ScalingStacks

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 dโ‰ฅโˆ’1d\geq-1. An essentially dd-operad is an โˆž\infty-operad ๐’ช\mathcal{O} such that for all X1,โ€ฆ,Xn,Yโˆˆ๐’ชยฏX_{1},\dots,X_{n},Y\in\underline{\mathcal{O}}, the multi-mapping space Mul๐’ชโ€‹({X1,โ€ฆ,Xn},Y)\mbox{Mul}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\left\{X_{1},\dots,X_{n}\right\};Y\right) is (dโˆ’1)\left(d-1\right)-truncated. We denote by ๐Ž๐ฉd\mathbf{Op}_{d} the full subcategory of ๐Ž๐ฉโˆž\mathbf{Op}_{\infty} spanned by essentially dd -operads.

[0KEW]

Example 3.2. Two important special cases are:

  1. (1)

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

  2. (2)

    A reduced โˆž\infty-operad ๐’ซ\mathcal{P} is an essentially dd-operad if and only if the corresponding symmetric sequence of nn-ary operations {๐’ซโก(n)}nโ‰ฅ0\left\{\mathcal{P}\left(n\right)\right\}_{n\geq 0} consists of (dโˆ’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 dโ‰ฅโˆ’1d\geq-1 and let p:๐’žโ†’๐’Ÿp\colon\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D} be a functor, where ๐’ž\mathcal{C} is an โˆž\infty-category and ๐’Ÿ\mathcal{D} a dd-category.

  1. (1)

    If the functor p:๐’žโ†’๐’Ÿp\colon\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D} is an inner fibration, then so is hdโ€‹(p):hdโ€‹(๐’ž)โ†’hdโ€‹(๐’Ÿ)=๐’Ÿh_{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 ๐’ž\mathcal{C}, then hdโ€‹(f)h_{d}\left(f\right) is hdโ€‹(p)h_{d}\left(p\right)-coCartesian in hdโ€‹๐’žh_{d}\mathcal{C}.

[0KEY]

Proof. For d=โˆ’1,0d=-1,0, both assertions are trivial to check and so we assume that dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1. The argument that hdโ€‹(p)h_{d}\left(p\right) is an inner fibration is similar to the argument that hdโ€‹(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

ฮ›im\textstyle{\Lambda_{i}^{m}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}hdโ€‹๐’ž\textstyle{h_{d}\mathcal{C}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}ฮ”m\textstyle{\Delta^{m}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}๐’Ÿ\textstyle{\mathcal{D}}

for some mโ‰ฅ2m\geq 2 and either

  1. (1)

    0<i<m0<i<m or

  2. (2)

    i=0i=0 and ฮ”{0,1}โІฮ›0m\Delta^{\left\{0,1\right\}}\subseteq\Lambda_{0}^{m} is mapped in hdโ€‹๐’žh_{d}\mathcal{C} to hdโ€‹(f)h_{d}\left(f\right).

For mโ‰ฅd+3m\geq d+3, we have skjโ€‹ฮ›im=skjโ€‹ฮ”m\mbox{sk}^{j}\Lambda_{i}^{m}=\mbox{sk}^{j}\Delta^{m} for all jโ‰คd+1j\leq d+1, and so the map

homโก(ฮ”m,hdโ€‹๐’ž)โ†’homโก(ฮ›im,hdโ€‹๐’ž)\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 mโ‰คd+2m\leq d+2, we have ฮ›im=skd+1โ€‹ฮ›im\Lambda_{i}^{m}=\mbox{sk}^{d+1}\Lambda_{i}^{m}, and so the map

homโก(ฮ›im,๐’ž)โ† homโก(ฮ›im,hdโ€‹๐’ž)\hom\left(\Lambda_{i}^{m},\mathcal{C}\right)\twoheadrightarrow\hom\left(\Lambda_{i}^{m},h_{d}\mathcal{C}\right)

is surjective, hence the map ฮ›imโ†’hdโ€‹๐’ž\Lambda_{i}^{m}\to h_{d}\mathcal{C} factors through ฮ›imโ†’๐’ž\Lambda_{i}^{m}\to\mathcal{C}. Now, the functor ๐’žโ†’hdโ€‹๐’ž\mathcal{C}\to h_{d}\mathcal{C} identifies only homotopic morphisms (for dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1); hence in (2) the image of ฮ”{0,1}\Delta^{\left\{0,1\right\}} in ๐’ž\mathcal{C} is coCartesian. Thus, in both cases we can solve the corresponding lifting problem in ๐’ž\mathcal{C}, which induces a lift in the original square. โˆŽ

[0KEZ]

Definition 3.4. Let ๐’ช\mathcal{O} be an โˆž\infty-operad.

