The Infinity Blog


This is the blog that documents my project of learning about ∞-categories. I've been looking at various references, but currently I'm following a set of lecture notes that I found on D.Cisinski's webpage. Basically, I'm rewriting his notes to suit my taste, and in the process I also add all the exercices that he left to the reader, as well as some further complements, and I correct some mistakes. It's a big project : I've only started in the summer of 2022, and I started as an absolute beginner, so it's still very tentative and constantly evolving.

Your comments are welcome and gratefully acknowledged!

Status Update :

  • November 15, 2022 : Cisinski has pointed out to me a simple proof, attributed to Myles Tierney and found in Joyal's CatLab that shows that weak equivalences in any model category are stable under retracts. Once one has such result, one can quickly prove Whitehead's theorem, following the argument in Hovey's book. I've included these proofs; as a consequence, the complicated discussion of equivalences of homotopies (that I borrowed from Quillen) is no longer needed, so I've removed it... But I might reinstate it in the future, if it becomes useful again : what else is it good for? I only used it to prove Whitehead's theorem, but the new proof of the latter is much simpler... Let me know, if you're an expert who happens to stumble on my notes...

  • February 24, 2023 : today I'm finally done with the part about the "classical" theory of Kan-Quillen, that endows the category of simplicial sets with a model category structure whose fibrant objects are the Kan complexes; all this is relevant to ∞-categories, since Kan complexes are reinterpreted later as ∞-groupoids... Next up is Joyal's model structure on simplicial sets, for which the fibrant objects are exactly the ∞-categories. But for now I am taking some rest, because I'm slowed down by teaching, and also because I plan to flesh out the first preliminary chapter, with extra material on calculus of fractions and the subobject classifiers for categories of presheaves.

  • June 10, 2023 : There is an interesting byproduct of homotopy techniques, concerning the construction of localizations of small categories. Indeed, some months ago I found that I could use Freyd's adjoint functor theorem to construct such localizations : I exhibited an explicit solution set that solved the problem, thus obtaining an abstract proof of existence, without having bother with messy, though more explicit, graph constructions. I was quite happy with this argument, but recently I realized that I was kind of doing twice the same job : that's because I had previously proved the cocompleteness of the category Cat of small categories again via Freyd's adjoint theorem; and now I've just noticed that once one knows that Cat is cocomplete, one can construct arbitrary localizations by a sequence of suitable push-outs in Cat! This gives a rather more conceptual and transparent approach. The idea is borrowed from homotopy theory : indeed, there is an analogous technique for inverting given 1-simplices in simplicial sets, that can be transposed essentially verbatim to small categories, and that's how I now construct localizations of small categories in my notes!

  • July 10, 2023 : today I've completed the construction of the Joyal model category structure on the category of simplicial sets. From the construction, it is clear that every ∞-category is a fibrant object for this category, but more work is needed to show the converse : that will be my next goal! Another interesting result that is now included in my notes is the construction of the canonical model category structure on the category Cat of small categories; I also show that this is the unique model category structure on Cat whose weak equivalences are the equivalences of categories : I follow a proof that I found on the website nLab, an impressive online collaborative math resource.

  • July 28, 2023 : today's version's biggest change is that the long chapter 3 has split into two separate chapters : the new chapter 3 now contains only the basic theory of model categories and derived functors, and it is followed by a chapter 4 that is dedicated to the construction of model categories, especially via the small object argument, since the model categories that we need are typically cofibrantly generated. Another important recent change is the addition of a section in chapter 2, dedicated to augmented simplicial sets, joins and slices : this material finds important applications in our study of left and right fibrations in section 5.5. And finally, I've corrected a very minor mistake in the proof of theorem 4.3.2. For today, that's all folks!

  • August 9, 2023 : many news in today's draft : the first important result is Joyal's theorem that identifies Kan complexes with the ∞-groupoids. Next, I've added a rather technical result, that morally says that every termwise invertible natural transformation between ∞-categories is actually invertible. This is an important ingredient in the proof of another of Joyal's theorems, that is the latest addition in these notes, and that shows that the ∞-categories are precisely the fibrant objects of the Joyal model category structure; also, the fibrations between ∞-categories are precisely the isofibrations, just as in the canonical model structure on Cat (the category of small categories).

  • October 6, 2023 : today I'm finally done with the homotopy theory of ∞-categories. The text now consists of 6 chapters : the last two are dedicated respectively to the Kan-Quillen model category structure on simplicial sets, and to the Joyal model category structure on the same category. Chapter 6 also contains a discussion of higher homotopy groups and of Serre's long exact sequence for a Kan fibration, since this material is needed for the study of ∞-categories, especially for characterizing weak categorical equivalences, fully faithful functors and essentially surjective functors of ∞-categories. All of this corresponds roughly to the first 3 chapters of Cisinski's lecture notes. I will now take a longish break from writing : I plan to re-read all that I've written so far, and then to add more background foundational material on set theory; after which, I'll of course resume learning and writing about ∞-categories and homotopical algebra.

