Commit eb60df7d authored by Leonard Guetta's avatar Leonard Guetta
Browse files

security commit

parent d9419d8c
......@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ From the previous proposition, we deduce the following very useful corollary.
L(C) \ar[r,"L(\gamma)"]& L(D)
\end{tikzcd}
\]
is a \emph{homotopy} cocartesian square of $\Cat$ when equipped with the Thomason weak equivalences.
is a \emph{homotopy} cocartesian square of $\Cat$ when equipped with Thomason equivalences.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Since the nerve $N$ induces an equivalence of op-prederivators
......@@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ From the previous proposition, we deduce the following very useful corollary.
L(C) \ar[r,"L(\gamma)"] &L(D)
\end{tikzcd}
\]
is a \emph{homotopy} cocartesian square of $\Cat$ when equipped with the Thomason weak equivalences.
is a \emph{homotopy} cocartesian square of $\Cat$ when equipped with Thomason equivalences.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The case where $\alpha$ or $\beta$ is both injective on objects and quasi-injective on arrows is Corollary \ref{cor:hmtpysquaregraph}. Hence, we only have to treat the case when $\alpha$ is injective on objects and $\beta$ is quasi-injective on arrows; the remaining case being symmetric.
......@@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ We now apply Corollary \ref{cor:hmtpysquaregraph} and Proposition \ref{prop:hmtp
\sD_1 \ar[r] & C',
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where the morphism $\sS_1 \to \sD_1$ is the one that sends the two generating arrows of $\sS_1$ to the unique generating arrow of $\sD_1$. Then this square is homotopy cocartesian in $\Cat$ (when equipped with Thomason weak equivalences). Indeed, it is the image by the functor $L$ of a cocartesian square in $\Rgrph$, the morphism $\sS_1 \to \sD_1$ is injective on objects and the morphism $\sS_1 \to C$ is quasi-injective on arrows. Hence, we can apply Proposition \ref{prop:hmtpysquaregraphbetter}. Note that since we did \emph{not} suppose that $A\neq B$, the top morphism of the previous square is not necessarily a monomorphism and we cannot always apply Corollary \ref{cor:hmtpysquaregraph}.
where the morphism $\sS_1 \to \sD_1$ is the one that sends the two generating arrows of $\sS_1$ to the unique generating arrow of $\sD_1$. Then this square is homotopy cocartesian in $\Cat$ (when equipped with Thomason equivalences). Indeed, it is the image by the functor $L$ of a cocartesian square in $\Rgrph$, the morphism $\sS_1 \to \sD_1$ is injective on objects and the morphism $\sS_1 \to C$ is quasi-injective on arrows. Hence, we can apply Proposition \ref{prop:hmtpysquaregraphbetter}. Note that since we did \emph{not} suppose that $A\neq B$, the top morphism of the previous square is not necessarily a monomorphism and we cannot always apply Corollary \ref{cor:hmtpysquaregraph}.
\end{example}
\begin{example}[Killing a generator]
Let $C$ be a free category and let $f : A \to B$ one of its generating arrow such that $A \neq B$. Now consider the category $C'$ obtained from $C$ by ``killing'' $f$, i.e. defined with the following cocartesian square:
......@@ -305,7 +305,7 @@ We now apply Corollary \ref{cor:hmtpysquaregraph} and Proposition \ref{prop:hmtp
\sD_0 \ar[r] & C'.
\end{tikzcd}
\]
Then, this above square is homotopy cocartesion in $\Cat$ (equipped with the Thomason weak equivalences). Indeed, it obviously is the image of a square in $\Rgrph$ by the functor $L$ and since the source and target of $f$ are different, the top map comes from a monomorphism of $\Rgrph$.
Then, this above square is homotopy cocartesian in $\Cat$ (equipped with Thomason equivalences). Indeed, it obviously is the image of a square in $\Rgrph$ by the functor $L$ and since the source and target of $f$ are different, the top map comes from a monomorphism of $\Rgrph$.
\end{example}
\begin{remark}
Note that in the previous example, we see that it was useful to consider the category of reflexive graphs and not only the category of graphs because the map $\sD_1 \to \sD_0$ does not come from a morphism in the category of graphs. \todo{À mieux dire ?}
......@@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ In the definition of the bisimplicial nerve of a $2$-category we gave, we have p
which enables us to compare the homotopy theory of $2\Cat$ with the homotopy theory of bisimplicial sets.
\end{paragr}
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:binervthom}
A $2$-functor $F : C \to D$ is a Thomason weak equivalence if and only if $\binerve(F)$ is a diagonal weak equivalence of bisimplicial sets.