  1. (1)

    For dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1, we say that ๐’ช\mathcal{O} is a dd-operad if ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} is a dd-category.

  2. (2)

    We say that ๐’ช\mathcal{O} is a 00-operad if ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} is a skeletal 11-category and pp is faithful.

  3. (3)

    We say that ๐’ช\mathcal{O} is a (โˆ’1)(-1)-operad if either ๐’ชโŠ—=โˆ…\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 โˆž\infty-operad in which all multi-mapping spaces are (dโˆ’1)\left(d-1\right)-truncated.

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

[0KFH]

Definition 3.6. Given an โˆž\infty-operad p:๐’ชโŠ—โ†’๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—p\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*}, we define its dd-homotopy operad hdโ€‹๐’ชh_{d}\mathcal{O} to be a map of simplicial sets pd:(hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—โ†’๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—p_{d}\colon\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} defined as follows:

  1. (1)

    For dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1, we simply apply hdh_{d} to pp as a functor between โˆž\infty-categories and use the fact that ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is a 11-category; hence there is a canonical isomorphism hdโ€‹(๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—)โ‰ƒ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—h_{d}\left(\mathbf{Fin}_{*}\right)\simeq\mathbf{Fin}_{*}.

  2. (2)

    For d=0d=0, we first construct the (ordinary) category h~0โ€‹๐’ชโŠ—\tilde{h}_{0}\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} whose objects are those of ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} and each mapping space is replaced by its image in ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*}. Then we identify isomorphic objects in h~0โ€‹๐’ชโŠ—\tilde{h}_{0}\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} (note that there is a unique induced composition, since isomorphic objects are mapped to the same object in ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*}) and finally we define (h0โ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} to be the nerve of the resulting category, with p0p_{0} being the obvious map to ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*}.

  3. (3)

    For d=โˆ’1d=-1, we define pd:๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—โ†’๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—p_{d}\colon\mathbf{Fin}_{*}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} to be the identity functor if ๐’ชโŠ—โ‰ โˆ…\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\neq\varnothing and the unique functor pd:โˆ…โ†’๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—p_{d}\colon\varnothing\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} otherwise.

In all three cases we have a canonical map of simplicial sets ฮธd:๐’ชโŠ—โ†’(hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} over ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*}.

[0KF1]

Warning 3.7. For every โˆž\infty-operad ๐’ช\mathcal{O} and dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1 we have (hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—โ‰ƒhdโ€‹(๐’ชโŠ—)\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}\simeq h_{d}\left(\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\right), but for dโ‰ค0d\leq 0 we get something slightly different. The reason for this is that (hdโ€‹๐’ž)โŠ—\left(h_{d}\mathcal{C}\right)^{\otimes} corresponds to the application of hdh_{d} fiber-wise to the map p:๐’ชโŠ—โ†’๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—p\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*}. Since ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is a 1-category, for dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1 this is the same as applying hdh_{d} to pp, but for dโ‰ค0d\leq 0 it is not.

[0KF2]

Lemma 3.8. Let p:๐’ชโŠ—โ†’๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—p\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} be an โˆž\infty-operad.

  1. (1)

    The map pd:(hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—โ†’๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—p_{d}\colon\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is a dd-operad.

  2. (2)

    The canonical map ฮธd:๐’ชโ†’hdโ€‹๐’ช\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{O}\to h_{d}\mathcal{O} is a map of โˆž\infty-operads.

  3. (3)

    Given an โˆž\infty-operad map F:๐’ชโ†’๐’ฐF\colon\mathcal{O}\to\mathcal{U}, the induced map hdโ€‹F:hdโ€‹๐’ชโ†’hdโ€‹๐’ฐh_{d}F\colon h_{d}\mathcal{O}\to h_{d}\mathcal{U} on dd-homotopy operads, is an โˆž\infty-operad map.

