3

I'm currently reading the proof of Theorem 5.5.7 in Cisinski's book Higher Categories and Homotopical Algebra. There's one detail I don't understand, and I need someone's help.

Let us introduce some notations. We write $\mathsf{sSet}$ and $\mathsf{bisSet}$ for the categories of simplicial sets and bisimplicial sets, respectively. If $X$ and $Y$ are simplicial sets, then the external product $X\boxtimes Y$ is defined by $X\boxtimes Y_{m,n}=X_m\times Y_n$. There is the diagonal functor $\delta^*:\mathsf{bisSet}\to\mathsf{sSet}$ which takes a bisimplicial set $X$ to its diagonal $\delta^*(X)_n=X_{n,n}$, and this functor has a left adjoint $\delta_!$ and a right adjoint $\delta_\ast$.

The theorem concerns the diagonal model structure on $\mathsf{bisSet}$, whose weak equivalences are created by $\delta^*$ and whose cofibrations are the monomorphisms, as well as the fact that the pairs $(\delta_!, \delta^*)$ and $(\delta^*,\delta_\ast)$ are both Quillen equivalences. In the proof, the author claims that the counit $\delta_!\delta^*(X)\to X$ is a weak equivalence for $X$ representable, by using the equality

$$\delta_!\delta^*(\Delta^m\boxtimes\Delta^n)=\Delta^m\times \Delta^n\boxtimes \Delta^m\times \Delta^n.$$

It is this equality that I don't understand. Sure, we do have $\delta_!(\Delta^m)=\Delta^m\boxtimes \Delta^m$ (by the Yoneda lemma), so the above formula holds when $m$ or $n$ is $0$. But other than this very special case, I see no reason why the above formula holds. Can someone explain why the above formula is valid?


Here are some thoughts:

  • By adjunction, a map $\Delta^m\times \Delta^n\to Y$ gives rise to a map $$\delta_!\delta^*(\Delta^m\boxtimes \Delta^n)\to Y.$$ But with the above formula, I don't see an obvious choice for such a map.

  • Since $\delta_!(S)=\operatorname{colim}_{\Delta^k\to S}\Delta^k\boxtimes \Delta^k$, we also have the canonical map $\delta_!\delta^*(X)\to X\boxtimes X$. Maybe this map is an isomorphism in some special case, so let's consider this possibility. The map is epic iff for every pair of simplices $(x,y)\in X_k\times Y_l$, we can find some simplex $z\in X_p$ and maps $f:[p]\to[k]$ and $g:[q]\to[l]$ such that $f^*z=x$ and $g^*z=y$. Alas, I don't see why this is the case $X=\Delta^m\times \Delta^n$. Showing that the canonical map is monic seems even more daunting.

Ken
  • 2,544
  • Let me mention that the results in Section 5.4 will not be necessary to proceed. They will only be used in the proofs of Propositions 5.6.2 and 5.6.5, both of which have alternative proofs. (See for instance Lurie's Higher Algebra, Prorpositions 5.2.1.3 and 5.2.1.10.) – Ken Mar 28 '22 at 00:51
  • 3
    Thank you for pointing this out! I think you meant Theorem 5.5.7 (as opposed to 5.2.7). You are right this claim in the proof was pure fantasy. The online version is corrected now and this have added to the errata. Observe that this only affects the proof of Theorem 5.5.7 and none its consequences (statements nor proofs); Theorem 5.5.7 is only there for historical purpose, to help the reader evaluate the meaning of Theorem 5.5.24, which generalizes 5.5.7 by very far with a completely independent proof. – D.-C. Cisinski Apr 20 '22 at 07:54

1 Answers1

1

I think the claimed isomorphism is false. Specifically, I think we don't even have $\delta_! \delta^* (\Delta^1 \boxtimes \Delta^1) \cong (\Delta^1 \times \Delta^1) \boxtimes (\Delta^1 \times \Delta^1)$. (But maybe it doesn't matter for the actual claim at hand, which is that something is a weak equivalence.)

By analogy with ordinary simplicial sets, let us say that an $(m, n)$-cell of a bisimplicial set is degenerate if it is the image of $(m', n')$-cell under some bisimplicial operator, where $m' \le m$, $n' \le n$, but $(m', n') \ne (m, n)$. So, for example, a degenerate $(1, 1)$-cell could be the image of a $(0, 0)$-cell, a $(0, 1)$-cell, or a $(1, 0)$-cell. It is straightforward to see an $(m, n)$-cell of $X \boxtimes Y$ is non-degenerate if and only if the corresponding $m$-cell of $X$ and $n$-cell of $Y$ are both non-degenerate.

Now, consider $\Delta^1 \times \Delta^1$. We have a pushout diagram of the form below in the category of simplicial sets: $$\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} \Delta^1 @>>> \Delta^2 \\ @VVV @VVV \\ \Delta^2 @>>> \Delta^1 \times \Delta^1 \end{CD}$$ Since $\delta_!$ preserves colimits, and $\delta_! \Delta^k \cong \Delta^k \boxtimes \Delta^k$, we obtain a pushout diagram of the form below in the category of bisimplicial sets: $$\begin{CD} \Delta^1 \boxtimes \Delta^1 @>>> \Delta^2 \boxtimes \Delta^2 \\ @VVV @VVV \\ \Delta^2 \boxtimes \Delta^2 @>>> \delta_! (\Delta^1 \times \Delta^1) \end{CD}$$ Since all the arrows in the diagram are monomorphisms, we can straightforwardly compute the number of non-degenerate cells in $\delta_! (\Delta^1 \times \Delta^1)$: $$ 2 \times \begin{pmatrix} 9 & 9 & 3 \\ 9 & 9 & 3 \\ 3 & 3 & 1 \end{pmatrix} - \begin{pmatrix} 4 & 2 & 0 \\ 2 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 14 & 16 & 6 \\ 16 & 17 & 6 \\ 6 & 6 & 2 \end{pmatrix} $$ On the other hand, the number of non-degenerate cells of $(\Delta^1 \times \Delta^1) \boxtimes (\Delta^1 \times \Delta^1)$ is: $$\begin{pmatrix} 16 & 20 & 8 \\ 20 & 25 & 10 \\ 8 & 10 & 4 \end{pmatrix}$$ So there is no chance that $\delta_! (\Delta^1 \times \Delta^1) \to (\Delta^1 \times \Delta^1) \boxtimes (\Delta^1 \times \Delta^1)$ is an isomorphism.

Zhen Lin
  • 90,111