A $2$-functor $F : C \to D$ is a Thomason equivalence if and only if $\binerve(F)$ is a diagonal weak equivalence of bisimplicial sets.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
It follows from what is shown in \cite[Section 2.1 and Theorem 2.7]{bullejos2003geometry} that there is weak equivalence of simplicial sets
......@@ -588,7 +588,7 @@ In the definition of the bisimplicial nerve of a $2$-category we gave, we have p
\]
which is natural in $C$. This implies what we wanted to show.
\end{proof}
From this lemma, we deduce two useful criteria to detect Thomason weak equivalences of $2$-categories.
From this lemma, we deduce two useful criteria to detect Thomason equivalences of $2$-categories.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:criterionThomeqI}
Let $F : C \to D$ be a $2$-functor. If
\begin{enumerate}[label=\alph*)]
......@@ -600,9 +600,9 @@ From this lemma, we deduce two useful criteria to detect Thomason weak equivalen
\[
C(x,y) \to D(F(x),F(y))
\]
induced by $F$ is a Thomason weak equivalence of $1$-categories,
induced by $F$ is a Thomason equivalence of $1$-categories,
\end{enumerate}
then $F$ is a Thomason weak equivalence of $2$-categories.
then $F$ is a Thomason equivalence of $2$-categories.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
By definition, for every $2$-category $C$ and every $m \geq 0$, we have
......@@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ From this lemma, we deduce two useful criteria to detect Thomason weak equivalen
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Let $F : C \to D$ be a $2$-functor. If for every $k \geq 0$,
\[V(F)_k : V(C)_k \to V(D)_k\] is a Thomason weak equivalence of $1$-categories, then $F$ is a Thomason weak equivalence of $2$-categories.
\[V(F)_k : V(C)_k \to V(D)_k\] is a Thomason equivalence of $1$-categories, then $F$ is a Thomason equivalence of $2$-categories.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma \ref{lemma:binervehorizontal}, we now that for every $m \geq 0$,
......@@ -744,7 +744,7 @@ For any $n \geq 0$, consider the following cocartesian square
\ar[from=1-1,to=2-2,phantom,very near end,"\ulcorner"]
\end{tikzcd},
\]
where $\tau : \Delta_1 \to A_{(1,1)}$ is the $2$-functor that sends the unique non-trival $1$\nbd-cell of $\Delta_1$ to the target of the generating $2$-cell of $A_{(1,1)}$. It is not hard to check that $\tau$ is strong deformation retract, hence a co-universal Thomason weak equivalence (Lemma \ref{lemma:pushoutstrngdefrtract}). Hence, the morphism $A_{(1,1)} \to A_{(1,n)}$ is also a (co-universal) Thomason weak equivalence and the square is Thomason homotopy cocartesian. Now, the morphism $\tau : \Delta_1 \to A_{(1,1)}$ is also a folk cofibration and since $\Delta_1$, $\Delta_n$ and $A_{(1,1)}$ are \good{}, it follows from Corollary \ref{cor:usefulcriterion} that $A_{(1,n)}$ is \good{}. Finally, since $\Delta_1$, $\Delta_n$ and $A_{(1,1)}$ have the homotopy type of a point, the fact that the previous square is Thomason homotopy cocartesian implies that $A_{(1,n)}$ has the homotopy type of a point.
where $\tau : \Delta_1 \to A_{(1,1)}$ is the $2$-functor that sends the unique non-trival $1$\nbd-cell of $\Delta_1$ to the target of the generating $2$-cell of $A_{(1,1)}$. It is not hard to check that $\tau$ is strong deformation retract, hence a co-universal Thomason equivalence (Lemma \ref{lemma:pushoutstrngdefrtract}). Hence, the morphism $A_{(1,1)} \to A_{(1,n)}$ is also a (co-universal) Thomason equivalence and the square is Thomason homotopy cocartesian. Now, the morphism $\tau : \Delta_1 \to A_{(1,1)}$ is also a folk cofibration and since $\Delta_1$, $\Delta_n$ and $A_{(1,1)}$ are \good{}, it follows from Corollary \ref{cor:usefulcriterion} that $A_{(1,n)}$ is \good{}. Finally, since $\Delta_1$, $\Delta_n$ and $A_{(1,1)}$ have the homotopy type of a point, the fact that the previous square is Thomason homotopy cocartesian implies that $A_{(1,n)}$ has the homotopy type of a point.
