skip to content

The model-independent theory of (∞,1)-categories (2)

Presented by: 
Emily Riehl Johns Hopkins University
Tuesday 3rd July 2018 - 10:00 to 11:00
INI Seminar Room 1
Co-author: Dominic Verity (Macquarie University)

In these talks we use the nickname "∞-category" to refer to either a quasi-category, a complete Segal space, a Segal category, or 1-complicial set (aka a naturally marked quasi-category) - these terms referring to Quillen equivalent models of (∞,1)-categories, these being weak infinite-dimensional categories with all morphisms above dimension 1 weakly invertible. Each of these models has accompanying notions of ∞-functor, and ∞-natural transformation and these assemble into a strict 2-category like that of (strict 1-)categories, functors, and natural transformations.

In the first talk, we'll use standard 2-categorical techniques to define adjunctions and equivalences between ∞-categories and limits and colimits inside an ∞-category and prove that these notions relate in the expected ways: eg that right adjoints preserve limits. All of this is done in the aforementioned 2-category of ∞-categories, ∞-functors, and ∞-natural transformations. In the 2-category of quasi-categories our definitions recover the standard ones of Joyal/Lurie though they are given here in a "synthetic" rather than their usual "analytic" form.

In the second talk, we'll justify the framework introduced in the first talk by giving an explicit construction of these 2-categories. This makes use of an axiomatization of the properties common to the Joyal, Rezk, Bergner/Pellissier, and Verity/Lurie model structures as something we call an ∞-cosmos.

In the third talk, we'll encode the universal properties of adjunction and of limits and colimits as equivalences of comma ∞-categories. We also introduce co/cartesian fibrations in both one-sided and two-sided variants, the latter of which are used to define "modules" between ∞-categories, of which comma ∞-categories are the prototypical example.

In the fourth talk, we'll prove that theory being developed isn’t just "model-agnostic” (in the sense of applying equally to the four models mentioned above) but invariant under change-of-model functors. As we explain, it follows that even the "analytically-proven" theorems that exploit the combinatorics of one particular model remain valid in the other biequivalent models.

Related Links
The video for this talk should appear here if JavaScript is enabled.
If it doesn't, something may have gone wrong with our embedded player.
We'll get it fixed as soon as possible.
University of Cambridge Research Councils UK
    Clay Mathematics Institute London Mathematical Society NM Rothschild and Sons