You are on page 1of 34

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

arXiv:1502.03925v1 [math.CT] 13 Feb 2015

Zhen Lin Low


13 February 2015

Abstract
Dwyer and Kan developed a homotopical version of the calculus of
fractions in order to get a handle on simplicial localisations of categories. We use this to show that, for a category of fibrant objects (in the
sense of Brown), Jardines cocycle categories functorially compute the
homotopy type of the hom-spaces in the simplicial localisation. As an
application, we deduce a non-abelian version of Verdiers hypercovering
theorem suggested by Rezk.

Introduction
Given a category C and a subcategory W C, the category C[W 1 ] obtained
from C by freely inverting the morphisms in W is straightforward to construct:
its objects are the objects in C and its morphisms are equivalence classes of
zigzags of arrows in C where the backward-pointing arrows are in W. The
simplicial and hammock localisations introduced by Dwyer and Kan [1980a,b]
are homotopy-theoretic versions of this construction and can be shown to have
the appropriate universal property in the context of (, 1)-categories.
Although the hom-spaces of the hammock localisation already have a fairly
simple explicit description, just as in the case of ordinary localisation, one can
sometimes obtain an even simpler description when the pair (C, W) has good
properties. For instance, Dwyer and Kan [1980c] have shown that it suces
to consider only zigzags of the form

Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, University of Cambridge,


Cambridge, UK. E-mail address: Z.L.Low@dpmms.cam.ac.uk

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


when C is a closed model category in the sense of Quillen [1967] and W is its
subcategory of weak equivalences. On the other hand, when C is a category
of brant objects in the sense of Brown [1973] (and W is its subcategory of
weak equivalences), it is well known that every morphism in C[W 1 ] can be
represented by what Jardine [2009] calls cocycles, i.e. zigzags of the form

and the main goal of this paper is to show that the hom-spaces of the hammock
localisation of (C, W) have the homotopy type of the nerve of the cocycle
categories.[1]
As an application, we consider the category of (locally brant) simplicial
presheaves on a site. From the point of view of homotopy theory, the central problem of sheaf theory is essentially the determination of the homotopy
type the space of sections (over a given object in the site) of the hypersheaf
associated with a given simplicial presheaf: for example, as Brown [1973, 3]
observed, sheaf cohomology can be paraphrased in these terms via the formula
below,
Rn (, A)
= mn R(, K(A, m))
where A is an abelian (pre)sheaf, K(A, m) is the simplicial (pre)sheaf corresponding (under DoldKan) to the chain complex consisting of just A in degree
m, and m n. Verdiers hypercovering theorem in its classical form is a colimit
formula for sheaf cohomology in terms of generalised ech cochain complexes,
and following a suggestion of Rezk [2014], we derive a non-abelian version
that computes (up to weak homotopy equivalence) R(, X) for any locally
brant simplicial presheaf X in terms of a homotopy colimit of simplicial sets
of generalised sections of X.
Here is a brief outline of what follows:
In 1, we collect some miscellaneous facts about homotopy colimits.
In 2, we review the denitions and fundamental results regarding zigzags in relative categories.
In 3, we introduce a sucient condition for a category with weak equivalences to admit a homotopical calculus of right fractions.
[1] A related claim previously appeared as Proposition 3.23 in [Cisinski, 2010b], but the proof
at loc. cit. has a gap: while it is true that the hammock localisation of C with respect to
weak equivalences is DwyerKan equivalent to the hammock localisation of C with respect
to trivial fibrations, the hypotheses of Proposition 8.1 in [Dwyer and Kan, 1980b] are not
satisfied, so it does not follow that we have a homotopy calculus of right fractions. Instead,
we must use a somewhat more complicated argument.

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


In 4, we prove that a category of brant objects with functorial path
objects satises the aforementioned sucient condition.
In 5, we dene the notion of a simplicial category of brant objects
and give a homotopy colimit formula for the hom-spaces of its hammock
localisation.
In 6, we apply this theory to the study of simplicial presheaves on a
site.
In A, we extend the result to the case of a category of brant objects
without functorial path objects.