Similarly, for any $m \geq 0$, by considering the cocartesian square
\[
......@@ -763,7 +763,7 @@ For any $n \geq 0$, consider the following cocartesian square
A_{(m,1)} \ar[r] & A_{(m,n)},
\end{tikzcd}
\]
where $\tau$ is the $2$-functor that sends the unique non-trivial $1$-cell of $\Delta_1$ to the target of the generating $2$-cell of $A_{(m,1)}$. This $2$-functor is once again a folk cofibration, but it is \emph{not} in general a co-universal Thomason weak equivalence (it is if we make the hypothesis that $m\neq 0$, but we did not). However, since we made the hypothesis that $n\neq 0$, it follows from Lemma \ref{lemma:istrngdefrtract} that $i : \Delta \to \Delta_n$ is a co-universal Thomason weak equivalence. Hence, the previous square is Thomason homotopy cocartesian and $A_{(m,n)}$ has the homotopy type of a point. Since $A_{(m,1)}$, $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_n$ are \good{}, this shows that for $m \geq 0$ and $n >0$, $A_{(m,n)}$ is \good{}.
where $\tau$ is the $2$-functor that sends the unique non-trivial $1$-cell of $\Delta_1$ to the target of the generating $2$-cell of $A_{(m,1)}$. This $2$-functor is once again a folk cofibration, but it is \emph{not} in general a co-universal Thomason equivalence (it is if we make the hypothesis that $m\neq 0$, but we did not). However, since we made the hypothesis that $n\neq 0$, it follows from Lemma \ref{lemma:istrngdefrtract} that $i : \Delta \to \Delta_n$ is a co-universal Thomason equivalence. Hence, the previous square is Thomason homotopy cocartesian and $A_{(m,n)}$ has the homotopy type of a point. Since $A_{(m,1)}$, $\Delta_1$ and $\Delta_n$ are \good{}, this shows that for $m \geq 0$ and $n >0$, $A_{(m,n)}$ is \good{}.
Similarly, if $m >0$ and $ n\geq 0$, then $A_{(m,n)}$ has the homotopy type of a point and is \good{}.
\end{paragr}
......
......@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ Recall that for any $\oo$\nbd-category $C$, we write $p_C : C \to \sD_0$ the can
%% We can now prove the main result of this section.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:contractibleisgood}
Every contractible $\oo$\nbd-category $C$ is \good{} and we have
Every oplax contractible $\oo$\nbd-category $C$ is \good{} and we have
\[
\sH^{\pol}(C)\simeq \sH^{\sing}(C)\simeq \mathbb{Z}
\]
......@@ -61,17 +61,17 @@ Consider the commutative square
\sH^{\pol}(\sD_0) \ar[r,"\pi_{\sS_0}"] & \sH(\sD_0).
\end{tikzcd}
\]
It follows respectively from Proposition \ref{prop:oplaxhmptyisthom} and Proposition \ref{prop:oplaxhmtpypolhmlgy} that the right and left morphisms of the above square are isomorphisms. Then, a simple explicit computation shows that $\sD_0$ is \good{} and that $\sH^{\pol}(\sD_0)\simeq \sH^{\sing}(\sD_0)\simeq \mathbb{Z}$. By a 2-out-of-3 property, we deduce that $\pi_C : \sH^{\sing}(C)\to \sH^{\pol}(C)$ is an isomorphism.
It follows respectively from Proposition \ref{prop:oplaxhmtpyisthom} and Proposition \ref{prop:oplaxhmtpypolhmlgy} that the right and left morphisms of the above square are isomorphisms. Then, a simple explicit computation shows that $\sD_0$ is \good{} and that $\sH^{\pol}(\sD_0)\simeq \sH^{\sing}(\sD_0)\simeq \mathbb{Z}$. By a 2-out-of-3 property, we deduce that $\pi_C : \sH^{\sing}(C)\to \sH^{\pol}(C)$ is an isomorphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
Definition \ref{def:contractible} admits an expected ``lax'' variation and Proposition \ref{prop:contractibleisgood} is still true for lax contractible $\oo$\nbd-categories.
Definition \ref{def:contractible} admits an obvious ``lax'' variation and Proposition \ref{prop:contractibleisgood} is also true for lax contractible $\oo$\nbd-categories.
\end{remark}
We end this section with an important result on slices $\oo$\nbd-category (Paragraph \ref{paragr:slices}).
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:slicecontractible}
Let $A$ be an $\oo$\nbd-category and $a_0$ an object of $A$. The $\oo$\nbd-category $A/a_0$ is contractible.