[0KF3]

Proof. For d=โˆ’1d=-1, there is nothing to prove in (1)โ€“(3) and so we assume that dโ‰ฅ0d\geq 0.

(1) For d=0d=0, it is clear that (h0โ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\left(h_{0}\mathcal{\mathcal{O}}\right)^{\otimes} is a skeletal 11-category, with p0p_{0} fully faithful; and for dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1, it is clear that (hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\left(h_{d}\mathcal{\mathcal{O}}\right)^{\otimes} is a dd-category. Hence, we only need to show that (hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\left(h_{d}\mathcal{\mathcal{O}}\right)^{\otimes} is an โˆž\infty-operad. For this we need to check the three conditions of Definition A.2.1.1.10.

  • โ€ข

    Since p:๐’ชโŠ—โ†’๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—p\colon\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}\to\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is an โˆž\infty-operad, for every inert morphism f:โŸจmโŸฉโ†’โŸจnโŸฉf\colon\left\langle m\right\rangle\to\left\langle n\right\rangle and an object Xยฏโˆˆhdโ€‹๐’ชโŸจmโŸฉโŠ—\overline{X}\in h_{d}\mathcal{O}_{\left\langle m\right\rangle}^{\otimes}, we can lift Xยฏ\overline{X} to Xโˆˆ๐’ชโŸจmโŸฉโŠ—X\in\mathcal{O}_{\left\langle m\right\rangle}^{\otimes} and find a coCartesian lift g:Xโ†’Yg\colon X\to Y of ff in ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}. For dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1, the image gยฏ\overline{g} of gg in (hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\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 gยฏ\overline{g} is coCartesian. (h0โ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—โ†’๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\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 Zยฏโˆˆ(h0โ€‹๐’ช)โŸจmโŸฉโŠ—\overline{Z}\in\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)_{\left\langle m\right\rangle}^{\otimes}, pre-composition with gยฏ\overline{g} induces a diagram

    ย ย ย ย Map(h0โ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—โก(Yยฏ,Zยฏ)ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Map(h0โ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—โก(Xยฏ,Zยฏ)ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Map๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—โก(โŸจmโŸฉ,โŸจkโŸฉ)ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย ย Map๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—โก(โŸจnโŸฉ,โŸจkโŸฉ)ย ย ย ย ,\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.

  • โ€ข

    Let Xยฏโˆˆ(hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŸจmโŸฉโŠ—\overline{X}\in\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)_{\left\langle m\right\rangle}^{\otimes} and Yยฏโˆˆ(hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŸจnโŸฉโŠ—\overline{Y}\in\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)_{\left\langle n\right\rangle}^{\otimes} and let f:โŸจmโŸฉโ†’โŸจnโŸฉf\colon\left\langle m\right\rangle\to\left\langle n\right\rangle be a morphism in ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*}. We first observe that

    Map(hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—fโก(X,Y)โ‰ƒhdโˆ’1โ€‹(Map๐’ชโŠ—fโก(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 dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1 this follows from 2.13 and for d=0d=0 it follows directly from the definition. Hence,

    Map(hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—fโก(X,Y)\displaystyle\operatorname{Map}_{\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}}^{f}\left(X,Y\right) โ‰ƒ\displaystyle\simeq hdโˆ’1โ€‹(Map๐’ชโŠ—fโก(X,Y))โ‰ƒhdโˆ’1โ€‹(โˆ1โ‰คiโ‰คnMap๐’ชโŠ—ฯiโˆ˜fโก(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)
    โ‰ƒ\displaystyle\simeq โˆ1โ‰คiโ‰คnhdโˆ’1โ€‹(Map๐’ชโŠ—ฯiโˆ˜fโก(X,Yi))โ‰ƒโˆ1โ‰คiโ‰คnMap(hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—ฯiโˆ˜fโก(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.

