ScalingStacks

[0MKM]

Proof. For the special case i=0i=0, a more general version of this statement was proven by Rezk [34, Proposition 6.6] and forms one of the cornerstone results of that work. Our current proof builds on Rezk’s ideas.

The fundamental argument is to construct a category 𝒬\mathcal{Q} along with a functorial assignment of commuting squares

AΞ±A_{\alpha}BΞ±B_{\alpha}UΓ—CiHU\times_{C_{i}}HVΓ—CiHV\times_{C_{i}}H≀\wr

for each Ξ±βˆˆπ’¬\alpha\in\mathcal{Q}. This assignment is required to satisfy a host of conditions.

First, each of the functors A,B:𝒬→𝒫⁑(Θn)A,B:\mathcal{Q}\to\pre(\Theta_{n}) is required to factor through τ≀0​𝒫⁑(Θn)\tau_{\leq 0}\pre(\Theta_{n}), the category of 0-truncated objects. The 0-truncated objects of 𝒫⁑(Θn)\pre(\Theta_{n}) consist precisely of those presheaves of spaces taking values in the homotopically discrete spaces. There is no harm regarding such objects simply as ordinary set-valued presheaves, and we will do so freely.

Second, we require that for each Ξ±βˆˆπ’¬\alpha\in\mathcal{Q} the natural morphism AΞ±β†’BΞ±A_{\alpha}\to B_{\alpha} is in the class TΘnT_{\Theta_{n}}. As TΘnT_{\Theta_{n}} is saturated, this second condition implies that the natural map colim𝒬Aβ†’colim𝒬B\colim_{\mathcal{Q}}A\to\colim_{\mathcal{Q}}B is also in TΘnT_{\Theta_{n}}, where these colimits are taken in the ∞\infty-category 𝒫⁑(Θn)\pre(\Theta_{n}) (hence are equivalently homotopy colimits for a levelwise model structure on simplical preseheaves, see Rk.Β 13.1).

Third and last, we require that the natural maps colim𝒬Aβ†’UΓ—CiH\colim_{\mathcal{Q}}A\to U\times_{C_{i}}H and colim𝒬Bβ†’VΓ—CiH\colim_{\mathcal{Q}}B\to V\times_{C_{i}}H are equivalences in 𝒫⁑(Θn)\pre(\Theta_{n}) (i.e., levelwise weak equivalences of space-valued presheaves). If all of the above properties hold, then we obtain a natural commuting square

colim𝒬A\colim_{\mathcal{Q}}Acolim𝒬B\colim_{\mathcal{Q}}BUΓ—CiHU\times_{C_{i}}HVΓ—CiHV\times_{C_{i}}H≀\wr≃\simeq≃\simeq

in which the indicated morphisms are in the class TΘnT_{\Theta_{n}}. As this class is saturated it follows that UΓ—CiHβ†’VΓ—CiHU\times_{C_{i}}H\to V\times_{C_{i}}H is also in this class. Thus if such a 𝒬\mathcal{Q} and associated functors can be produced, we will have completed the proof.

At this point we deviate from Rezk’s treatment. Specifically our category 𝒬\mathcal{Q} and associated functors will differ from his. We will focus on the more complicated case i>0i>0, and leave the necessary simplifications in the case i=0i=0 to the reader (or simply refer the reader to [34, Proposition 6.6] ).

Under the assumptions of the statement of the lemma we have the following identifications of presheaves:

U\displaystyle U =j({0,…,k};o1,…,ok)βˆͺj⁑({k})j({k,k+1,…,m};ok+1,…,om)\displaystyle=j({\{0,\dots,k\}};o_{1},\dots,o_{k})\cup^{j({\{k\}})}j({\{k,k+1,\dots,m\}};o_{k+1},\dots,o_{m})
V\displaystyle V =j⁑([m],o1,…,om)\displaystyle=j({[m]};o_{1},\dots,o_{m})
H\displaystyle H =j⁑([n],u1,…,un)\displaystyle=j([n];u_{1},\dots,u_{n})