Let $A$ be an $\oo$\nbd-category and $a_0$ an object of $A$. The $\oo$\nbd-category $A/a_0$ is oplax contractible.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\todo{À écrire.}
This follows from the dual of \cite[Proposition 5.22]{ara2020theoreme}.
\end{proof}
\section{Homology of globes and spheres}
\begin{paragr}
......
......@@ -1151,10 +1151,10 @@ As an immediate consequence of the previous lemma, the functor $\lambda_{\leq n}
\ho(\oo\Cat^{\folk}) \ar[r,"\LL \lambda"] & \ho(\Ch)
\end{tikzcd}
\]
is \emph{not} commutative. If it were, then for every $n$\nbd-category $C$ and every $k >n$, we would have $H_k^{pol}(\iota_n(C))=0$ for every $k >n$, which is not even true for the case $n=1$ in the following chapter.
is \emph{not} commutative. If it were, then for every $n$\nbd-category $C$ and every $k >n$, we would have $H_k^{\pol}(\iota_n(C))=0$ for every $k >n$, which is not even true for the case $n=1$ in the following chapter.
\end{remark}
A useful consequence of Proposition \ref{prop:polhmlgytruncation} is the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:polhmlgycofibrant}
Let $n \geq 0$ and $C$ be an $\oo$\nbd-category. If $C$ has a $k$\nbd-basis for every $ 0 \leq k \leq n-1$, then the canonical map of $\ho(\Ch)$
\[
\alpha^{\pol}_C : \sH^{\pol}(C) \to \lambda(C)
......@@ -1168,7 +1168,7 @@ A useful consequence of Proposition \ref{prop:polhmlgytruncation} is the followi
\begin{proof}
\todo{À écrire}
\end{proof}
\begin{paragr}
\begin{paragr}\label{paragr:polhmlgylowdimension}
Since every $\oo$\nbd-category trivially admits its set of $0$\nbd-cells as a $0$\nbd-base, it follows from the previous proposition that for every $\oo$\nbd-category $C$ we have
\[
\sH^{\pol}_0(C)\simeq H_0(\lambda(C))
......@@ -1264,7 +1264,7 @@ Straighforward consequence of the fact that $N_n = N_{\oo} \circ \iota_n$ and th
and a thorough analysis of naturality shows that this isomorphism is nothing but the canonical morphism $c_1N_{\oo}(C) \to \tau_{\leq 1}^{i}(C)$.
\end{proof}
We can now prove the important following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:singhmlgylowdimension}
For every $\oo$\nbd-category $C$, the canonical map of $\ho(\Ch)$
\[
\alpha^{\sing}: \sH^{\sing}(C) \to \lambda(C)
......@@ -1282,7 +1282,7 @@ We can now prove the important following proposition.
\]
induced by the co-unit of the adjunction $c_{\oo} \dashv N_{\oo}$. From \ref{prop:polhmlgytruncation} we have that
\[
\tau^{i}_1\lambda c_{\oo}N_{\oo}(C) \simeq \lambda_{\leq 1} \tau_{\leq 1}^{i} c_{\oo} N_{\oo}(C)=\lambda_{\leq 1} c_1 N_{\oo}(C),
\tau^{i}_{\leq 1}\lambda c_{\oo}N_{\oo}(C) \simeq \lambda_{\leq 1} \tau_{\leq 1}^{i} c_{\oo} N_{\oo}(C)=\lambda_{\leq 1} c_1 N_{\oo}(C),
\]
and from Lemma \ref{lemma:truncationcounit} we obtain
\[
......@@ -1291,7 +1291,7 @@ We can now prove the important following proposition.
This means exactly that the image by $\overline{\tau^{i}_{\leq 1}}$ of $\alpha^{\sing}$ is an isomorphism, which is what we wanted to prove.
\end{proof}
Finally, we obtain the result we were aiming for.
\begin{proposition}
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:comphmlgylowdimension}
For every $\oo$\nbd-category $C$, the canonical comparison map
\[
\pi_C : \sH^{\sing}(C) \to \sH^{\pol}(C)
......@@ -1302,6 +1302,39 @@ Finally, we obtain the result we were aiming for.
\]
for $k \in \{0,1\}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $C$ be an $\oo$\nbd-category and consider the following commutative triangle of $\ho(\Ch)$
\[
\begin{tikzcd}[column sep=tiny]
\sH^{\sing}(C) \ar[rd,"\alpha^{\sing}"'] \ar[rr,"\pi_C"] & & \sH^{\pol}(C) \ar[dl,"\alpha^{\pol}"] \\
&\lambda(C)&
\end{tikzcd}.
