand a dd-truncated space as an ∞\infty-groupoid, and on the other, an ∞\infty-category with two objects and a dd-truncated space of maps from the first to the second (and no other non-trivial maps).

In T.2.3.4, Lurie develops the theory of dd-categories, which are a strict model for essentially dd-categories. We begin by recalling some basic definitions and properties. First, we introduce the following definition/notation (which is a variation on notation T.2.3.4.11).

[0KE9]
  1. (1)

    Notation 2.4. Let A⊆BA\subseteq B and DD be simplicial sets. We define B⋊ADB\rtimes_{A}D by the following pushout diagram

    A×D\textstyle{A\times D\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}B×D\textstyle{B\times D\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}A\textstyle{A\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}B⋊AD.\textstyle{B\rtimes_{A}D.}
  2. (2)

    Let A⊆BA\subseteq B and XX be simplicial sets. Given two maps f,g:B→Xf,g\colon B\to X such that f|A=g|Af|_{A}=g|_{A} we obtain a map f∪g:B⋊∂A⁡Δ1→Xf\cup g\colon B\rtimes_{A}\partial\Delta^{1}\to X. A homotopy relative to AA (or “rel. AA” for short) is an extension of f∪gf\cup g to B⋊AΔ1B\rtimes_{A}\Delta^{1}.

  3. (3)

    Given inclusions of simplicial sets A⊆B⊆CA\subseteq B\subseteq C and a simplicial set XX, let [B,C;X]\left[B,C;X\right] be the set of maps B→XB\to X for which there exists an extension to CC. We denote by [A,B,C;X]\left[A,B,C;X\right] the set obtained from [B,C;X]\left[B,C;X\right] by identifying maps that are homotopic rel. AA.

[0KEA]

Remark 2.5. Let 𝒞\mathcal{C} be an ∞\infty-category, let A⊆BA\subseteq B be an inclusion of simplicial sets, and consider f,g:B→𝒞f,g\colon B\to\mathcal{C} such that f|A=g|Af|_{A}=g|_{A}. By the discussion at the beginning of T.2.3.4, a homotopy from ff to gg rel. AA is the same as an equivalence from ff to gg as objects of the ∞\infty-category 𝒟\mathcal{D} that is given as a pullback

𝒟\textstyle{\mathcal{D}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒞B\textstyle{\mathcal{C}^{B}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Δ0\textstyle{\Delta^{0}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒞A.\textstyle{\mathcal{C}^{A}.}

Therefore, the existence of a homotopy rel. AA is an equivalence relation. We note that the above diagram is also a homotopy pullback in the Joyal model structure as the right vertical map is a categorical fibration and all objects are fibrant.

[0KEB]

Definition 2.6 (T.2.3.4.1). Let 𝒞\mathcal{C} be a simplicial set and let d≥−1d\geq-1 be an integer. We will say that 𝒞\mathcal{C} is a dd-category if it is an ∞\infty-category and the following additional conditions are satisfied:

  1. (1)

    Given a pair of maps f,f′:Δd→𝒞f,f^{\prime}\colon\Delta^{d}\to\mathcal{C}, if ff and f′f^{\prime} are homotopic relative to ∂Δd\partial\Delta^{d}, then f=f′f=f^{\prime}.

  2. (2)

    Given m>dm>d and a pair of maps f,f′:Δm→𝒞f,f^{\prime}\colon\Delta^{m}\to\mathcal{C}, if f|∂Δm=f′|∂Δmf\mid\partial\Delta^{m}=f^{\prime}\mid\partial\Delta^{m}, then f=f′f=f^{\prime}.

[0KEC]

Example 2.7. By T.2.3.4.5, an ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} is a 11-category if and only if it is isomorphic to the nerve of an ordinary category. By T.2.3.4.3, it is a 00-category if and only if it is isomorphic to the nerve of a poset (compare Example 2.3)

Next, we shall recall the definition of the dd-homotopy category hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C} of an ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C}. Using the notation Kd=skd​KK^{d}=\mbox{sk}^{d}K for the dd-th skeleton of a simplicial set KK, we recall the following construction.

[0KED]

Lemma 2.8 (T.2.3.4.12). For d≥1d\geq 1, given an ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C}, there exists an essentially unique simplicial set hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C}, such that for every simplicial set KK, we have a bijection

hom⁡(K,hd​𝒞)≃[Kd−1,Kd,Kd+1;𝒞]\hom\left(K,h_{d}\mathcal{C}\right)\simeq\left[K^{d-1},K^{d},K^{d+1};\mathcal{C}\right]

that is natural in KK. We denote the canonical map by θd:𝒞→hd​𝒞\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{C}\to h_{d}\mathcal{C}.

Using the above construction, we have the following definition:

[0KFG]

Definition 2.9. Given an ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} and an integer d≥−2d\geq-2, we define the dd-homotopy category of 𝒞\mathcal{C} to be hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C} of 2.8 when d≥1d\geq 1 and

  1. (1)

    For d=−2d=-2 we set h−2​𝒞=Δ0h_{-2}\mathcal{C}=\Delta^{0}.

  2. (2)

    For d=−1d=-1 we set h−1​𝒞={∅𝒞=∅Δ0𝒞≠∅h_{-1}\mathcal{C}=\begin{cases}\varnothing&\mathcal{C}=\varnothing\\ \Delta^{0}&\mathcal{C}\neq\varnothing\end{cases} with the unique map θ−1:𝒞→h−1​𝒞\theta_{-1}\colon\mathcal{C}\to h_{-1}\mathcal{C}.

  3. (3)

    For d=0d=0, we first define a pre-ordered set h~0​𝒞\tilde{h}_{0}\mathcal{C} with the same objects as 𝒞\mathcal{C} and the relation x≤yx\leq y if and only if Map𝒞⁡(X,Y)≠∅\operatorname{Map}_{\mathcal{C}}\left(X,Y\right)\neq\varnothing. Then we define h0​𝒞h_{0}\mathcal{C} to be the nerve of the poset obtained from h~0​𝒞\tilde{h}_{0}\mathcal{C} by identifying isomorphic objects. There is a canonical map θ0:𝒞→h0​𝒞\theta_{0}\colon\mathcal{C}\to h_{0}\mathcal{C} defined as the composition of θ1:𝒞→h1​𝒞\theta_{1}\colon\mathcal{C}\to h_{1}\mathcal{C} with the nerve of the functor that takes each object in the homotopy category h1​𝒞h_{1}\mathcal{C} to its class in h0​𝒞h_{0}\mathcal{C} (with the unique definition on morphisms).

[0KEF]

Warning 2.10. Note that an ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} is an essentially dd-category if and only if all objects of 𝒞\mathcal{C} are (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncated in the sense of T.5.5.6.1. Hence, another way to associate an essentially dd-category with an ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C} is to consider the full subcategory spanned by the (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncated objects. For a presentable ∞\infty-category, this is denoted by τ≤d−1​𝒞\tau_{\leq d-1}\mathcal{C} in T.5.5.6.1 and called the (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncation of 𝒞\mathcal{C}. We warn the reader that the two essentially dd-categories hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C} and τ≤d−1​𝒞\tau_{\leq d-1}\mathcal{C} are usually very different. For example, when 𝒞=𝒮\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{S} is the ∞\infty-category of spaces, h1​𝒮h_{1}\mathcal{S} is the ordinary homotopy category of spaces, while τ≤0​𝒮\tau_{\leq 0}\mathcal{S} is equivalent to the ordinary category of sets.