where 0≀k≀m0\leq k\leq m and oΞ±,uβ∈Θnβˆ’1o_{\alpha},u_{\beta}\in\Theta_{n-1} are given. If i>0i>0, then the ii-cell is the representable presheaf j⁑([1],Ciβˆ’1)j([1];C_{i-1}). A nondegenerate map Vβ†’CiV\to C_{i} includes a nondegenerate map f:[m]β†’[1]f:[m]\to[1], and likewise a nondegenerate map Hβ†’CiH\to C_{i} includes a nondegenerate map g:[n]β†’[1]g:[n]\to[1]. Let mβ€²m^{\prime} be the fiber over 0∈[1]0\in[1], and let mβ€²β€²m^{\prime\prime} be the fiber over 11. Then [m]=[mβ€²]β‹…[mβ€²β€²][m]=[m^{\prime}]\cdot[m^{\prime\prime}] is the ordered concatenation of [mβ€²][m^{\prime}] and [mβ€²β€²][m^{\prime\prime}]. Similarly [n]=[nβ€²]β‹…[nβ€²β€²][n]=[n^{\prime}]\cdot[n^{\prime\prime}] is the ordered concatenation of the preimages of 00 and 11 under gg.

Let Ξ΄=(Ξ΄β€²,Ξ΄β€²β€²):[p]β†’[m]Γ—[1][n]\delta=(\delta^{\prime},\delta^{\prime\prime}):[p]\to[m]\times_{[1]}[n] be a map which is an inclusion. There is a unique βˆ’1≀r≀p-1\leq r\leq p such that under the composite [p]β†’[m]Γ—[1][n]β†’[1][p]\to[m]\times_{[1]}[n]\to[1], an element ss maps to 00 if and only if s≀rs\leq r (hence maps to 11 if and only if s>rs>r). Associated to Ξ΄\delta we have a subobject CΞ΄C_{\delta} of VΓ—CiHV\times_{C_{i}}H, of the form CΞ΄=Οƒ![p](c1,…,cp)C_{\delta}=\sigma_{!}^{[p]}(c_{1},\dots,c_{p}), where cβ„“c_{\ell} is given by the following formula:

βˆΞ΄β€²β€‹(β„“βˆ’1)<α≀δ′​(β„“)oΞ±Γ—βˆΞ΄β€²β€²β€‹(β„“βˆ’1)<β≀δ′′​(β„“)uΞ²\prod_{\delta^{\prime}(\ell-1)<\alpha\leq\delta^{\prime}(\ell)}o_{\alpha}\times\prod_{\delta^{\prime\prime}(\ell-1)<\beta\leq\delta^{\prime\prime}(\ell)}u_{\beta}

if β„“βˆ’1β‰ r\ell-1\neq r, and if β„“βˆ’1=r\ell-1=r by

(∏αoΞ±)Γ—(∏βuΞ²)Γ—(omβ€²Γ—Ciunβ€²)Γ—(∏λoΞ»)Γ—(∏ϡuΟ΅)\left(\prod_{\alpha}o_{\alpha}\right)\times\left(\prod_{\beta}u_{\beta}\right)\times\left(o_{m^{\prime}}\times_{C_{i}}u_{n^{\prime}}\right)\times\left(\prod_{\lambda}o_{\lambda}\right)\times\left(\prod_{\epsilon}u_{\epsilon}\right)

where the indices range over all δ′​(β„“βˆ’1)<Ξ±<mβ€²\delta^{\prime}(\ell-1)<\alpha<m^{\prime}, δ′′​(β„“βˆ’1)<Ξ²<nβ€²\delta^{\prime\prime}(\ell-1)<\beta<n^{\prime}, mβ€²<λ≀δ′​(β„“)m^{\prime}<\lambda\leq\delta^{\prime}(\ell), and mβ€²<β≀ϡ′′​(β„“βˆ’1)m^{\prime}<\beta\leq\epsilon^{\prime\prime}(\ell-1). We have found the graphical image in FigureΒ 1 to be especially useful in understanding the combinatorics of these subobjects.

mβ€²m^{\prime}mβ€²β€²m^{\prime\prime}[m]=[mβ€²]β‹…[mβ€²β€²][m]=[m^{\prime}]\cdot[m^{\prime\prime}]nβ€²β€²n^{\prime\prime}nβ€²n^{\prime}[nβ€²]β‹…[nβ€²β€²]=[n][n^{\prime}]\cdot[n^{\prime\prime}]=[n]
Figure 1. A graphical depiction of a typical map (shown in red) Ξ΄:[p]β†’[m]Γ—[1][n]\delta:[p]\to[m]\times_{[1]}[n].