  • November 1, 2023 : Last week I've begun the long and slow process of reading all the text that I've written so far. Today I can report that I've finished reading the first 20 pages : I've corrected many small embarrassing misprints, but nothing of note. It will take a while, so you won't see much happening in the next several weeks, but I'll post regular updates.

  • November 17, 2023 : Today I've finished reading the first 42 pages, i.e. up to the end of section 1.6. I've corrected many little typos, and I've made some small additions to the text, such as extra details for some proofs, but nothing important. Maybe the most memorable change is that I've extended the construction of what I call "global colimit" to arbitrary indexing categories (whereas earlier I only dealt with filtered indexing categories); this is a device that provides some language for dealing with cases where the colimit of a given set-valued functor doesn't quite exist, due to set-theoretical issues, but one has a class that enjoys the universal property of such a colimit (the point being that in our set-theoretic framework, a "real" colimit would have to be a set, rather than just a class). Anyway, this is one of those nit-picking issues that appear very infrequently, and are of potential interest only to the most dedicated set-theoreticians, I guess, but if you really want to know more, check out example 1.1.19.

  • December 1, 2023 : Today I've finished reading the first 62 pages. As usual, I've corrected many small misprints and a few minor mistakes, but nothing important to report.

  • December 17, 2023 : Today I've finished reading the first 80 pages. As usual, I've corrected many small misprints and a few minor mistakes, but nothing much to report. The only somewhat notable change is that I've modified axiom (EZ0) in the definition of Eilenberg-Zilber categories : then the remark after the definition can be suppressed. Also, I added some details and corrected some minor mistakes in the proof of proposition 1.10.12, that provides the basics of the calculus of fractions for categories.

  • December 28, 2023 : Today I've finished reading the first 103 pages. The most notable change is in the proof of proposition 2.5.15, which now has a few more details; also, paragraph 2.5.14 has been heavily revised, and this required adding a couple of remarks in earlier sections : remarks 2.3.5 and 1.5.11. Also, the last part of the proof of proposition 2.5.11 needed some corrections.

  • January 1, 2024 : Today I've finished reading the first 120 pages. The most notable revisions are in the proof of proposition 3.1.9(v), which was slightly incomplete. Also, there was a slight mistake in condition (b) of definition 3.1.16, which caused some confusion in the proof of lemma 3.1.18.

  • February 11, 2024 : I have been silent for a while, but work has been proceeding apace, though in unexpected directions. The starting point for this diversion was an observation that I remembered reading in Quillen's "Homotopical Algebra" : he proves that one can also obtain (up to equivalence) the homotopy category H_C of a model category C by inverting weak equivalences inside the subcategory C_c of fibrant objects (or alternatively C_f of cofibrant objects) of C. I had already included this result, but then Quillen also remarked that the localization of weak equivalences in C_c can be done in two steps : first one forms a new category C'_c with the same objects as C_c, and whose morphisms are the homotopy classes of morphisms of C_c; next, one inverts in C'_c the homotopy classes of weak equivalences (and similarly if one starts from C_f). The advantage of this two-step procedure, is that the homotopy classes of weak equivalences in C_c admit a calculus of fractions, which allows to give a more explicit description of the morphisms of the homotopy category of C. This last remark (which generalizes what one does in order to construct the derived category of an abelian category...) is the one that I wanted to include as well. Now, Quillen justifies his remark by proving that the localization functor C'_c-->H_C has a fully faithful adjoint, and then he quotes a result from Gabriel-Zisman's book. So I checked the latter, and included the relevant propositions to complete Quilllen's argument. But I also found in Gabriel-Zisman's book some further interesting result about localizations of additive or abelian categories, so I included that as well. But there was still something to be desired, since Gabriel and Zisman are not so explicit about their set-theoretical foundations, and in general, localizations tend to give large objects. Especially, a question arises which is relevant to Quillen's discussion : suppose that one knows that for a given category C and given class of morphisms S, the localization C_S of C that inverts S exists; suppose moreover that one knows that S admits a calculus of fractions. Then, one can show that the morphisms X-->Y of C_S are represented by equivalence classes [X,Y] of "fractions with denominators in S" in the expected way ; that is, there is an obvious map [X,Y]-->Hom_{C_S}(X,Y) that is surjective. By the general theory of calculus of fractions, one knows moreover that, if the class [X,Y] is a set, then this map is bijective. Now the question is : assuming that the localization C_S exists, and that S admits a calculus of fraction, is the above map always a bijection? That is, do these condition imply that [X,Y] is a set? Unexpectedly (at least, for me) the answer turns out to be negative, in general : I asked Gabber, and he found a counterexample! In order to properly deal with all this material, it is convenient to add some more foundational material, which mostly amounts to introducing a suitable language : especially, it is useful to have a notion of what I call "wide categories" that are exactly like categories, except that the morphisms between any two given objects are only classes (rather than sets); then of course most standard elementary category theory extends to the wide context, with some care, because one needs to make sure that the operations for handling such large classes are legitimate... So, this is basically what I'm doing now, and I'm advancing slowly but steadily. The takeaway is that, when quoting results about the existence of localizations in situations where one inverts a class of morphism that admits calculus of fractions, one should take care to ensure that the classes [X,Y] of "fractions with denominators in S" are really sets, even in cases where one knows a priori that the localization does exist, because otherwise one only knows by general nonsense that [X,Y] maps surjectively onto the set of morphisms X-->Y in the localization, but one does not has necessarily the bijectivity of these maps. Is that clear? Raise your hand if you stayed with me till here! And for tonight, that's all folks!