The map θd\theta_{d} has the following universal property.

[0KEG]

Lemma 2.11. Let d≥−1d\geq-1 and let 𝒞\mathcal{C} be an ∞\infty-category.

  1. (1)

    The simplicial set hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C} is a dd-category.

  2. (2)

    The canonical map 𝒞→hd​𝒞\mathcal{C}\to h_{d}\mathcal{C} is an isomorphism if and only if 𝒞\mathcal{C} is a dd-category.

  3. (3)

    For every dd-category 𝒟\mathcal{D}, composition with the canonical map 𝒞→hd​𝒞\mathcal{C}\to h_{d}\mathcal{C} induces an isomorphism of simplicial sets

    Fun⁡(hd​𝒞,𝒟)​⟶∼​Fun⁡(𝒞,𝒟).\operatorname{Fun}\left(h_{d}\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}\right)\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Fun}\left(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}\right).
[0KEH]

Proof. For d≥1d\geq 1 this is the content of T.2.3.4.12. For d=−1d=-1 this is trivial. For d=0d=0, (1) and (2) are obvious from the definition. For (3) observe that we have a factorization of the map in question:

Fun⁡(h0​𝒞,𝒟)→Fun⁡(h1​𝒞,𝒟)​⟶∼​Fun⁡(𝒞,𝒟),\operatorname{Fun}\left(h_{0}\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}\right)\to\operatorname{Fun}\left(h_{1}\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}\right)\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Fun}\left(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}\right),

where the second map is an isomorphism (from the claim for d=1d=1). Therefore, we can assume that 𝒞\mathcal{C} is an ordinary category and 𝒟\mathcal{D} is a poset and hence both simplicial sets are discrete. The result now follows from the observation that every functor 𝒞→𝒟\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D} factors uniquely through h0​𝒞h_{0}\mathcal{C}. ∎

Using the above results, we get the following:

[0KEI]

Proposition 2.12. The inclusion 𝐂𝐚𝐭d↪𝐂𝐚𝐭∞\mathbf{Cat}_{d}\hookrightarrow\mathbf{Cat}_{\infty} admits a left adjoint hd:𝐂𝐚𝐭∞→𝐂𝐚𝐭dh_{d}\colon\mathbf{Cat}_{\infty}\to\mathbf{Cat}_{d} with unit map given by θd:𝒞→hd​𝒞\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{C}\to h_{d}\mathcal{C}.

[0KEJ]

Proof. By T.2.3.4.18, every essentially dd-category is equivalent to a dd-category and for every dd-category 𝒟\mathcal{D}, the map

Fun⁡(hd​𝒞,𝒟)→Fun⁡(𝒞,𝒟)\operatorname{Fun}\left(h_{d}\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}\right)\to\operatorname{Fun}\left(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}\right)

is an isomorphism by 2.11. Restricting to the maximal Kan sub-complexes, the map of simplicial sets

θd∗:Map𝐂𝐚𝐭d⁡(hd​𝒞,𝒟)→Map𝐂𝐚𝐭∞⁡(𝒞,𝒟)\theta_{d}^{*}\colon\operatorname{Map}_{\mathbf{Cat}_{d}}\left(h_{d}\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}\right)\to\operatorname{Map}_{\mathbf{Cat}_{\infty}}\left(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}\right)

is a homotopy equivalence. It now follows that θd\theta_{d} exhibits hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C} as the 𝐂𝐚𝐭d\mathbf{Cat}_{d}-localization of 𝒞\mathcal{C} in the sense of T.5.2.7.6. Thus, the claim about the existence of a left adjoint follows from T.5.2.7.8 and the claim about the unit follows from the proof of T.5.2.7.8. ∎

The main goal of this section is to show that for every ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C}, the dd-category hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C} is obtained (as one would expect) by (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncation of the mapping spaces. The main ingredient is the following explicit description of the right mapping space in the dd-homotopy category.

[0KEK]

Proposition 2.13. Let d≥−1d\geq-1 and let 𝒞\mathcal{C} be an ∞\infty-category. For every X,Y∈𝒞X,Y\in\mathcal{C}, there is a canonical isomorphism α\alpha of simplicial sets rendering the following diagram commutative:

hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)\textstyle{\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}β\scriptstyle{\beta}γ\scriptstyle{\gamma}homhd​𝒞R⁡(θd​(X),θd​(Y))\textstyle{\hom_{h_{d}\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(\theta_{d}\left(X\right),\theta_{d}\left(Y\right)\right)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}α\scriptstyle{\alpha}∼\scriptstyle{\sim}hd−1​hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y),\textstyle{h_{d-1}\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right),}

where β\beta and γ\gamma are the obvious maps.

We defer the rather technical proof of 2.13 to the end of the section. Assuming 2.13, we get

[0KEL]

Corollary 2.14. Let d≥−1d\geq-1 and let 𝒞\mathcal{C} be an ∞\infty-category. The canonical map θd:𝒞→hd​𝒞\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{C}\to h_{d}\mathcal{C} is essentially surjective and for every X,Y∈𝒞X,Y\in\mathcal{C}, the induced map

Map𝒞⁡(X,Y)→Maphd​𝒞⁡(θd​(X),θd​(Y))\operatorname{Map}_{\mathcal{C}}\left(X,Y\right)\to\operatorname{Map}_{h_{d}\mathcal{C}}\left(\theta_{d}\left(X\right),\theta_{d}\left(Y\right)\right)

is a (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncation map.

[0KEM]

Proof. It is clear that θd\theta_{d} is essentially surjective since it is surjective on objects. Let X,Y∈𝒞X,Y\in\mathcal{C} be two objects. Since the map

Map𝒞⁡(X,Y)→Maphd​𝒞⁡(θd​(X),θd​(Y))\operatorname{Map}_{\mathcal{C}}\left(X,Y\right)\to\operatorname{Map}_{h_{d}\mathcal{C}}\left(\theta_{d}\left(X\right),\theta_{d}\left(Y\right)\right)

is represented by the map

θ:hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)→hd−1​hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y),\theta\colon\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\to h_{d-1}\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right),

it will be enough to show that for every Kan complex XX, the map X→hd−1​XX\to h_{d-1}X is a (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncation map. We prove this by induction. For d≤0d\leq 0 it is clear. For d≥1d\geq 1, recall that homXR⁡(p,q)\hom_{X}^{R}\left(p,q\right) has the homotopy type of the path space Pp,q​XP_{p,q}X between pp and qq in XX when viewed as a space. Thus, by induction, θ\theta is a map of spaces that is surjective on π0\pi_{0} and induces the (d−2)\left(d-2\right)-truncation map on path spaces

Pp,q​X→Pp,q​(hd−1​X)≃hd−2​(Pp,q​X).P_{p,q}X\to P_{p,q}\left(h_{d-1}X\right)\simeq h_{d-2}\left(P_{p,q}X\right).