  • โ€ข

    For every finite collection of objects Xยฏ1,โ€ฆ,Xยฏnโˆˆ(hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŸจ1โŸฉโŠ—\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 ๐’ชโŸจ1โŸฉโŠ—\mathcal{O}_{\left\langle 1\right\rangle}^{\otimes}, there is an object Xโˆˆ๐’ชโŸจnโŸฉโŠ—X\in\mathcal{O}_{\left\langle n\right\rangle}^{\otimes} and coCartesian morphisms fi:Xโ†’Xif_{i}\colon X\to X_{i} covering ฯi:โŸจnโŸฉโ†’โŸจ1โŸฉ\rho^{i}\colon\left\langle n\right\rangle\to\left\langle 1\right\rangle. The images of those maps in hdโ€‹๐’ชโŠ—h_{d}\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} are coCartesian as well and satisfy the analogous property.

(2) From the proof of (1), ฮธd\theta_{d} maps inert morphisms in ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} to inert morphisms in hdโ€‹๐’ชโŠ—h_{d}\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}.

(3) We need to show that hdโ€‹Fh_{d}F maps inert morphisms to inert morphisms. For d=0d=0, this is automatic. For dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1, let fยฏ:Xโ†’Y\overline{f}\colon X\to Y be an inert morphism in (hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes}. There is a coCartesian morphism f:Xโ†’Yโ€ฒf\colon X\to Y^{\prime} in ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} with the same image as fยฏ\overline{f} in ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*}; hence its image in (hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} is equivalent to ff. Since the composition ๐’ชโŠ—โ†’๐’ฐโŠ—โ†’(hdโ€‹๐’ฐ)โŠ—\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 (hdโ€‹๐’ฐ)โŠ—\left(h_{d}\mathcal{U}\right)^{\otimes} is inert and since the image of fยฏ\overline{f} in (hdโ€‹๐’ฐ)โŠ—\left(h_{d}\mathcal{U}\right)^{\otimes} is equivalent to the image of ff, it is inert as well. โˆŽ

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

[0KF4]

Lemma 3.9. Let ๐’ช\mathcal{O} be an โˆž\infty-operad.

  1. (1)

    ๐’ช\mathcal{O} is a dd-operad if and only if ฮธd\theta_{d} is an isomorphism.

  2. (2)

    For every dd-operad ๐’ฐ\mathcal{U}, pre-composition with ฮธd\theta_{d} induces an isomorphism of simplicial sets

    Algยฏhdโ€‹๐’ชโ€‹(๐’ฐ)โ†’Algยฏ๐’ชโ€‹(๐’ฐ)\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

    Map๐Ž๐ฉโˆžโก(hdโ€‹๐’ช,๐’ฐ)โ†’Map๐Ž๐ฉโˆžโก(๐’ช,๐’ฐ).\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 dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1. By the analogous fact for โˆž\infty-categories, the composition with ฮธd\theta_{d} induces an isomorphism

Fun๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—โก((hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—,๐’ฐโŠ—)โ€‹โŸถโˆผโ€‹Fun๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—โก(๐’ชโŠ—,๐’ฐโŠ—).\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 Algยฏ๐’ชโ€‹(๐’ฐ)\underline{\operatorname{Alg}}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right) is the full subcategory of Fun๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—โก(๐’ชโŠ—,๐’ฐโŠ—)\operatorname{Fun}_{\mathbf{Fin}_{*}}\left(\mathcal{O}^{\otimes},\mathcal{U}^{\otimes}\right) spanned by maps of โˆž\infty-operads (and similarly for hdโ€‹๐’ชh_{d}\mathcal{O} instead of ๐’ช\mathcal{O}). The claim now follows from the fact that the image of a coCartesian edge in ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} is coCartesian in (hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} and, conversely, every inert morphism in (hdโ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\left(h_{d}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} is up to equivalence the image of an inert morphism in ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} (lift the source to some object Xโˆˆ๐’ชโŠ—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 (h0โ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} are precisely those whose image in ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*} is inert and therefore the inert maps of (h0โ€‹๐’ช)โŠ—\left(h_{0}\mathcal{O}\right)^{\otimes} are again precisely the images of inert maps in ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes}. For d=โˆ’1d=-1, the claim is obvious.