Conventions
It will be convenient to implicitly assume that categories are small, especially
in 25 and A. Since the categories of interest are usually not small, it
is not possible to apply these results as stated literally; one way to work
around this to adopt a suitable universe axiom. Alternatively, because most
of the categories under consideration in 6 are essentially small, one could just
replace them with small skeletons where necessary, thereby avoiding the use
of universes.

Acknowledgements
Discussions with Aaron Mazel-Gee led to the discovery and correction of some
errors in earlier drafts of this paper. His comments also helped improve the
exposition.
The author gratefully acknowledges nancial support from the Cambridge
Commonwealth, European and International Trust and the Department of
Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics.

Homotopy colimits
The following denition is due to Bouseld and Kan [1972].
Definition 1.1. Let X : C op sSet be a small simplicially enriched diagram.
The homotopy colimit holimC op X is the diagonal of the bisimplicial set

B (X, C, 1) dened below,


a
Bn (X, C, 1) =
X(cn ) C(cn1 , cn ) C(c0 , c1 )
(c0 ,...,cn )

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


where the disjoint union is indexed over (n + 1)-tuples of objects in C, with
the evident face and degeneracy operators.
Example 1.2. Let X : C op Set be a small diagram and let D be the
category of elements of X, i.e. (1 X)op where (1 X) is the comma category.
Regarding X as a diagram C op sSet, it is not hard to see that holimC X is

(isomorphic to) the nerve N(D).


We will need some miscellaneous facts about homotopy conality. First, let
us say that a weakly contractible category is a category A such that the
unique morphism N(A) 0 is a weak homotopy equivalence of simplicial
sets. We then make the following denition:
Definition 1.3. A homotopy cofinal functor is a functor F : C D with
the following property: for all objects d in D, the comma category (d F ) is
weakly contractible.
Lemma 1.4. Let P : E B is a Grothendieck fibration. The following are
equivalent:
(i) The (strict) fibres of P are weakly contractible.
(ii) P is a homotopy cofinal functor.
Proof. Let b be an object in B. There is a functor P 1 {b} (b P ) sending
objects e in P 1 {b} to (e, idb ) in (b P ), and it is well known that this functor
has a right adjoint when P : E B is a Grothendieck bration. Since adjoint
functors induce homotopy equivalences of nerves, it follows that P 1{b} is
weakly contractible if and only if (b P ) is weakly contractible.

Lemma 1.5. Let F : C D and G : D E be functors. If GF : C E
is homotopy cofinal and G : D E is fully faithful, then F : C D is also
homotopy cofinal.
Proof. Let d be any object in D. If G : D E is fully faithful, then there
is an isomorphism (d F )
= (G(d) GF ), so F : C D is homotopy conal
when GF : C E is.

Theorem 1.6 (Quillens Theorem A). Homotopy cofinal functors are weak
homotopy equivalences of categories.
Proof. See [Quillen, 1973, 1].

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

Lemma 1.7. Consider a pullback diagram in Cat:


E

If P : E B is a Grothendieck fibration and F : B B has a right adjoint,


then L : E E also has a right adjoint.
Proof. Let G : B B be any right adjoint for F : B B, let e1 be an
object in E, let e0 be an object in E , let b1 = e1 , let b0 = P (e0 ), choose a
cartesian morphism e1 : (b1 ) e1 e1 in E such that P (
e1 ) = b1 , where
b1 : F (G(b1 )) b1 is the counit component, and let R(e1 ) be the unique
object in E such that P (R(e1 )) = Gb1 and L(R(e1 )) = (b1 ) e1 . We then
have the following commutative diagram,
L

E (e0 , R(e1 ))

E(L(e0 ), L(R(e1 )))



E L e0 , e1

E(L(e0 ), e1 )

B (b0 , G(b1 ))

B(F (b0 ), F (G(b1 )))


 B(F (b0 ), b1 )
B F b0 , b1

where both squares and the outer rectangle are pullback diagrams; but the
composite of the bottom row is a bijection, so the composite of the top row is
also a bijection. Thus, L : E E indeed has a right adjoint.