It follows that θ\theta is a (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncation map. ∎

[0KEN]

Theorem 2.15. The inclusion functor 𝐂𝐚𝐭d↪𝐂𝐚𝐭∞\mathbf{Cat}_{d}\hookrightarrow\mathbf{Cat}_{\infty} admits a left adjoint hdh_{d} such that for every ∞\infty-category 𝒞\mathcal{C}, the value of hdh_{d} on 𝒞\mathcal{C} is the dd-homotopy category of 𝒞\mathcal{C}, the unit transformation θd:𝒞→hd​𝒞\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{C}\to h_{d}\mathcal{C} is essentially surjective, and for all X,Y∈𝒞X,Y\in\mathcal{C}, the map of spaces

Map𝒞⁡(X,Y)→Maphd​𝒞⁡(θd​(X),θd​(Y))\operatorname{Map}_{\mathcal{C}}\left(X,Y\right)\to\operatorname{Map}_{h_{d}\mathcal{C}}\left(\theta_{d}\left(X\right),\theta_{d}\left(Y\right)\right)

is the (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncation map.

To prove 2.13, we begin by recalling the definitions of the “right” and “middle” mapping spaces. Let J:𝐬𝐒𝐞𝐭→𝐬𝐒𝐞𝐭∂Δ1/J\colon\mathbf{sSet}\to\mathbf{sSet}_{\partial\Delta^{1}/} be the functor given by J⁡(K)=K⋆Δ0/KJ\left(K\right)=K\star\Delta^{0}/K, with the natural map ∂Δ1→J⁡(K)\partial\Delta^{1}\to J\left(K\right) taking 00 to the image of KK and 11 to the cone point. Recall that by the definition of the right mapping space (right before T.1.2.2.3), we have

hom⁡(Δn,hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y))=hom(X,Y)⁡(J⁡(Δn),𝒞),\hom(\Delta^{n},\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right))=\hom_{(X,Y)}(J(\Delta^{n}),\mathcal{C}),

where the subscript (X,Y)\left(X,Y\right) in the right hand side means we take the subset of maps that restrict to (X,Y)\left(X,Y\right) on ∂Δ1\partial\Delta^{1}. Since JJ preserves colimits, it follows that for every simplicial set KK, we have a canonical isomorphism

hom⁡(K,hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y))=hom(X,Y)⁡(J⁡(K),𝒞).\hom(K,\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right))=\hom_{(X,Y)}(J(K),\mathcal{C}).

Similarly, we can construct the “middle mapping space”. Let Σ:𝐬𝐒𝐞𝐭→𝐬𝐒𝐞𝐭\Sigma\colon\mathbf{sSet}\to\mathbf{sSet} be the functor given by Σ⁡(K)=K⋄Δ0/K\Sigma\left(K\right)=K\diamond\Delta^{0}/K. This also comes with a canonical map ∂Δ1→Σ⁡(K)\partial\Delta^{1}\to\Sigma\left(K\right), and similarly, from the definition of the middle mapping space (right after remark T.1.2.2.5), we have

hom⁡(K,hom𝒞M⁡(X,Y))=hom(X,Y)⁡(Σ⁡(K),𝒞).\hom(K,\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{M}(X,Y))=\hom_{(X,Y)}(\Sigma(K),\mathcal{C}).

There is a canonical categorical equivalence K⋄Δ0​⟶∼​K⋆Δ0K\diamond\Delta^{0}\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}K\star\Delta^{0} that induces a categorical equivalence Σ​K→J⁡(K)\Sigma K\to J\left(K\right) that induces a Kan equivalence

Φ:hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)​⟶∼​hom𝒞M⁡(X,Y)\Phi\colon\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{M}\left(X,Y\right)

of Kan complexes.

For f:K→hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)f\colon K\to\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right), we denote by f¯:J⁡(K)→𝒞\overline{f}\colon J\left(K\right)\to\mathcal{C} the corresponding map in the definition of hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right). We also denote by F=Φ∘fF=\Phi\circ f and F¯:Σ⁡(K)→𝒞\overline{F}\colon\Sigma\left(K\right)\to\mathcal{C} the corresponding map in the definition of hom𝒞M⁡(X,Y)\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{M}\left(X,Y\right). We begin with the following technical lemma.

[0KEQ]

Lemma 2.16. Given simplicial sets A⊆BA\subseteq B and DD, there is a canonical isomorphism

Σ⁡(B⋊AD)​⟶∼​Σ​B⋊Σ​AD.\Sigma\left(B\rtimes_{A}D\right)\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}\Sigma B\rtimes_{\Sigma A}D.
[0KER]

Proof. Consider the following diagram (with the obvious maps) and compute the colimit, starting once with the rows and once with the columns:

    ∂Δ1   ∂Δ1×D                 ∂Δ1×D   ∂Δ1×(Δ0⋊Δ0D)   ∂Δ1×A                 ∂Δ1×A×D                               ∂Δ1×B×D                 ∂Δ1×(B⋊AD)                 Δ1×A   Δ1×A×D                 Δ1×B×D   Δ1×(B⋊AD)   Σ​A   Σ​A×D                 Σ​B×D   Σ​B⋊Σ​AD≃Σ⁡(B⋊AD)    .\lx@xy@svg{\hbox{\raise 2.5pt\hbox{\kern 21.64757pt\hbox{\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\hbox{\vtop{\halign{\entry@#!@&&\entry@@#!@\cr&&&\cr&&&\cr&&&\cr&&&\crcr}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern-12.89757pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\partial\Delta^{1}}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 55.50865pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\partial\Delta^{1}\times D\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 143.87627pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 12.89758pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 143.87627pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\partial\Delta^{1}\times D}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 238.4337pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\partial\Delta^{1}\times\left(\Delta^{0}\rtimes_{\Delta^{0}}D\right)}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern-21.64757pt\raise-32.64001pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\partial\Delta^{1}\times A\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise-56.64pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise-5.5pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 45.64757pt\raise-32.64001pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\partial\Delta^{1}\times A\times D\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 133.72179pt\raise-32.64001pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 21.64757pt\raise-32.64001pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 77.68468pt\raise-56.64pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 77.68468pt\raise-6.33333pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 133.72179pt\raise-32.64001pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\partial\Delta^{1}\times B\times D\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 166.05229pt\raise-56.64pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 166.05229pt\raise-6.33333pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 241.91815pt\raise-32.64001pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\partial\Delta^{1}\times\left(B\rtimes_{A}D\right)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 279.17235pt\raise-56.64pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 279.17235pt\raise-8.29558pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern-18.15973pt\raise-65.28003pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\Delta^{1}\times A}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 49.1354pt\raise-65.28003pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\Delta^{1}\times A\times D\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 137.20963pt\raise-65.28003pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 18.15974pt\raise-65.28003pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 137.20963pt\raise-65.28003pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\Delta^{1}\times B\times D}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 245.40599pt\raise-65.28003pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\Delta^{1}\times\left(B\rtimes_{A}D\right)}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern-10.36111pt\raise-97.60004pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\Sigma A}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 56.93402pt\raise-97.60004pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\Sigma A\times D\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 145.00824pt\raise-97.60004pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 10.36113pt\raise-97.60004pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 145.00824pt\raise-97.60004pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\Sigma B\times D}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern 222.3828pt\raise-97.60004pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\Sigma B\rtimes_{\Sigma A}D\simeq\Sigma\left(B\rtimes_{A}D\right)}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces}}}}\ignorespaces.

∎

The following lemma compares the different models of the mapping space.

[0KES]

Lemma 2.17. Given simplicial sets A⊆BA\subseteq B and two maps f,g:B→hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)f,g\colon B\to\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right), the following are equivalent:

  1. (1)

    f,g:B→hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)f,g\colon B\to\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right) agree on AA (resp. homotopic rel. AA).

  2. (2)

    F,G:B→hom𝒞M⁡(X,Y)F,G\colon B\to\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{M}\left(X,Y\right) agree on AA (resp. homotopic rel. AA).

  3. (3)

    f¯,g¯:J⁡(B)→C\overline{f},\overline{g}\colon J\left(B\right)\to C agree on J⁡(A)J\left(A\right) (resp. homotopic rel. J⁡(A)J\left(A\right)).

  4. (4)

    F¯,G¯:Σ⁡(B)→C\overline{F},\overline{G}\colon\Sigma\left(B\right)\to C agree on Σ⁡(A)\Sigma\left(A\right) (resp. homotopic rel. Σ⁡(A)\Sigma\left(A\right)).

[0KET]

Proof. We start with the equivalence (1)⇔(2)\left(1\right)\iff\left(2\right). The first part follows from the fact that Φ\Phi is a monomorphism and the second part follows from the fact that Φ\Phi is a homotopy equivalence of Kan complexes. In the equivalence (3)⇔(4)\left(3\right)\iff\left(4\right), the first part follows from the fact that Σ​A→J⁡(A)\Sigma A\to J\left(A\right) is an epimorphism and the second part can be seen as follows: the maps f¯,g¯:J⁡(B)→𝒞\overline{f},\overline{g}\colon J\left(B\right)\to\mathcal{C} are homotopic rel J⁡(A)J\left(A\right) if and only if they are equivalent as elements of the ∞\infty-category that is the fiber over f¯|J⁡(A)=g¯|J⁡(A)\overline{f}|_{J\left(A\right)}=\overline{g}|_{J\left(A\right)} (which is also a homotopy fiber) of the categorical fibration 𝒞J⁡(B)→𝒞J⁡(A)\mathcal{C}^{J\left(B\right)}\to\mathcal{C}^{J\left(A\right)}. Since we have functorial categorical equivalences Σ⁡(A)​⟶∼​J​(A)\Sigma\left(A\right)\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}J\left(A\right) and Σ⁡(B)​⟶∼​J​(B)\Sigma\left(B\right)\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}J\left(B\right), this is the same as showing that the corresponding maps F¯,G¯:Σ⁡(B)→𝒞\overline{F},\overline{G}\colon\Sigma\left(B\right)\to\mathcal{C} are equivalent in the fiber of 𝒞Σ⁡(B)→𝒞Σ⁡(A)\mathcal{C}^{\Sigma\left(B\right)}\to\mathcal{C}^{\Sigma\left(A\right)} (which is also the homotopy fiber). This in turn is the same as having F¯,G¯\overline{F},\overline{G} homotopic rel. Σ​A\Sigma A. It is left to show the equivalence (2)⇔(4)\left(2\right)\iff\left(4\right). The first part is clear. The second part amounts to showing the equivalence of two extension problems. If F|A=G|AF|_{A}=G|_{A}, we get a map F∪AGF\cup_{A}G from B∪AB≃B⋊A∂Δ1B\cup_{A}B\simeq B\rtimes_{A}\partial\Delta^{1} to hom𝒞M⁡(X,Y)\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{M}\left(X,Y\right) and FF and GG are homotopic rel. AA if and only if F∪AGF\cup_{A}G extends to the relative cylinder B⋊AΔ1B\rtimes_{A}\Delta^{1}. In terms of maps to 𝒞\mathcal{C}, this is equivalent to the extension problem

    Σ⁡(B⋊∂A⁡Δ1)                 𝒞   Σ⁡(B⋊AΔ1)           .\lx@xy@svg{\hbox{\raise 2.5pt\hbox{\kern 32.69794pt\hbox{\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\hbox{\vtop{\halign{\entry@#!@&&\entry@@#!@\cr&\cr\crcr}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern-32.69794pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\Sigma\left(B\rtimes_{A}\partial\Delta^{1}\right)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 56.69794pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise-23.99998pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 56.69794pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\mathcal{C}}$}}}}}}}{\hbox{\kern-29.2101pt\raise-32.64001pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\Sigma\left(B\rtimes_{A}\Delta^{1}\right)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 56.69794pt\raise-3.40884pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\lx@xy@drawline@}}\ignorespaces}}}}\ignorespaces.

On the other hand, from F¯|Σ​A=G¯|Σ​A\overline{F}|_{\Sigma A}=\overline{G}|_{\Sigma A} we get a map F¯∪Σ​AG¯\overline{F}\cup_{\Sigma A}\overline{G} from Σ​B⋊∂Σ​A⁡Δ1\Sigma B\rtimes_{\Sigma A}\partial\Delta^{1} to 𝒞\mathcal{C} and F¯\overline{F} and G¯\overline{G} are homotopic rel. Σ​A\Sigma A if and only if it extends to the relative cylinder Σ​B⋊Σ​AΔ1\Sigma B\rtimes_{\Sigma A}\Delta^{1}. By 2.16 for D=Δ1,∂Δ1D=\Delta^{1},\partial\Delta^{1}, the two extension problems are isomorphic. ∎

We are now ready to prove 2.13.

[0KEU]

Proof (of 2.13). For d≤0d\leq 0 this follows directly from the definitions, and so we assume that d≥1d\geq 1. Let KK be a simplicial set. On the one hand,

hom⁡(K,homhd​𝒞R⁡(X,Y))\displaystyle\hom\left(K,\hom_{h_{d}\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\right) =\displaystyle= hom(X,Y)⁡(J⁡(K),hd​𝒞)\displaystyle\hom_{\left(X,Y\right)}\left(J\left(K\right),h_{d}\mathcal{C}\right)
=\displaystyle= [J​(K)d−1,J​(K)d,J​(K)d+1;𝒞](X,Y),\displaystyle\left[J\left(K\right)^{d-1},J\left(K\right)^{d},J\left(K\right)^{d+1};\mathcal{C}\right]_{\left(X,Y\right)},

where subscript (X,Y)\left(X,Y\right) indicates that we take only the subset of maps that restrict to (X,Y)\left(X,Y\right) on ∂Δ1↪J⁡(K)\partial\Delta^{1}\hookrightarrow J\left(K\right) (observe that this is independent of the representative as ∂Δ1⊆J​(K)d−1\partial\Delta^{1}\subseteq J\left(K\right)^{d-1}). On the other hand,

hom⁡(K,hd−1​hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y))\displaystyle\hom\left(K,h_{d-1}\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\right) =\displaystyle= [Kd−2,Kd−1,Kd;hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)].\displaystyle\left[K^{d-2},K^{d-1},K^{d};\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\right].

We will argue that this last set is in natural bijection with the set

[J⁡(Kd−2),J⁡(Kd−1),J⁡(Kd),𝒞](X,Y).\left[J\left(K^{d-2}\right),J\left(K^{d-1}\right),J\left(K^{d}\right),\mathcal{C}\right]_{\left(X,Y\right)}.

First, by definition of the right mapping space we have a natural bijection between maps of the form f:Kd−1→hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)f\colon K^{d-1}\to\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right) and maps of the form f¯:J⁡(Kd−1)→𝒞\overline{f}\colon J\left(K^{d-1}\right)\to\mathcal{C} restricting to (X,Y)\left(X,Y\right) on ∂Δ1⊆J⁡(Kd−1)\partial\Delta^{1}\subseteq J\left(K^{d-1}\right). Second, ff extends to KdK^{d} if and only if f¯\overline{f} extends to J⁡(Kd)J\left(K^{d}\right). Likewise, it is clear that two maps f,g:Kd−1→hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)f,g\colon K^{d-1}\to\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right) agree on Kd−2K^{d-2} if and only if the corresponding maps f¯,g¯:J⁡(Kd−1)→𝒞\overline{f},\overline{g}\colon J\left(K^{d-1}\right)\to\mathcal{C} agree on J⁡(Kd−2)J\left(K^{d-2}\right). Hence, the only thing we need to show is that ff and gg are homotopic rel. Kd−2K^{d-2} if and only if f¯\overline{f} and g¯\overline{g} are homotopic rel. J⁡(Kd−2)J\left(K^{d-2}\right) and this follows from (1)⇔(3)\left(1\right)\iff\left(3\right) in 2.17. It remains to observe that for every simplicial set KK and every d≥1d\geq 1 we have a canonical isomorphism J⁡(Kd−1)​⟶∼​J​(K)d.J\left(K^{d-1}\right)\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}J\left(K\right)^{d}. Hence, we get a natural bijection

hom⁡(K,homhd​𝒞R⁡(X,Y))≃hom⁡(K,hd−1​hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y))\hom\left(K,\hom_{h_{d}\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\right)\simeq\hom\left(K,h_{d-1}\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\right)

and therefore an isomorphism α:homhd​𝒞R⁡(X,Y)≃hd−1​hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)\alpha\colon\hom_{h_{d}\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\simeq h_{d-1}\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right).

Finally, we need to show that the isomorphism we have constructed is compatible with the maps θ:hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)→hd−1​hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)\theta\colon\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\to h_{d-1}\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right) and β:hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)→homhd​𝒞R⁡(X,Y)\beta\colon\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right)\to\hom_{h_{d}\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right). For this, consider a map f:K→hom𝒞R⁡(X,Y)f\colon K\to\hom_{\mathcal{C}}^{R}\left(X,Y\right). The composition θ∘f\theta\circ f is represented by the restriction f|Kd−1f|_{K^{d-1}}, which corresponds to the map f|Kd−1¯:J⁡(Kd−1)→𝒞\overline{f|_{K^{d-1}}}\colon J\left(K^{d-1}\right)\to\mathcal{C}. On the other hand, the composition β∘f\beta\circ f corresponds to the restriction of f¯:J⁡(K)→𝒞\overline{f}\colon J\left(K\right)\to\mathcal{C} to J​(K)d+1J\left(K\right)^{d+1} and these are identified by α\alpha. ∎

3 dd-Operads[0KFF]

We now develop the basic theory of (essentially) dd-operads in analogy with (and by bootstrapping of) the theory of dd-categories. First,

[0KEV]

Definition 3.1. Let d≥−1d\geq-1. An essentially dd-operad is an ∞\infty-operad 𝒪\mathcal{O} such that for all X1,…,Xn,Y∈𝒪¯X_{1},\dots,X_{n},Y\in\underline{\mathcal{O}}, the multi-mapping space Mul𝒪​({X1,…,Xn},Y)\mbox{Mul}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\left\{X_{1},\dots,X_{n}\right\};Y\right) is (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncated. We denote by 𝐎𝐩d\mathbf{Op}_{d} the full subcategory of 𝐎𝐩∞\mathbf{Op}_{\infty} spanned by essentially dd -operads.

[0KEW]

Example 3.2. Two important special cases are:

  1. (1)

    A symmetric monoidal ∞\infty-category is an essentially dd-operad if and only if its underlying ∞\infty-category is an essentially dd-category.

  2. (2)

    A reduced ∞\infty-operad 𝒫\mathcal{P} is an essentially dd-operad if and only if the corresponding symmetric sequence of nn-ary operations {𝒫⁡(n)}n≥0\left\{\mathcal{P}\left(n\right)\right\}_{n\geq 0} consists of (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncated spaces.

We begin by showing that that the functor hdh_{d} behaves well with respect to inner and coCartesian edges.

[0KEX]

Proposition 3.3. Let d≥−1d\geq-1 and let p:𝒞→𝒟p\colon\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D} be a functor, where 𝒞\mathcal{C} is an ∞\infty-category and 𝒟\mathcal{D} a dd-category.

  1. (1)

    If the functor p:𝒞→𝒟p\colon\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D} is an inner fibration, then so is hd​(p):hd​(𝒞)→hd​(𝒟)=𝒟h_{d}\left(p\right)\colon h_{d}\left(\mathcal{C}\right)\to h_{d}\left(\mathcal{D}\right)=\mathcal{D}.

  2. (2)

    If in addition ff is a pp-coCartesian morphism in 𝒞\mathcal{C}, then hd​(f)h_{d}\left(f\right) is hd​(p)h_{d}\left(p\right)-coCartesian in hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C}.

[0KEY]

Proof. For d=−1,0d=-1,0, both assertions are trivial to check and so we assume that d≥1d\geq 1. The argument that hd​(p)h_{d}\left(p\right) is an inner fibration is similar to the argument that hd​(f)h_{d}\left(f\right) is coCartesian and so we shall prove them together. Using T.2.4.1.4, we need to consider the lifting problem

Λim\textstyle{\Lambda_{i}^{m}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}hd​𝒞\textstyle{h_{d}\mathcal{C}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Δm\textstyle{\Delta^{m}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}𝒟\textstyle{\mathcal{D}}

for some m≥2m\geq 2 and either

  1. (1)

    0<i<m0<i<m or

  2. (2)

    i=0i=0 and Δ{0,1}⊆Λ0m\Delta^{\left\{0,1\right\}}\subseteq\Lambda_{0}^{m} is mapped in hd​𝒞h_{d}\mathcal{C} to hd​(f)h_{d}\left(f\right).