\]
From Proposition \ref{prop:singhmlgylowdimension}, we know that $\alpha^{\sing}$ induces isomorphisms $H_k^{\sing}(C) \simeq H_k(\lambda(C))$ for $k \in \{0,1\}$ and from Corollary \ref{cor:polhmlgycofibrant} and Paragraph \ref{paragr:polhmlgylowdimension} we know that $\alpha^{\pol}$ induces isomorphisms $H_k^{\pol}(C) \simeq H_k(\lambda(C))$ for $k \in \{0,1\}$. The result follows then from an immediate 2-out-of-3 property.
\end{proof}
\begin{paragr}
A natural question following the above proposition is:
\begin{center}
For which $k \geq 0$ do we have $H_k^{\sing}(C) \simeq H_k^{\pol}(C)$ for every $\oo$\nbd-category $C$ ?
\end{center}
We have already seen in \ref{paragr:bubble} that when $C = B^2\mathbb{N}$ we have
\[
H_{2p}^{\sing}(B^2\mathbb{N}) \not\simeq H^{\pol}_{2p}(B^2\mathbb{N})
\]
for every $p \geq 2$. Furthermore, with a similar argument to the one given in \ref{paragr:bubble}, we have that for every $k \geq 3$, the (nerve of the) $\oo$\nbd-category $B^k\mathbb{N}$ is a $K(\mathbb{Z},k)$-space. In particular, we have
\[
H_{2p+3}^{\sing}(B^{2p +1}\mathbb{N})\simeq \mathbb{Z}/{2\mathbb{Z}}
\]
for every $p \geq 1$ (see \cite[Theorem 23.1]{eilenberg1954groups}). On the other hand, since $B^k\mathbb{N}$ is a free $k$\nbd-category, we have $H_n^{\pol}(B^k\mathbb{N})=0$ for all $n \geq k$. All in all, we have proved that for every $k \geq 4$, there exists at least one $\oo$\nbd-category $C$ such that
\[
H_k^{\sing}(C) \not\simeq H_k^{\pol}(C).
\]
However, it is still an open question to know whether for $k \in \{2,3\}$ we have
\[
H^{\sing}_k(C) \simeq H^{\pol}_k(C).
\]
The only missing part to adapt the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:comphmlgylowdimension} for these values of $k$ is the analoguous of Lemma \ref{lemma:truncationcounit}. But contrary to the case $k=1$, it is not generally true that the canonical morphism $c_k N_{\oo}(C) \to \tau^{i}_{\leq k}(C)$ is an isomorphism when $k \geq 2$. However, what we really need is that the image by $\lambda$ of this morphism be a quasi-isomorphism. In the case $k=2$, it seems that this canonical morphism admits an oplax $2$\nbd-functor as an inverse up to oplax transformation which could be an hint towards the conjecture that $H^{\sing}_2(C) \simeq H^{\pol}_2(C)$ for every $\oo$\nbd-category $C$.
\end{paragr}
%% Slightly less trivial is the following lemma.
%% \begin{lemma}
%% The following triangle of functors
......@@ -1315,7 +1348,3 @@ Finally, we obtain the result we were aiming for.
%% \end{lemma}
%%\section{Homology and Homotopy of $\oo$-categories in low dimension}
%%% Local Variables:
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: "main"
%%% End:
No preview for this file type
......@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
\maketitle
%\tableofcontents
\tableofcontents
\abstract{In this dissertation, we study the homology of strict $\oo$-categories. More precisely, we intend to compare the ``classical'' homology of an $\oo$-category (defined as the homology of its Street nerve) with its polygraphic homology. Along the way, we prove several important result concerning free strict $\oo$\nbd-categories over polygraphs-or-computad and concerning the homotopy theory of strict $\oo$\nbd-categories. }
......
......@@ -184,8 +184,16 @@ publisher = "Elsevier"
publisher={ScienceDirect},
year={1995}
}
@article{eilenberg1954groups,
title={On the groups {H}($\pi$,n), {II}: Methods of computation},
author={Eilenberg, Samuel and MacLane, Saunders},
journal={Annals of Mathematics},
pages={49--139},
year={1954},
publisher={JSTOR}
}
@article{freyd1972categories,
title={Categories of continuous functors, I},
title={Categories of continuous functors, {I}},
author={Freyd, Peter J and Kelly, G Max},
journal={Journal of pure and applied algebra},
volume={2},
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment