The dendroidal category is a test category
Dimitri Ara, Denis-Charles Cisinski, Ieke Moerdijk

TL;DR
This paper proves that the category of trees is a test category, establishing the dendroidal sets as a model category Quillen-equivalent to spaces, with an explicit localization of the operadic model structure.
Contribution
It demonstrates that the category of trees is a test category and constructs a model structure on dendroidal sets explicitly related to operadic models.
Findings
Category of trees is a test category.
Dendroidal sets form a model category Quillen-equivalent to spaces.
Explicit localization of the operadic model structure achieved.
Abstract
We prove that the category of trees is a test category in the sense of Grothendieck. This implies that the category of dendroidal sets is endowed with the structure of a model category Quillen-equivalent to spaces. We show that this model category structure, up to a change of cofibrations, can be obtained as an explicit left Bousfield localisation of the operadic model category structure.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
The dendroidal category is a test category
Dimitri Ara
Aix Marseille Univ, CNRS, Centrale Marseille, I2M, Marseille, France
,
Denis-Charles Cisinski
Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg, Deutschland
and
Ieke Moerdijk
Department of Mathematics, Utrecht University, PO BOX 80.010, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Abstract.
We prove that the category of trees is a test category in the sense of Grothendieck. This implies that the category of dendroidal sets is endowed with the structure of a model category Quillen-equivalent to spaces. We show that this model category structure, up to a change of cofibrations, can be obtained as an explicit left Bousfield localisation of the operadic model category structure.
Introduction
The notion of a test category was introduced by Grothendieck in his influential manuscript [8], with the aim of axiomatising those small categories which could play a role similar to the category of simplices and serve as building blocks to describe all homotopy types of spaces. The theory of test categories has been described and further developed in [11], [3], [10], [12], [4] and [1]. Here one can find a list of examples of test categories, which includes, in addition to , familiar categories such as the category of cubes parametrising cubical sets, and Joyal’s category parametrising a notion of -dimensional category. The goal of this paper is two-fold. First of all, we wish to add some further examples to this list, by showing that the category of trees which parametrises dendroidal sets is a test category. The argument will also show that variations of such as similar categories of planar trees and closed trees are test categories. It follows that there is a Quillen model structure on the category of dendroidal sets which models the homotopy category of spaces. The second goal of this paper is to explain the relation of this model structure to the model structure that the category of dendroidal sets was originally designed for, namely the so-called operadic model structure which models the homotopy theory of topological (or simplicial) coloured operads. Indeed, we will show that up to a small change in the class of cofibrations only, the first model structure coming from the fact that is a test category can be obtained as a left Bousfield localisation of the second, operadic model structure.
The plan of our paper is as follows. In the first section, we will review the basic definitions of the theory of test categories. In Section 2, we will present a proof of the fact that the simplex category is a test category which is somewhat different from the ones occurring in the literature, and is based on the fact that the product of two simplices can be written as a union of other simplices indexed by shuffles. The proof that is a test category will be broken up into two parts. The first part shows the fact that the classifying space of is contractible. This fact has been known for quite some time, but a proof has never been published. The second part of the proof will again use shuffles and follows the same pattern as the argument for simplices. In the final section, we discuss the relation to the operadic model structure on dendroidal sets mentioned above.
The results of this paper go back quite a while, and were presented in 2013 at the conference celebrating the 65th birthday of G. Maltsiniotis. We would like to thank G. Maltsiniotis for encouraging us to write up the results, and apologise for the fact that it has taken us a while.
We are grateful to the referee for carefully reading the paper.
1. Preliminaries on test categories
In this section, we review some basics of the theory of test categories introduced by Grothendieck in [8]. For more detailed expositions and proofs, we refer the reader to [11] and [3].
We begin with a bit of notation and terminology.
1.1**.**
We denote by the nerve functor from small categories to simplicial sets. A functor between small categories is said to be a weak equivalence if its nerve is a weak homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets. We say that a small category is aspherical (or weakly contractible) if the unique functor from to the terminal category is a weak equivalence.
1.2**.**
Let be a functor. If is an object of , we denote by the category , where is the category of objects over . This category is sometimes denoted by . If is a presheaf on and is the Yoneda embedding, the category is the category of elements of .