For m≥d+3m\geq d+3, we have skj​Λim=skj​Δm\mbox{sk}^{j}\Lambda_{i}^{m}=\mbox{sk}^{j}\Delta^{m} for all j≤d+1j\leq d+1, and so the map

hom⁡(Δm,hd​𝒞)→hom⁡(Λim,hd​𝒞)\hom\left(\Delta^{m},h_{d}\mathcal{C}\right)\to\hom\left(\Lambda_{i}^{m},h_{d}\mathcal{C}\right)

is a bijection and there is nothing to prove. For m≤d+2m\leq d+2, we have Λim=skd+1​Λim\Lambda_{i}^{m}=\mbox{sk}^{d+1}\Lambda_{i}^{m}, and so the map

hom⁡(Λim,𝒞)↠hom⁡(Λim,hd​𝒞)\hom\left(\Lambda_{i}^{m},\mathcal{C}\right)\twoheadrightarrow\hom\left(\Lambda_{i}^{m},h_{d}\mathcal{C}\right)

is surjective, hence the map Λim→hd​𝒞\Lambda_{i}^{m}\to h_{d}\mathcal{C} factors through Λim→𝒞\Lambda_{i}^{m}\to\mathcal{C}. Now, the functor 𝒞→hd​𝒞\mathcal{C}\to h_{d}\mathcal{C} identifies only homotopic morphisms (for d≥1d\geq 1); hence in (2) the image of Δ{0,1}\Delta^{\left\{0,1\right\}} in 𝒞\mathcal{C} is coCartesian. Thus, in both cases we can solve the corresponding lifting problem in 𝒞\mathcal{C}, which induces a lift in the original square. ∎

[0KEZ]

Definition 3.4. Let 𝒪\mathcal{O} be an ∞\infty-operad.

  1. (1)

    For d≥1d\geq 1, we say that 𝒪\mathcal{O} is a dd-operad if 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} is a dd-category.

  2. (2)

    We say that 𝒪\mathcal{O} is a 00-operad if 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} is a skeletal 11-category and pp is faithful.

  3. (3)

    We say that 𝒪\mathcal{O} is a (−1)(-1)-operad if either 𝒪⊗=∅\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}=\varnothing or pp is an isomorphism.

[0KF0]

Remark 3.5. A dd-operad is intended to bear the same relation to an essentially dd-operad as a dd-category does to an essentially dd-category; i.e. it is a strict model for an ∞\infty-operad in which all multi-mapping spaces are (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncated.

Next, we define the notion of a dd-homotopy operad of an ∞\infty-operad, which is analogous to the notion of a dd-homotopy category of an ∞\infty-category.

[0KFH]

Definition 3.6. Given an ∞\infty-operad p:𝒪⊗→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗p\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*}, we define its dd-homotopy operad hd​𝒪h_{d}\mathcal{O} to be a map of simplicial sets pd:(hd​𝒪)⊗→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗p_{d}\colon\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} defined as follows:

  1. (1)

    For d≥1d\geq 1, we simply apply hdh_{d} to pp as a functor between ∞\infty-categories and use the fact that 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is a 11-category; hence there is a canonical isomorphism hd​(𝐅𝐢𝐧∗)≃𝐅𝐢𝐧∗h_{d}\left(\mathbf{Fin}_{*}\right)\simeq\mathbf{Fin}_{*}.

  2. (2)

    For d=0d=0, we first construct the (ordinary) category h~0​𝒪⊗\tilde{h}_{0}\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} whose objects are those of 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} and each mapping space is replaced by its image in 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*}. Then we identify isomorphic objects in h~0​𝒪⊗\tilde{h}_{0}\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} (note that there is a unique induced composition, since isomorphic objects are mapped to the same object in 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*}) and finally we define (h0​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} to be the nerve of the resulting category, with p0p_{0} being the obvious map to 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*}.

  3. (3)

    For d=−1d=-1, we define pd:𝐅𝐢𝐧∗→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗p_{d}\colon\mathbf{Fin}_{*}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} to be the identity functor if 𝒪⊗≠∅\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\neq\varnothing and the unique functor pd:∅→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗p_{d}\colon\varnothing\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} otherwise.

In all three cases we have a canonical map of simplicial sets θd:𝒪⊗→(hd​𝒪)⊗\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} over 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*}.

[0KF1]

Warning 3.7. For every ∞\infty-operad 𝒪\mathcal{O} and d≥1d\geq 1 we have (hd​𝒪)⊗≃hd​(𝒪⊗)\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}\simeq h_{d}\left(\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\right), but for d≤0d\leq 0 we get something slightly different. The reason for this is that (hd​𝒞)⊗\left(h_{d}\mathcal{C}\right)^{\otimes} corresponds to the application of hdh_{d} fiber-wise to the map p:𝒪⊗→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗p\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*}. Since 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is a 1-category, for d≥1d\geq 1 this is the same as applying hdh_{d} to pp, but for d≤0d\leq 0 it is not.

[0KF2]

Lemma 3.8. Let p:𝒪⊗→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗p\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} be an ∞\infty-operad.

  1. (1)

    The map pd:(hd​𝒪)⊗→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗p_{d}\colon\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is a dd-operad.

  2. (2)

    The canonical map θd:𝒪→hd​𝒪\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{O}\to h_{d}\mathcal{O} is a map of ∞\infty-operads.

  3. (3)

    Given an ∞\infty-operad map F:𝒪→𝒰F\colon\mathcal{O}\to\mathcal{U}, the induced map hd​F:hd​𝒪→hd​𝒰h_{d}F\colon h_{d}\mathcal{O}\to h_{d}\mathcal{U} on dd-homotopy operads, is an ∞\infty-operad map.

[0KF3]

Proof. For d=−1d=-1, there is nothing to prove in (1)–(3) and so we assume that d≥0d\geq 0.

(1) For d=0d=0, it is clear that (h0​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{0}\mathcal{\mathcal{O}}\right)^{\otimes} is a skeletal 11-category, with p0p_{0} fully faithful; and for d≥1d\geq 1, it is clear that (hd​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{d}\mathcal{\mathcal{O}}\right)^{\otimes} is a dd-category. Hence, we only need to show that (hd​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{d}\mathcal{\mathcal{O}}\right)^{\otimes} is an ∞\infty-operad. For this we need to check the three conditions of Definition A.2.1.1.10.

  • •

    Since p:𝒪⊗→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗p\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is an ∞\infty-operad, for every inert morphism f:⟨m⟩→⟨n⟩f\colon\left\langle m\right\rangle\to\left\langle n\right\rangle and an object X¯∈hd​𝒪⟨m⟩⊗\overline{X}\in h_{d}\mathcal{O}_{\left\langle m\right\rangle}^{\otimes}, we can lift X¯\overline{X} to X∈𝒪⟨m⟩⊗X\in\mathcal{O}_{\left\langle m\right\rangle}^{\otimes} and find a coCartesian lift g:X→Yg\colon X\to Y of ff in 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}. For d≥1d\geq 1, the image g¯\overline{g} of gg in (hd​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} is a coCartesian lift of ff by 3.3. For d=0d=0, we use the dual of T.2.4.4.3 to show that g¯\overline{g} is coCartesian. (h0​𝒪)⊗→𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is an inner fibration (as the nerve of a functor of ordinary categories) and for every Z¯∈(h0​𝒪)⟨m⟩⊗\overline{Z}\in\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)_{\left\langle m\right\rangle}^{\otimes}, pre-composition with g¯\overline{g} induces a diagram