As subobjects of VΓ—CiHV\times_{C_{i}}H, the CΞ΄C_{\delta} are naturally arranged into a poset. Let WW denote the disjoint union of all the maximal elements of this poset. Let Bβˆ™B_{\bullet} denote the simplicial Čech nerve associated to the morphism Wβ†’VΓ—CiHW\to V\times_{C_{i}}H. Each layer of Bβˆ™B_{\bullet} consists of a disjoint union of certain CΞ΄C_{\delta}. The map Wβ†’VΓ—CiHW\to V\times_{C_{i}}H is a surjective map of set-valued presheaves. It follows that it is also an effective epimorphism in the ∞\infty-topos 𝒫⁑(Θn)\pre(\Theta_{n}), and hence [28, Corollary 6.2.3.5] the (homotopy) colimit of the simplcial diagram Bβˆ™B_{\bullet} is equivalent to VΓ—CiHV\times_{C_{i}}H. We set 𝒬=Ξ”\mathcal{Q}=\Delta and B=Bβˆ™B=B_{\bullet}.

We define Aβˆ™A_{\bullet} to be the fiber product of Bβˆ™B_{\bullet} with UΓ—CiHU\times_{C_{i}}H over VΓ—CiHV\times_{C_{i}}H. Because colimits in ∞\infty-topoi are universal, we have

colim𝒬A\displaystyle\colim_{\mathcal{Q}}A ≃colim𝒬(BΓ—(VΓ—CiH)(UΓ—CiH))\displaystyle\simeq\colim_{\mathcal{Q}}\left(B\times_{(V\times_{C_{i}}H)}(U\times_{C_{i}}H)\right)
≃(colimΞ”Bβˆ™)Γ—(VΓ—CiH)(UΓ—CiH)\displaystyle\simeq\left(\colim_{\Delta}B_{\bullet}\right)\times_{(V\times_{C_{i}}H)}(U\times_{C_{i}}H)
≃UΓ—CiH.\displaystyle\simeq U\times_{C_{i}}H.

Thus all that remains is to show that the natural transformation Aβˆ™β†’Bβˆ™A_{\bullet}\to B_{\bullet} is levelwise in TΘnT_{\Theta_{n}}.

As each layer of Bβˆ™B_{\bullet} is a disjoint union of certain CΞ΄C_{\delta}, it is sufficient to show that the map

Cδ×(VΓ—CiH)(UΓ—CiH)β†’CΞ΄C_{\delta}\times_{(V\times_{C_{i}}H)}(U\times_{C_{i}}H)\to C_{\delta}

is in TΘT_{\Theta} for each CΞ΄C_{\delta}. As in the previous construction, there exist unique 0≀r≀s≀p0\leq r\leq s\leq p such that δ′​(t)<k\delta^{\prime}(t)<k if and only if t<rt<r, and k<δ′​(t)k<\delta^{\prime}(t) if and only if s<ts<t. The interval {r,…,s}βŠ‚[p]\{r,\dots,s\}\subset[p] is precisely the preimage of {k}\{k\} under Ξ΄β€²\delta^{\prime}. We then have

CΞ΄\displaystyle C_{\delta} Γ—(VΓ—CiH)(UΓ—CiH)\displaystyle\times_{(V\times_{C_{i}}H)}(U\times_{C_{i}}H)
β‰…Οƒ!{0,…,s}(b1,…,bs)βˆͺΟƒ{r,…,s}!(br+1,…,bs)Οƒ!{r,r+1,…,p}(br+1,…,bp)\displaystyle\cong\sigma_{!}^{\{0,\dots,s\}}(b_{1},\dots,b_{s})\cup^{\sigma^{\{r,\dots,s\}}_{!}(b_{r+1},\dots,b_{s})}\sigma_{!}^{\{r,r+1,\dots,p\}}(b_{r+1},\dots,b_{p})

and so the desired result follows from Lemma 13.5. ∎

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

Clark Barwick, Christopher Schommer-Pries

Original source: arXiv:1112.0040v6

    Original source Β· 1112.0040v6