We now introduce the basic definitions of the theory of test categories.
1.3**.**
Let be a small category. We have a pair of adjoint functors
[TABLE]
between presheaves on and small categories. A morphism of presheaves on is said to be a weak equivalence if is a weak equivalence of categories. A presheaf on is aspherical if the category is aspherical.
Definition 1.4**.**
Let be a small category.
- (a)
The category is said to be a weak test category if, for every small category , the counit functor is a weak equivalence. 2. (b)
The category is said to be a local test category if, for every object of , the slice category is a weak test category. 3. (c)
The category is said to be a test category if it is both a weak test category and a local test category.
The following proposition shows that to understand test categories, it is enough to understand local test categories:
Proposition 1.5** (Grothendieck).**
A small category is a test category if and only if the following two conditions hold:
- (a)
* is aspherical;* 2. (b)
* is a local test category.*
Proof.
See [11, Remark 1.5.4]. ∎
We now move on to a characterisation of local test categories in terms of intervals.
1.6**.**
An interval of a presheaf category consists of a presheaf endowed with two global sections . The interval is said to be separating if the induced map is a monomorphism.
For instance, the subobject classifier of the topos , also called the Lawvere object of , is canonically endowed with the structure of a separating interval, and corresponding respectively to the empty subobject and the maximal subobject of .
We say that an interval is locally aspherical if, for every presheaf on , the projection map is a weak equivalence. A direct application of Quillen’s Theorem A shows that it is enough to require this property when is representable.
Theorem 1.7** (Grothendieck).**
Let be a small category. The following conditions are equivalent:
- (a)
* is a local test category;* 2. (b)
* is locally aspherical;* 3. (c)
there exists a locally aspherical separating interval in .
Proof.
See [11, Theorem 1.5.6]. ∎
We moreover have from [3] the following characterisation of local test categories in terms of model categories:
Theorem 1.8**.**
Let be a small category. The following conditions are equivalent:
- (a)
* is a local test category;* 2. (b)
there exists a model category structure on whose cofibrations are the monomorphisms and whose weak equivalences are the weak equivalences of presheaves as defined in 1.3.
Moreover, if these conditions are fulfilled, the model category structure of the second condition is combinatorial and proper.
Proof.
See [3, Corollary 4.2.18] for the implication (and the fact that the model category structure is combinatorial) and [3, Theorem 4.1.19] for the reciprocal. The properness under these assumptions follows from [3, Corollary 4.2.19 and Example 4.3.22]. ∎
We now characterise test categories in terms of model categories.
1.9**.**
Let be a small category. Denote by
[TABLE]
the composition of with the nerve functor. The functor preserves colimits (see for instance [3, Corollary 3.2.10]) and hence admits a right adjoint . We thus have an adjoint pair
[TABLE]
The functor also preserves pullbacks and hence monomorphisms.
Theorem 1.10**.**
Let be a small category. The following conditions are equivalent:
- (a)
* is a test category;* 2. (b)
there exists a model category structure on whose cofibrations are the monomorphisms and for which the adjoint pair
[TABLE]
is a Quillen equivalence, where the category of simplicial sets is endowed with the Kan–Quillen model category structure.
Proof.
The implication is a consequence of [3, Proposition 4.2.26 and Remark 4.2.27]. Let us prove the converse. Since every object of is cofibrant, the left Quillen functor preserves and detects weak equivalences. This shows that the weak equivalences of the model category structure on are the weak equivalences of presheaves as defined in 1.3. In particular, by Theorem 1.8, is a local test category. By Proposition 1.5, to conclude the proof, it suffices to show that is aspherical. But since is a fibrant simplicial set, the morphism is a weak equivalence, and since we get the result. ∎
Remark 1.11*.*
We saw in the proof that the model category structure of (b) is actually unique (and in particular coincides with the one of Theorem 1.8).
2. A proof that is a test category
In this section, we give a new proof of the fact that the simplex category is a test category. The proof for will follow a similar pattern.
2.1**.**
To prove that is a test category, it suffices to show that for any , the simplicial set is aspherical, where denotes the standard -simplex. Indeed, since has a terminal object, it is aspherical. Moreover, the object is clearly a separating interval and our claim thus follows from Proposition 1.5 and Theorem 1.7.