Lemma 1.8. Let X : C op sSet be a small simplicially enriched diagram. If
C has cotensor products m c for every standard simplex m and every object
c in C, then (regarding the underlying category C as a simplicially enriched
category with discrete hom-spaces) the canonical comparison morphism
holimC op X holimC op X

is a weak homotopy equivalence.


Proof. Let Y and Y be the transposes of the bisimplicial sets B (X, C, 1)
and B (X, C, 1), respectively, and for each natural number m, let Cm be the
m-th level of the simplicial category corresponding to C. (Note that C = C0 .)
Then,
a
Ym,n =
X(cn )m Cm (cn1 , cn ) Cm (c0 , c1 )
(c0 ,...,cn )

=
Ym,n

X(cn )m C0 (cn1 , cn ) C0 (c0 , c1 )

(c0 ,...,cn )

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


and the canonical comparison morphism holimC X holimC X is simply the

diagonal of the bisimplicial set morphism Y Y dened in degree m by the


m-fold iterated degeneracy C0 Cm . But, for any c and c in C,
C0 (c , m c)
= Cm (c , c)
so the m-fold iterated degeneracy C0 Cm has a right adjoint. It follows by
lemma 1.7 that the morphisms Ym Ym are nerves of left adjoint functors and
hence are (simplicial) homotopy equivalences a fortiori. Thus, by the homotopy invariance of diagonals,[2] the induced morphism holimC X holimC X

is a weak homotopy equivalence.



We will also need the following version of the Grothendieck construction:
Definition 1.9. Let X : C op Cat be a small diagram. The oplax colimit
for X is the category limGr
X dened below:
C op
The objects are pairs (c, x) where c is an object in C and x is an object
in X (c).
The morphisms (c , x ) (c, x) are pairs (f, g) where f : c c is a
morphism in C and g : x X (f )(x) is a morphism in X (c ).
Composition and identities are inherited from C and X .
Example 1.10. Let X : C op Set be a small diagram. Regarding X as
a diagram C op Cat, it is not hard to see that limGr
X is the category of
C
elements of X, i.e. (1 X)op .
Theorem 1.11 (Thomasons homotopy colimit theorem). Let X : C op Cat
be a small diagram. There is a weak homotopy equivalence


X
holimC op N X N limGr
C op

which is moreover natural in C and X .


Proof. See [Thomason, 1979].

Zigzags in relative categories


Recall the following denitions from [Barwick and Kan, 2012]:

[2] See e.g. Theorem 15.11.11 in [Hirschhorn, 2003].

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

Definition 2.1.
A relative category is a pair C = (und C, weq C) where und C is a category and weq C is a (usually non-full) subcategory of und C containing
all the objects.
Given a relative category C, a weak equivalence in C is a morphism in
weq C.
The homotopy category of a relative category C is the category Ho C
obtained by freely inverting the weak equivalences in C.
Given relative categories C and D, a relative functor C D is a
functor und C und D that restricts to a functor weq C weq D, and
the relative functor category [C, D]h is the relative category whose
underlying category is the full subcategory of the ordinary functor category [und C, und D] spanned by the relative functors, with the weak
equivalences being the natural transformations whose components are
weak equivalences in D.
Remark 2.2. The 2-category of (small) categories admits several 2-fully faithful embeddings into the 2-category of (small) relative categories; unless otherwise stated, we will regard an ordinary category as minimal relative category where the only weak equivalences are the identity morphisms. In particular, given an ordinary category C and a relative category D, we will often
tacitly identify the ordinary functor category [C, D] with the relative functor
category [C, D]h .
Definition 2.3.
A zigzag type is a nite sequence of non-zero integers (k0 , . . . , kn ),
where n 0, such that for 0 i < n, the sign of ki is the opposite
of the sign of ki+1 .
Given a nite sequence of integers (k0 , . . . , kn ), [k0 ; . . . ; kn ] is the relative
category whose underlying category is freely generated by the graph
0