        Map(h0​𝒪)⊗⁡(Y¯,Z¯)                 Map(h0​𝒪)⊗⁡(X¯,Z¯)          Map𝐅𝐢𝐧∗⁡(⟨m⟩,⟨k⟩)          Map𝐅𝐢𝐧∗⁡(⟨n⟩,⟨k⟩)    ,\lx@xy@svg{\hbox{\raise 2.5pt\hbox{\kern 42.02347pt\hbox{\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\hbox{\vtop{\halign{\entry@#!@&&\entry@@#!@\cr&\cr&\crcr}}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern-36.83408pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\operatorname{Map}_{\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}}\left(\overline{Y},\overline{Z}\right)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise-24.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 69.82396pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 69.82396pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\operatorname{Map}_{\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}}\left(\overline{X},\overline{Z}\right)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 106.65804pt\raise-24.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern-42.02347pt\raise-32.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\operatorname{Map}_{\mathbf{Fin}_{*}}\left(\left\langle m\right\rangle,\left\langle k\right\rangle\right)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces{}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}\ignorespaces{\hbox{\kern 66.02347pt\raise-32.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\lx@xy@tip{1}\lx@xy@tip{-1}}}}}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\lx@xy@droprule}}{\hbox{\kern 66.02347pt\raise-32.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 0.0pt\raise 0.0pt\hbox{\hbox{\kern 3.0pt\raise-2.5pt\hbox{$\textstyle{\operatorname{Map}_{\mathbf{Fin}_{*}}\left(\left\langle n\right\rangle,\left\langle k\right\rangle\right)}$}}}}}}}\ignorespaces}}}}\ignorespaces,

    and it is easy to verify that it is a homotopy pullback.

  • •

    Let X¯∈(hd​𝒪)⟨m⟩⊗\overline{X}\in\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)_{\left\langle m\right\rangle}^{\otimes} and Y¯∈(hd​𝒪)⟨n⟩⊗\overline{Y}\in\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)_{\left\langle n\right\rangle}^{\otimes} and let f:⟨m⟩→⟨n⟩f\colon\left\langle m\right\rangle\to\left\langle n\right\rangle be a morphism in 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*}. We first observe that

    Map(hd​𝒪)⊗f⁡(X,Y)≃hd−1​(Map𝒪⊗f⁡(X,Y)).\operatorname{Map}_{\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}}^{f}\left(X,Y\right)\simeq h_{d-1}\left(\operatorname{Map}_{\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}}^{f}\left(X,Y\right)\right).

    For d≥1d\geq 1 this follows from 2.13 and for d=0d=0 it follows directly from the definition. Hence,

    Map(hd​𝒪)⊗f⁡(X,Y)\displaystyle\operatorname{Map}_{\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}}^{f}\left(X,Y\right) ≃\displaystyle\simeq hd−1​(Map𝒪⊗f⁡(X,Y))≃hd−1​(∏1≤i≤nMap𝒪⊗ρi∘f⁡(X,Yi))\displaystyle h_{d-1}\left(\operatorname{Map}_{\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}}^{f}\left(X,Y\right)\right)\simeq h_{d-1}\left(\prod_{1\leq i\leq n}\operatorname{Map}_{\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}}^{\rho^{i}\circ f}\left(X,Y_{i}\right)\right)
    ≃\displaystyle\simeq ∏1≤i≤nhd−1​(Map𝒪⊗ρi∘f⁡(X,Yi))≃∏1≤i≤nMap(hd​𝒪)⊗ρi∘f⁡(X,Yi).\displaystyle\prod_{1\leq i\leq n}h_{d-1}\left(\operatorname{Map}_{\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}}^{\rho^{i}\circ f}\left(X,Y_{i}\right)\right)\simeq\prod_{1\leq i\leq n}\operatorname{Map}_{\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}}^{\rho^{i}\circ f}\left(X,Y_{i}\right).

    Note that we use the fact that hdh_{d} preserves finite products of spaces.

  • •

    For every finite collection of objects X¯1,…,X¯n∈(hd​𝒪)⟨1⟩⊗\overline{X}_{1},\dots,\overline{X}_{n}\in\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)_{\left\langle 1\right\rangle}^{\otimes} that are lifted to objects of 𝒪⟨1⟩⊗\mathcal{O}_{\left\langle 1\right\rangle}^{\otimes}, there is an object X∈𝒪⟨n⟩⊗X\in\mathcal{O}_{\left\langle n\right\rangle}^{\otimes} and coCartesian morphisms fi:X→Xif_{i}\colon X\to X_{i} covering ρi:⟨n⟩→⟨1⟩\rho^{i}\colon\left\langle n\right\rangle\to\left\langle 1\right\rangle. The images of those maps in hd​𝒪⊗h_{d}\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} are coCartesian as well and satisfy the analogous property.

(2) From the proof of (1), θd\theta_{d} maps inert morphisms in 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} to inert morphisms in hd​𝒪⊗h_{d}\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}.

(3) We need to show that hd​Fh_{d}F maps inert morphisms to inert morphisms. For d=0d=0, this is automatic. For d≥1d\geq 1, let f¯:X→Y\overline{f}\colon X\to Y be an inert morphism in (hd​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}. There is a coCartesian morphism f:X→Y′f\colon X\to Y^{\prime} in 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} with the same image as f¯\overline{f} in 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*}; hence its image in (hd​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} is equivalent to ff. Since the composition 𝒪⊗→𝒰⊗→(hd​𝒰)⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\mathcal{U}^{\otimes}\to\left(h_{d}\mathcal{U}\right)^{\otimes} preserves inert morphisms, it follows that the image of ff in (hd​𝒰)⊗\left(h_{d}\mathcal{U}\right)^{\otimes} is inert and since the image of f¯\overline{f} in (hd​𝒰)⊗\left(h_{d}\mathcal{U}\right)^{\otimes} is equivalent to the image of ff, it is inert as well. ∎

The following lemma provides the universal property of θd\theta_{d} by analogy with 2.11 for dd-categories.

[0KF4]

Lemma 3.9. Let 𝒪\mathcal{O} be an ∞\infty-operad.

  1. (1)

    𝒪\mathcal{O} is a dd-operad if and only if θd\theta_{d} is an isomorphism.

  2. (2)

    For every dd-operad 𝒰\mathcal{U}, pre-composition with θd\theta_{d} induces an isomorphism of simplicial sets

    Alg¯hd​𝒪​(𝒰)→Alg¯𝒪​(𝒰)\underline{\operatorname{Alg}}_{h_{d}\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right)\to\underline{\operatorname{Alg}}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right)

    and in particular a homotopy equivalence

    Map𝐎𝐩∞⁡(hd​𝒪,𝒰)→Map𝐎𝐩∞⁡(𝒪,𝒰).\operatorname{Map}_{\mathbf{Op}_{\infty}}\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O},\mathcal{U}\right)\to\operatorname{Map}_{\mathbf{Op}_{\infty}}\left(\mathcal{O},\mathcal{U}\right).
[0KF5]

Proof. (2) Assume that d≥1d\geq 1. By the analogous fact for ∞\infty-categories, the composition with θd\theta_{d} induces an isomorphism

Fun𝐅𝐢𝐧∗⁡((hd​𝒪)⊗,𝒰⊗)​⟶∼​Fun𝐅𝐢𝐧∗⁡(𝒪⊗,𝒰⊗).\operatorname{Fun}_{\mathbf{Fin}_{*}}((h_{d}\mathcal{O})^{\otimes},\mathcal{U}^{\otimes})\overset{\sim}{\longrightarrow}\operatorname{Fun}_{\mathbf{Fin}_{*}}(\mathcal{O}^{\otimes},\mathcal{U}^{\otimes}).