From now on, we fix . We will prove more generally that is aspherical. This fact is well-known and follows from classical results but we will give an elementary proof in the spirit of the theory of test categories.
2.2**.**
Recall that the simplicial set can be written as a union of subsimplicial sets
[TABLE]
where is the set of -shuffles and each is isomorphic to (see for instance [7, Chapter II, Section 5]). The only additional fact we will need about these ’s is that they all contain the vertex of .
To prove that is aspherical, we will use the following general lemma:
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let be a small category and let be a presheaf on . Suppose that can be written as a non-empty finite union of subpresheaves
[TABLE]
satisfying the following condition: for every non-empty , the intersection presheaf
[TABLE]
is aspherical. Then is aspherical.
Proof.
The case of a binary union is [11, Proposition 1.2.7]. The finite case follows by induction. ∎
Proposition 2.4**.**
The simplicial set is aspherical.
Proof.
Let be a non-empty set of -shuffles. By Lemma 2.3, it suffices to show that
[TABLE]
is aspherical. We will show that is actually a representable presheaf. Indeed, each of the ’s is the nerve of a subposet of the poset associated to and the intersection is the nerve of the intersection of these subposets. The result follows from the fact that this intersection subposet is a non-empty (as it contains ) finite linear order. ∎
Corollary 2.5**.**
The simplex category is a test category.
Proof.
This follows from the previous proposition (see 2.1). ∎
Remark 2.6*.*
The proof actually shows that is a strict test category (see [11, Section 1.6]).
3. The tree category
The tree category was introduced by the third author and Weiss in [13]. The purpose of this section is to recall some of the main definitions related to .
3.1**.**
By an operad, we will always mean a symmetric coloured operad. We will denote by the category of operads. If is an operad and are colours, we will denote by the set of operations in from to .
3.2**.**
Similarly, by a tree, we will always mean a finite non-planar rooted tree. Here is an example of such a tree:
[TABLE]
Every tree generates a coloured operad in the following way. Choose a planar structure on and consider the non-symmetric coloured collection whose colours are the edges of and whose operations are given by the vertices of (the planar structure fixes the source of such an operation). The operad is then the free coloured operad on . It does not depend on the choice of the planar structure.
We will denote by the tree with one edge and no vertices, and, for , by the -corolla, that is, the tree with one vertex and leaves.
3.3**.**
The category is defined in the following way. Its objects are trees, and if and are two trees, a morphism in is given by a morphism of operads . A presheaf on is called a dendroidal set. We will consider the Yoneda embedding as an inclusion, thus identifying each object of with its associated dendroidal set.
3.4**.**
There is a fully faithful functor defined by
[TABLE]
We will consider as an inclusion and we will thus identify with . In particular, will be identified with . The image of being a sieve, the left Kan extension sends a simplicial set to the dendroidal set obtained by extending by at trees not in the image of . This functor is fully faithful.
3.5**.**
Every map of factors as a degeneracy followed by an isomorphism followed by a face map. The face maps are generated by elementary faces. An elementary face is either an inner face or an outer face defined as follows. Let be a tree. For an inner edge of (that is an edge between two vertices), define to be the tree obtained by contracting . There is a map in corresponding to the composition in of the two operations associated to the end-vertices of . Such a map is called an inner face. If has at least two vertices and is a vertex with exactly one adjacent inner edge, define to be the tree obtained by chopping off . There is a map corresponding to the obvious inclusion of operads. If has exactly one vertex, that is, if is a corolla, there is one map for each edge of . These two kinds of maps are called outer faces.
Similarly, degeneracies are generated by elementary degeneracies defined as follows. If is a tree, for each edge there is an elementary degeneracy , where is obtained from by inserting a vertex in the middle of and corresponds to the identity of in the operad .
For more on faces and degeneracies, see [13, Section 3].
3.6**.**
For a tree and an inner edge of , we denote by the maximal subobject of in not containing the face . The inclusions of the form are called inner horn inclusions. A dendroidal set is an -operad if it has the extension property with respect to every inner horn inclusion.