  • March 3, 2024 : That's it : the long digression on localization of categories is done with! At least, for the time being : the first chapter will certainly undergo more sysmic changes in the future. If you are curious, Gabber's counterexample that I mentioned in the previous post can be found starting on page 80 : it encompasses proposition 1.2.14 and example 1.2.15. An interesting feature of this counterexample is that it uses some constructions from combinatorial group theory known as HNN extensions! So there you go : an application of group theory to pure category theory. Quite neat, isn't it? Now we can resume the reading of the notes : stay tuned!

  • March 29, 2024 : Today I'm finally done with the reading of the first 158 pages, that is, up to the end of section 3.4, dedicated to derived functors, in the context of model categories. It took more time than expected, because halfway through I realized that some intermediate constructions could be improved : earlier on I had introduced fibrant-cofibrant replacements for objects of a model category; this is a standard tool that is used notably for constructing the homotopy category of a model category : one defines it first on the subcategory of fibrant-cofibrant objects (where no localization is needed : one only takes homotopy classes of morphisms), and then one projects the whole model category onto the homotopy category of the fibrant-cofibrant objects, via fibrant-cofibrant replacements (this generalizes what one does when constructing the derived category of an abelian category : there the fibrant-cofibrant replacements are given by injective or projective resolutions, depending on the context). But while re-reading this material I realized that there are two more similar projections from the model category, respectively onto the subcategory of fibrant objects, and onto the subcategory of cofibrant objects (more precisely, since my fibrant and cofibrant replacements are not functorial on the nose, I project on the homotopy category of fibrant - or cofibrant - objects). These two constructions are more basic than the fibrant-cofibrant one : indeed, the latter can be obtained by combining the former ones. So, I had to do many small changes, that taken together amount to quite a considerable modification of the text. This has also impacted the section on derived functors, since left derived functors are more directly related to cofibrant replacements, whereas right derived functors employ fibrant replacements.

  • April 17, 2024 : Today I've finished reading the first 174 pages, that is, up to the end of chapter 3 : hurray! Again, it took somewhat longer than I expected, largely due to teaching distractions. The main changes are in the statement of proposition 3.5.11, which had a small mistake (without any consequence), and in the proof of proposition 3.6.5, which is now slightly shorter, because parts of it have been extracted and dealt with separately, with more care and more details : these parts concern auxiliary results about fibrant and cofibrant objects in slice categories X/C, when C is already a model category, and the induced model category on X/C is induced by C, as in proposition 3.2.4(iii); then we also consider the functor x_!:X'/C-->X/C induced by a morphism x:X-->X' : since C is finitely cocomplete, x_! has a left adjoint x^!, and the pair (x^!,x_!) is a Quillen adjunction. All these complements are now spread between remark 3.2.5 and examples 3.3.4, 3.4.6(iii,iv) and 3.4.19. Henceforth I should be able to advance more quickly, since teaching is over until next fall.

  • April 26, 2024 : Today I've finished reading the first 190 pages. The most notable correction concerns the definition of k-small categories, k-small object in a cocomplete category, and k-accessible functor (for any cardinal k) : namely, in all these definition there appeared a strict inequality (of the form : "something is strict less than k"), which conflicted with several other references, in which the same definitions have instead a non-strict inequality. The difference is mostly harmless, except that when one has strict inequalities, certain assertions are valid only for regular cardinals k, whereas with non-strict inequalities they are valid for arbitrary infinite cardinals. However, in at least one place, the difference becomes rather annoying : namely, in Proposition 4.2.11(ii), which requires a one-line proof in case one has non-strict inequalities, whereas it would require some non-trivial identities concerning exponentials of cardinals, if one adopted the strict inequalities in the definition of k-accessible functors. This is not such a trivial issue, since -while investigating the problem- I've learned that the properties of cardinal exponentiation are strongly dependent on the chosen set-theoretical framework : in particular, on whether or not one accepts the generalized continuous hypothesis, and I definitely do not wish to have a proposition in my notes to depend on any extraneous set-theoretical assumptions. So, I switched throughout to the more standard definitions with non-strict inequalities : this has involved going back to page one and checking every instance where these notions appear, but luckily I've been able to do that rather quickly.