The simplicial set Alg¯𝒪​(𝒰)\underline{\operatorname{Alg}}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right) is the full subcategory of Fun𝐅𝐢𝐧∗⁡(𝒪⊗,𝒰⊗)\operatorname{Fun}_{\mathbf{Fin}_{*}}\left(\mathcal{O}^{\otimes},\mathcal{U}^{\otimes}\right) spanned by maps of ∞\infty-operads (and similarly for hd​𝒪h_{d}\mathcal{O} instead of 𝒪\mathcal{O}). The claim now follows from the fact that the image of a coCartesian edge in 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} is coCartesian in (hd​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} and, conversely, every inert morphism in (hd​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} is up to equivalence the image of an inert morphism in 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} (lift the source to some object X∈𝒪⊗X\in\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} and choose any inert map with domain XX).

For d=0d=0, essentially the same argument works, only now the inert maps of (h0​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} are precisely those whose image in 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is inert and therefore the inert maps of (h0​𝒪)⊗\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} are again precisely the images of inert maps in 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}. For d=−1d=-1, the claim is obvious.

(1) Follows from (2) and the Yoneda lemma in the 1-category 𝐏𝐎𝐩∞\mathbf{POp}_{\infty} of ∞\infty-preoperads (see A.2.1.4.2). ∎

[0KF6]

Lemma 3.10. Let d≥−1d\geq-1 and let 𝒪\mathcal{O} be an ∞\infty-operad. The canonical map θd:𝒪→hd​𝒪\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{O}\to h_{d}\mathcal{O} is essentially surjective and for all X1,…,Xn,Y∈𝒪¯X_{1},\dots,X_{n},Y\in\underline{\mathcal{O}}, the map

Mul𝒪⁡({X1,…,Xn};Y)→Mulhd​𝒪⁡({θd​(X1),…,θd​(Xn)};θd​(Y))\operatorname{Mul}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\left\{X_{1},\dots,X_{n}\right\};Y\right)\to\operatorname{Mul}_{h_{d}\mathcal{O}}\left(\left\{\theta_{d}\left(X_{1}\right),\dots,\theta_{d}\left(X_{n}\right)\right\};\theta_{d}\left(Y\right)\right)

is a (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncation map.

[0KF7]

Proof. The map θd:𝒪→hd​𝒪\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{O}\to h_{d}\mathcal{O} is surjective on objects and hence is essentially surjective. For d≥1d\geq 1, the second assertion follows from the corresponding fact for ∞\infty-categories; and for d=−1,0d=-1,0, it follows directly from the definition. ∎

[0KF8]

Corollary 3.11. An ∞\infty-operad is an essentially dd-operad if and only if it is equivalent to a dd-operad.

The following is the analogue of 2.15 for ∞\infty-operads.

[0KF9]

Theorem 3.12. The inclusion 𝐎𝐩d↪𝐎𝐩∞\mathbf{Op}_{d}\hookrightarrow\mathbf{Op}_{\infty} admits a left adjoint hdh_{d}, such that for every ∞\infty-operad 𝒪\mathcal{O} the value of hdh_{d} on 𝒪\mathcal{O} is the dd-homotopy operad of 𝒪\mathcal{O}, the unit transformation θd:𝒪→hd​𝒪\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{O}\to h_{d}\mathcal{O} is essentially surjective, and for all objects X1,…,Xn,Y∈𝒪¯X_{1},\dots,X_{n},Y\in\underline{\mathcal{O}}, the map of spaces

Mul𝒪⁡({X1,…,Xn};Y)→Mulhd​𝒪⁡({θd​(X1),…,θd​(Xn)};θd​(Y))\operatorname{Mul}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\left\{X_{1},\dots,X_{n}\right\};Y\right)\to\operatorname{Mul}_{h_{d}\mathcal{O}}\left(\left\{\theta_{d}\left(X_{1}\right),\dots,\theta_{d}\left(X_{n}\right)\right\};\theta_{d}\left(Y\right)\right)

is the (d−1)\left(d-1\right)-truncation map.

[0KFA]

Proof. Follows from 3.10, 3.9 (the universal property of θd\theta_{d}) and 3.11 analogously to the proof for dd-categories. ∎

We conclude with a simple consequence of the theory of dd-operads, that showcases the effectiveness of the strict model.

[0KFB]

Proposition 3.13. Let 𝒪\mathcal{O} be an ∞\infty-operad and let 𝒰\mathcal{U} be an (essentially) dd-operad. The ∞\infty-category Alg¯𝒪​(𝒰)\underline{\operatorname{Alg}}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right) is an (essentially) dd-category.

[0KFC]

Proof. Since an ∞\infty-operad 𝒰\mathcal{U} is an essentially dd-operad if and only if it is equivalent to a (strict) dd-operad, it is enough to prove the strict version. By definition, the ∞\infty-category Alg𝒪⁡(𝒰)\operatorname{Alg}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right) is a full subcategory of Fun⁡(𝒪⊗,𝒰⊗)\operatorname{Fun}\left(\mathcal{O}^{\otimes},\mathcal{U}^{\otimes}\right). For d≥1d\geq 1, the ∞\infty-category 𝒰⊗\mathcal{U}^{\otimes} is a dd-category and, therefore, by T.2.3.4.8, the ∞\infty-category Fun⁡(𝒪⊗,𝒰⊗)\operatorname{Fun}\left(\mathcal{O}^{\otimes},\mathcal{U}^{\otimes}\right) is a dd-category as well. Hence, every full subcategory of it is a dd-category. For d=0d=0, by 3.9 we can assume that 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} is a 00-operad as well and therefore both 𝒪⊗\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} and 𝒰⊗\mathcal{U}^{\otimes} are skeletal 1-categories with faithful projection to 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*}. Observing that Alg𝒪⁡(𝒰)\operatorname{Alg}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right) is a full subcategory of Fun𝐅𝐢𝐧∗⁡(𝒪⊗,𝒰⊗)\operatorname{Fun}_{\mathbf{Fin}_{*}}\left(\mathcal{O}^{\otimes},\mathcal{U}^{\otimes}\right) and using the faithfulness of the projections to 𝐅𝐢𝐧∗\mathbf{Fin}_{*}, we see that the mapping spaces are either empty or singletons. For d=−1d=-1, the claim is obvious. ∎

References

  • [Lur] Jacob Lurie. Higher algebra. http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/.
  • [Lur09] Jacob Lurie. Higher Topos Theory, volume 170 of Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, 2009.

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source collection and HTML conversion remain in progress.