3.7**.**
A monomorphism of dendroidal sets is said to be normal if, for any tree , the action of the group of automorphisms of in on is free. The class of normal monomorphisms can be characterised as the saturation (i.e., the closure under pushout, transfinite composition and retracts) of the set , where denotes the maximal proper subdendroidal set of .
A dendroidal set is said to be normal if the monomorphism is normal. For instance, trees are normal dendroidal sets. We will need the following two facts about normal dendroidal sets: if is a map of dendroidal sets with normal, then is normal; if moreover is a monomorphism, then is a normal monomorphism.
We can now formulate one of the main results of [5]:
Theorem 3.8**.**
There exists a combinatorial model category structure on whose cofibrations are the normal monomorphisms and whose fibrant objects are the -operads.
This model category structure will be called the operadic model category structure and its weak equivalences the operadic weak equivalences. These operadic weak equivalences can be characterised in terms of Segal core inclusions that we now define.
3.9**.**
Let be a tree. For each vertex with input edges, there is a map corresponding to the operation associated to in . The Segal core of is the smallest subdendroidal set of containing the images of these maps. Inclusions of the form are called Segal core inclusions.
The following characterisation of operadic weak equivalences follows from [5, Corollary 6.11] and [6, Proposition 2.6]:
Theorem 3.10**.**
The class of operadic weak equivalences is the smallest class satisfying the following properties:
- (a)
* satisfies the 2-out-of-3 property;* 2. (b)
* contains the class of maps having the right lifting property with respect to normal monomorphisms;* 3. (c)
the class of normal monomorphisms which are in is closed under pushout, transfinite composition and retracts. 4. (d)
* contains the set of Segal core inclusions.*
Recall finally that dendroidal sets are endowed with a tensor product.
3.11**.**
We will denote by the Boardman–Vogt tensor product of operads (see [2, Definition 2.14]). If and are two dendroidal sets, their tensor product is defined by the formula
[TABLE]
where and vary among trees and denotes the dendroidal nerve functor (see [13, Example 4.2]). This tensor product is symmetric but only associative up to weak equivalence (see [9, Section 6.3]). It admits as a unit. Moreover, it preserves colimits in each variable.
4. The category is aspherical
The goal of this section is to show that the category is aspherical.
4.1**.**
The décalage of a tree is the tree
[TABLE]
where is the map corresponding to the unique leaf of and is the root map of , that is, the map corresponding to the root of . For each tree , we have a diagram
[TABLE]
where is the canonical map and is the root map of . In other words, is obtained from by adding a new unary vertex at the root, with a new root edge coming out of it:
[TABLE]
The map defined above is the outer face map .
Remark 4.2*.*
It is tempting to think at this point that we have a zigzag of natural maps
[TABLE]
and hence that is aspherical. Notice though that we have not defined the action of on the morphisms of . It turns out that there is no way to make into a functor for which the maps
[TABLE]
are natural. Indeed, consider the face map :
[TABLE]
Clearly, this map cannot be extended to a root-preserving map
[TABLE]
for would have to be sent to a unary operation in from to and there is no such operation. Note that if there were a (nullary) vertex above in , then there would exist such an operation. This leads to the following definition.
Definition 4.3**.**
A tree is said to be closed if it has no leaves, that is, if there is a vertex above every edge of . The full subcategory of consisting of closed trees is denoted .
4.4**.**
The closure of a tree is the tree obtained from by adjoining a (nullary) vertex on top of each leaf of . We will denote by the obvious inclusion.
If is a map in , we define to be the unique map extending , in the sense that the diagram
[TABLE]
commutes. Since this property determines the action of on the edges of , there is at most one such map. Its existence follows from the fact that has a (unique) nullary operation for each of its colours.
One checks that this defines a functor from trees to closed trees.
Example 4.5*.*
Consider the following external face map :
[TABLE]
The closure of
[TABLE]
is the composition of the three inner face maps , and .
Proposition 4.6**.**
The inclusion admits the functor as a left adjoint.
Proof.