(1) Follows from (2) and the Yoneda lemma in the 1-category ๐๐Ž๐ฉโˆž\mathbf{POp}_{\infty} of โˆž\infty-preoperads (see A.2.1.4.2). โˆŽ

[0KF6]

Lemma 3.10. Let dโ‰ฅโˆ’1d\geq-1 and let ๐’ช\mathcal{O} be an โˆž\infty-operad. The canonical map ฮธd:๐’ชโ†’hdโ€‹๐’ช\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{O}\to h_{d}\mathcal{O} is essentially surjective and for all X1,โ€ฆ,Xn,Yโˆˆ๐’ชยฏX_{1},\dots,X_{n},Y\in\underline{\mathcal{O}}, the map

Mul๐’ชโก({X1,โ€ฆ,Xn};Y)โ†’Mulhdโ€‹๐’ชโก({ฮธdโ€‹(X1),โ€ฆ,ฮธdโ€‹(Xn)};ฮธdโ€‹(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 (dโˆ’1)\left(d-1\right)-truncation map.

[0KF7]

Proof. The map ฮธd:๐’ชโ†’hdโ€‹๐’ช\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{O}\to h_{d}\mathcal{O} is surjective on objects and hence is essentially surjective. For dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1, the second assertion follows from the corresponding fact for โˆž\infty-categories; and for d=โˆ’1,0d=-1,0, it follows directly from the definition. โˆŽ

[0KF8]

Corollary 3.11. An โˆž\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 โˆž\infty-operads.

[0KF9]

Theorem 3.12. The inclusion ๐Ž๐ฉdโ†ช๐Ž๐ฉโˆž\mathbf{Op}_{d}\hookrightarrow\mathbf{Op}_{\infty} admits a left adjoint hdh_{d}, such that for every โˆž\infty-operad ๐’ช\mathcal{O} the value of hdh_{d} on ๐’ช\mathcal{O} is the dd-homotopy operad of ๐’ช\mathcal{O}, the unit transformation ฮธd:๐’ชโ†’hdโ€‹๐’ช\theta_{d}\colon\mathcal{O}\to h_{d}\mathcal{O} is essentially surjective, and for all objects X1,โ€ฆ,Xn,Yโˆˆ๐’ชยฏX_{1},\dots,X_{n},Y\in\underline{\mathcal{O}}, the map of spaces

Mul๐’ชโก({X1,โ€ฆ,Xn};Y)โ†’Mulhdโ€‹๐’ชโก({ฮธdโ€‹(X1),โ€ฆ,ฮธdโ€‹(Xn)};ฮธdโ€‹(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 (dโˆ’1)\left(d-1\right)-truncation map.

[0KFA]

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

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 ๐’ช\mathcal{O} be an โˆž\infty-operad and let ๐’ฐ\mathcal{U} be an (essentially) dd-operad. The โˆž\infty-category Algยฏ๐’ชโ€‹(๐’ฐ)\underline{\operatorname{Alg}}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right) is an (essentially) dd-category.

[0KFC]

Proof. Since an โˆž\infty-operad ๐’ฐ\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 โˆž\infty-category Alg๐’ชโก(๐’ฐ)\operatorname{Alg}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right) is a full subcategory of Funโก(๐’ชโŠ—,๐’ฐโŠ—)\operatorname{Fun}\left(\mathcal{O}^{\otimes},\mathcal{U}^{\otimes}\right). For dโ‰ฅ1d\geq 1, the โˆž\infty-category ๐’ฐโŠ—\mathcal{U}^{\otimes} is a dd-category and, therefore, by T.2.3.4.8, the โˆž\infty-category Funโก(๐’ชโŠ—,๐’ฐโŠ—)\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 ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} is a 00-operad as well and therefore both ๐’ชโŠ—\mathcal{O}^{\otimes} and ๐’ฐโŠ—\mathcal{U}^{\otimes} are skeletal 1-categories with faithful projection to ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*}. Observing that Alg๐’ชโก(๐’ฐ)\operatorname{Alg}_{\mathcal{O}}\left(\mathcal{U}\right) is a full subcategory of Fun๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—โก(๐’ชโŠ—,๐’ฐโŠ—)\operatorname{Fun}_{\mathbf{Fin}_{*}}\left(\mathcal{O}^{\otimes},\mathcal{U}^{\otimes}\right) and using the faithfulness of the projections to ๐…๐ข๐งโˆ—\mathbf{Fin}_{*}, we see that the mapping spaces are either empty or singletons. For d=โˆ’1d=-1, the claim is obvious. โˆŽ

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

Tomer M. Schlank, Lior Yanovski

Original source: arXiv:1902.04061v1

Original source ยท 1902.04061v1