Definition 3.2.1. For , a map of -operads is called a -equivalence, if the induced map is an equivalence of -operads, ie if it is essentially surjective on the underlying categories and induces an equivalence on the -truncations of all the multi-mapping spaces.
3.2 -Equivalences and -Topoi[0M3D]
An important special case is
Definition 3.2.2. For , an -operad is called -connected if the unique map from to the terminal -operad is a -equivalence, ie if all the multi-mapping spaces in are -connected.
Remark 3.2.3. Let be a reduced -operad. It is -connected if and only if all the spaces in the underlying symmetric sequence of are -connected. If is not equivalent to , then for some we have , and so there exists an -ary operation for . By composing with itself, we can obtain an operation in of arbitrarily high arity and by composition with the unique nullary operation, we can obtain an operation of arbitrary arity. It follows that if and only if is -connected.
The main result of this section is a characterization of -equivalences of reduced -operads. But first, we need some preliminary observations about Cartesian symmetric monoidal structures.
Lemma 3.2.4. Let be a collection of jointly conservative, symmetric monoidal functors between symmetric monoidal -categories.
- (1)
If is Cartesian and preserves finite products for all and has all finite products, then is Cartesian.
- (2)
If is coCartesian and preserves finite coproducts for all and has all finite coproducts, then is coCartesian.
Proof. By A.2.4.2.7, the opposite of a symmetric monoidal -category acquires a symmetric monoidal structure, which is Cartesian if and only if the original symmetric monoidal -category is coCartesian. Hence, it is enough to prove (2). The unit object has a unique map from the initial object . Since is both symmetric monoidal and preserves finite coproducts, is the unique map from the initial object to the unit object of , which is an equivalence by assumption. Since the collection of is jointly conservative, it follows that the unit of is initial in as well. Namely, is unital as an -operad. Using 2.2.3 we have a map of -operads , which is an equivalence on the underlying -categories. We need to show that this map is symmetric monoidal. Namely, that it maps coCartesian edges (over ) to coCartesian edges. Since we already know that it is a map of -operads and hence preserves inert morphisms, we only need to show that active coCartesian edges map to coCartesian edges. Using the Segal conditions, we are further reduced to considering only coCartesian lifts of the unique active morphism . For every collection of objects , let
be a coCartesian lift of to . Since is an equivalence on the underlying -categories, can be considered as a map
in . Now, let
be a coCartesian lift of to . There exists a unique (up to homotopy) map
such that . We need to show that is an equivalence in for all . For every , we have a homotopy commutative diagram
in which the vertical and bottom maps are symmetric monoidal. It follows that is an equivalence in for all . By joint conservativity, is an equivalence as well. ∎
Lemma 3.2.5. Let be a Cartesian symmetric monoidal -category. For every -operad , the -operad (see A.2.2.5.4) is also Cartesian.
Proof. By A.2.2.5.4, since is symmetric monoidal, so is and, for every , the evaluation functor is a symmetric monoidal functor. On the underlying -categories, also preserves finite products since it preserves all limits. Finally, we show that the collection of evaluation functors is jointly conservative since they can be presented as the composition of the conservative restriction functor
and the collection of evaluation functors
which are jointly conservative by T.3.1.2.1. Now, by 3.2.4(1), is Cartesian. ∎
We are now ready for the main proposition.
Proposition 3.2.6. Let . Given a map of reduced -operads , the following are equivalent:
- (1)
The map is a -equivalence.
- (2)
For every -topos , the induced map
is a homotopy equivalence.
- (3)
For every simplicial set , the induced map
is a homotopy equivalence where is given the Cartesian symmetric monoidal structure.
- (4)
The induced map
is an equivalence of -categories, where is given the Cartesian symmetric monoidal structure.
Proof. Consider the commutative diagram
Since is an equivalence of -operads, the bottom map is a homotopy equivalence. By 3.1.8, the vertical maps are equivalences as well, and so, by the 2-out-of-3 property, the top map is an equivalence.
Since is a -topos, this is just a special case.
By Yoneda’s lemma applied to , the map
is an equivalence of -categories if for every -category , the map
is a homotopy equivalence. Using the fully faithful embedding , which is left adjoint to the underlying category functor (see A.2.1.4.11), this map is equivalent to
By adjointness with the Boardman–Vogt tensor product and the fact that it is symmetric, the map is equivalent to
Since is an -category, by 3.2.5 the -operad is just the -category of functors endowed with the Cartesian symmetric monoidal structure. Since the functor category is invariant under Joyal equivalences, we can replace with any simplicial set .
Consider the commutative diagram
By 3.1.8, the vertical maps are equivalences; hence by 2-out-of-3, the top map is an equivalence if and only if the bottom map is. We can therefore assume without loss of generality that and are themselves essentially -operads. This implies that and are -truncated spaces for all . Now, consider the commutative diagram
where and are the corresponding forgetful functors. By 2.4.4, the associated map
of Construction 2.4.3 is a natural equivalence of functors. On the other hand, by 2.4.6, this map is induced from a map of symmetric sequences . We want to deduce that is an equivalence. For , there is nothing to prove and so we assume that . Taking , there is a coproduct decomposition
where the summand corresponds to orbits of points whose component is a permutation (note that when , the homotopy orbits in are just the orbits as a set). This characterization implies that is an equivalence. Finally, since is conservative, by 2.3.6, we deduce that is an equivalence. ∎
Original source: arXiv:1808.06006v3
Original source · 1808.06006v3