By the previous paragraph, we have a natural transformation . Denote by the identity natural transformation. We claim that and are the unit and counit of the announced adjunction. Using the fact that is the identity and that is the identity on , the triangular identities reduce to the equality ; that is, to the fact that if is a tree, we have . This is readily checked. ∎
4.7**.**
We now define a functor extending the assignment restricted to closed trees. If is map in , we define to be the unique root-preserving map extending , in the sense that the diagram
[TABLE]
commutes. Since this property determines the action of on the edges of , there is at most one such map. Its existence follows from the fact that for every edge of (or more generally of any closed tree), there is a (unique) unary operation from to the root of in .
One checks that this indeed defines a functor .
Proposition 4.8**.**
The maps
[TABLE]
are natural in in .
Proof.
The naturality of is true by definition. The one of boils down to the fact that for any map in , the map is root-preserving. ∎
Remark 4.9*.*
The diagram
[TABLE]
is a “split décalage” in the sense of [4, paragraph 3.1]. This implies that is a (strict) test category (see [4, Corollary 3.7]).
Theorem 4.10**.**
The category is aspherical.
Proof.
By Proposition 4.6, is aspherical if and only if is. But the asphericity of follows from Proposition 4.8. ∎
5. The category is a test category
In this section, we will prove that is a test category. Our proof is based on the fact that for any tree , the dendroidal set is aspherical. More generally and parallel to the reasoning in Section 2, we observe that for any two trees and , their tensor product is aspherical. To prove this, we will need the shuffle formula introduced in [14, Section 9]:
Proposition 5.1**.**
Let and be two trees. The dendroidal set can be written as a finite union of subdendroidal sets
[TABLE]
satisfying the following properties:
- (a)
the ’s are representable; 2. (b)
the ’s have the same root and leaves, seen as elements of ; 3. (c)
the ’s are full subdendroidal sets of , where is said to be full if an element of , for a tree, belongs to if and only if all its faces in belong to .
Remark 5.2*.*
The indexing set in the above formula is the set of -shuffles introduced in [14] under the name of “percolation schemes for and ”.
Proposition 5.3**.**
If and are two trees, then the dendroidal set is aspherical.
Proof.
By Lemma 2.3 applied to the formula
[TABLE]
it suffices to prove that for any non-empty , the dendroidal set
[TABLE]
is aspherical. We will actually show that it is representable. As all the ’s are full subdendroidal sets of , the intersection is the (unique) full subdendroidal set such that . In particular, for any , is a full subdendroidal set of containing the root and the leaves of . This implies that is an iterated inner face of and is hence representable. ∎
We will now see that can be thought of as a cylinder object, at least when is normal.
5.4**.**
If is a dendroidal set, we have canonical maps
[TABLE]
factorising the codiagonal, induced by the diagram
[TABLE]
tensored by .
Proposition 5.5**.**
If is a normal dendroidal set, then
- (a)
the map is a normal monomorphism; 2. (b)
the map is a weak equivalence.
Proof.
The first assertion follows since the tensor product of a monomorphism of simplicial sets and a normal dendroidal set is a normal monomorphism (see [9, Section 3.4]).
The second assertion is a special case of Proposition 5.3 if is representable. Since the functor preserves colimits and monomorphisms between normal objects (see loc. cit.), the general case follows by a standard induction on normal objects (see for instance [3, Proposition 8.2.8]), using the fact that the functor of 1.9 preserves colimits and monomorphisms, and detects weak equivalences. ∎
Theorem 5.6**.**
The category is a test category.
Proof.
Since is aspherical (Theorem 4.10), by Theorem 1.7 it suffices to show that the Lawvere interval is locally aspherical; that is, that for every tree , the projection is a weak equivalence. The map satisfies the two following properties: first, it has the right lifting property with respect to monomorphisms (as is injective); second, its source is normal (as its target is). The following standard argument shows that any map satisfying these two conditions is a weak equivalence. Note first that such a map admits a section . Consider now the commutative square
[TABLE]
Since by the previous proposition is a monomorphism, this square admits a lifting defining a homotopy from to in an obvious sense. As is a weak equivalence (again by the previous proposition), this implies that is a weak equivalence and so has a left as well as a right inverse in the homotopy category, hence is a weak equivalence, thereby proving the result. ∎
Remark 5.7*.*
The category is not a strict test category (see [11, Section 1.6]) as the category , where is the -corolla, is not aspherical (it is not even connected).
Remark 5.8*.*
The planar variation of , defined by replacing symmetric operads by non-symmetric operads, is also a test category. Indeed, is equivalent to the slice category of over the presheaf of planar structures and by [11, Remark 1.5.4], it suffices to observe that the same argument as in Section 4 shows that is aspherical. Similarly, the category of closed planar trees is a strict test category.
Corollary 5.9**.**
There exists a proper combinatorial model category structure on whose cofibrations are the monomorphisms and whose weak equivalences are the weak equivalences defined in 1.3. Moreover, the functor of 1.9 is a left Quillen equivalence.
Proof.
This follows from the previous theorem using Theorems 1.8 and 1.10. ∎
The model category structure of the previous corollary will be called the test model category structure. From now on, its weak equivalences will be called test weak equivalences to distinguish them from operadic weak equivalences.
6. Comparison with the operadic model category structure
In this last section, we compare the test model category structure on with the operadic model category structure.
Proposition 6.1**.**
Every map of having the right lifting property with respect to normal monomorphisms is a test weak equivalence.
Proof.
Let be such a map. By Quillen’s Theorem A, to prove that is a test weak equivalence, it suffices to check that for any tree and any map , the map is a test weak equivalence. But this map has the same lifting property as and, if
[TABLE]
is a commutative square where is a monomorphism, then is automatically normal as and hence are normal. In particular, is a trivial fibration in the test model category structure and hence a test weak equivalence, thereby proving the result. ∎
Theorem 6.2**.**
There exists a proper model category structure on whose cofibrations are the normal monomorphisms and whose weak equivalences are the test weak equivalences.
This model category structure on will be called the normal test model category structure.
Proof.
The existence of a model category structure with the announced weak equivalences and cofibrations is a consequence of the following lemma applied to the test model category structure, the hypothesis of the lemma being satisfied by the previous proposition. As properness only depends on the weak equivalences, the properness of the resulting model category structure follows from the properness of the test model category structure. ∎
Lemma 6.3**.**
Let be a model category. Suppose is a class of cofibrations, which is the saturation of a set (rather than a class) of morphisms allowing the small object argument, and has the property that any map having the right lifting property with respect to is a weak equivalence. Then there exists a model category structure on with the same weak equivalences, and as class of cofibrations.
Proof.
This lemma is probably well-known to experts, but we include a proof for completeness. Let us denote by , and the classes of weak equivalences, cofibrations and fibrations of , and by the class of maps having the right lifting property with respect to . Let us show that is a model category. The only axioms that are not obviously true are the lifting axiom and the factorisation axiom.
Let us start by the factorisation axiom. By the small object argument, every map of factors as , where is in and has the right lifting property with respect to . By hypothesis, such a is in . This shows that is in . As for the second factorisation, if is map of , we can write , where is in and is in . Using the previous factorisation, we get , where is in and is in . As , we have , showing that is in , so that is a factorisation of the desired kind.
To conclude the proof, we observe that one half of the lifting axiom holds by definition, while the other half follows by the following standard retract argument. Consider a map in . We can factor as with in and having the right lifting property with respect to and hence being in . By the 2-out-of-3 property, is in , and hence in . This implies that has the right lifting property with respect to and hence, by the retract lemma, that is a retract of , and so that it has the right lifting property with respect to the class . ∎
Proposition 6.4**.**
Every operadic weak equivalence is a test weak equivalence.
Proof.
Theorem 6.2 implies that the class of test weak equivalences satisfies the first three conditions of Theorem 3.10. This shows that the assertion is equivalent to the fact that Segal core inclusions are test weak equivalences. It thus suffices to prove that for any tree , the Segal core of is aspherical. This follows from the fact that the Segal core of can be constructed by iteratively gluing corollas along . ∎
Theorem 6.5**.**
The normal test model category structure on is the left Bousfield localisation of the operadic model category structure by the set of maps between representable dendroidal sets.
Proof.
Let be a normalisation of the terminal dendroidal set, that is, a normal dendroidal set such that the map to the terminal dendroidal set has the right lifting property with respect to normal monomorphisms. Consider the adjunction
[TABLE]
where is the forgetful functor and the functor sending to . For any dendroidal set , the projection has the right lifting property with respect to normal monomorphisms and is hence an operadic weak equivalence. This shows that the unit and the counit of the adjunction are objectwise operadic weak equivalences and we have a Quillen equivalence
[TABLE]
where denotes the operadic model category (see also [5, proof of Proposition 3.12]). Note that the fact that is normal implies that the cofibrations of are the monomorphisms. Consider the left Bousfield localisation of this Quillen equivalence by the set of maps between representables of \widehat{\Omega}/E\simeq\text{\smash{\widehat{\Omega/E}}}. We get a Quillen equivalence
[TABLE]
where denotes the set of maps between representable dendroidal sets, the unit and counit still being objectwise weak equivalences. As every object of is cofibrant, a map of dendroidal sets is a weak equivalence of if and only if is in the class of weak equivalences of . Similarly, as is a test weak equivalence for any dendroidal set , such a map is a test weak equivalence if and only if is in the class of test weak equivalences of \widehat{\Omega}/E\simeq\text{\smash{\widehat{\Omega/E}}}, which is nothing but the class of test weak equivalences of above . To conclude the proof, it thus suffices to show the equality .
By the previous proposition, the identity functor of is a left Quillen functor from the operadic model category to the normal test model category (or more precisely between their slices). As belongs to , the universal property of localisations implies that .
To prove the converse, we will use the machinery of [3]. Define an -localiser to be the class of weak equivalences of some combinatorial model category structure on whose cofibrations are the monomorphisms. (By [3, Theorem 1.4.3], this is equivalent to what is called an accessible localiser in [3, Section 1.4].) Since is normal, the category is a regular skeletal category in the sense of [3, Definition 8.2.5]. Moreover, as is aspherical, is a test category (see [11, Remark 1.5.4]). In particular, by [3, Proposition 6.4.26 and Proposition 8.2.9], is the smallest -localiser containing . As is a localiser containing , we have , thereby ending the proof. ∎
Remark 6.6*.*
The previous theorem can also be proved as follows. One identifies the operadic model category structure on dendroidal sets with a localisation of the category of dendroidal spaces (that is, simplicial presheaves on ) equipped with the Reedy model category structure. This localisation involves the inner horn inclusions and the map , where denotes the nerve of the simply connected groupoid on two objects [math] and , see [6, Sections 5 and 6]. Thus the localisation of by the maps between representables is equivalent to a further localisation of dendroidal spaces by the images of these maps. One checks that localising the Reedy model category structure on dendroidal spaces by these maps already makes the inner horn inclusions (or equivalently, the Segal core inclusions) weak equivalences, as well as the image of any Kan–Quillen weak equivalence of simplicial sets under the embedding of simplicial spaces into dendroidal spaces, so in particular . But the localisation thus obtained describes the homotopy theory of homotopically constant contravariant diagrams of spaces on , hence is equivalent to that of spaces since is aspherical.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] D. Ara. The groupoidal analogue Θ ~ ~ Θ \widetilde{\Theta} to Joyal’s category Θ Θ \Theta is a test category. Appl. Categ. Structures , 20(6):603–649, 2012.
- 2[2] J. M. Boardman and R. M. Vogt. Homotopy invariant algebraic structures on topological spaces . Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 347. Springer-Verlag, 1973.
- 3[3] D.-C. Cisinski. Les préfaisceaux comme modèles des types d’homotopie . Number 308 in Astérisque. Soc. Math. France, 2006.
- 4[4] D.-C. Cisinski and G. Maltsiniotis. La catégorie Θ Θ \Theta de Joyal est une catégorie test. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 215(5):962–982, 2011.
- 5[5] D.-C. Cisinski and I. Moerdijk. Dendroidal sets as models for homotopy operads. J. Topol. , 4(2):257–299, 2011.
- 6[6] D.-C. Cisinski and I. Moerdijk. Dendroidal Segal spaces and ∞ \infty -operads. J. Topol. , 6(3):675–704, 2013.
- 7[7] P. Gabriel and M. Zisman. Calculus of fractions and homotopy theory , volume 35 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete . Springer-Verlag, 1967.
- 8[8] A. Grothendieck. Pursuing Stacks. Manuscript, 1983, to be published in Documents Mathématiques.