|k0 | + + |kn |

where (counting from the left) the rst |k0 | arrows point rightward (resp.
leftward) if k0 > 0 (resp. k0 < 0), the next |k2 | arrows point rightward
(resp. leftward) if k1 > 0 (resp. k1 < 0), etc., with the weak equivalences
being generated by the leftward-pointing arrows.
A zigzag in a relative category C of type [k0 ; . . . ; kn ] is a relative functor
[k0 ; . . . ; kn ] C; given a zigzag, its length is m = |k0 | + + |kn |, its
7

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


domain is the image of the object 0, and its codomain is the image of
the object m.
Example 2.4. For example, [1; 2] denotes the relative category generated
by the following graph,
0

with 1 0 being the unique non-trivial weak equivalence.


Remark 2.5. For any [k0 ; . . . ; kn ], if |k0 | + + |kn | > 0, then there is a
unique zigzag type (l0 , . . . , lm ) such that [k0 ; . . . ; kn ] = [l0 ; . . . ; lm ]. However,
it is convenient to allow unnormalised notation.
Definition 2.6. Let X and Y be objects in a relative category C and let
(k0 , . . . , kn ) be a nite sequence of integers. The category of zigzags in C
from X to Y of type (k0 ; . . . ; kn ) is the category C [k0 ;...;kn ] (X, Y ) dened below:
The objects are the zigzags in C of type [k0 ; . . . ; kn ] whose domain is X
and whose codomain is Y .
The morphisms are commutative diagrams in C of the form
X

where the top row is the domain, the bottom row is the codomain, and
the vertical arrows are weak equivalences in C.
Composition and identities are inherited from C.
Remark. In other words, the morphisms in C [k0 ;...;kn ] (X, Y ) are certain hammocks of width 1, in the sense of Dwyer and Kan [1980b].
For brevity, let us say that a weak homotopy equivalence of categories
is a functor F : C D such that N(F ) : N(C) N(D) (i.e. the induced
morphism of nerves) is a weak homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets. The
following is a variation on the homotopy calculus of right fractions introduced
in [Dwyer and Kan, 1980b].

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Definition 2.7. A relative category C admits a homotopical calculus of
right fractions if it satises the following condition:
For all natural numbers k and all objects X and Y in C, the evident
functor
C [1;k] (X, Y ) C [1;k;1] (X, Y )
dened by inserting an identity morphism is a weak homotopy equivalence of categories.
Remark 2.8. Let C be a relative category and let W be weq C considered
as a relative category where all morphisms are weak equivalences. Then the
following are equivalent:
(i) C admits a homotopy calculus of right fractions in the sense of Dwyer
and Kan [1980b].
(ii) Both C and W admit a homotopical calculus of right fractions in the
sense of the above denition.
Moreover, if the weak equivalences in C have the 2-out-of-3 property, then W
admits a homotopical calculus of right fractions if C does.
Remark 2.9. If a relative category C admits a homotopical calculus of right
fractions, then C also admits a homotopical three-arrow calculus. In particular, the results of [Low and Mazel-Gee, 2014] apply, i.e. any Reedy-brant
[ of the Rezk classication diagram N(C) is a Segal space,
replacement N(C)
[ is a complete Segal space if C is a saturated relative category.
and N(C)
Theorem 2.10 (Dwyer and Kan). Let C be a relative category and let LH C be
the hammock localisation.
(i) If C admits a homotopical calculus of right fractions, then the reduction

morphism N C [1;1] (X, Y ) LH C(X, Y ) is a weak homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets.

(ii) The reduction morphism N C [1;1] (X, Y ) LH C(X, Y ) is natural in the
following sense: given any weak equivalence X X and any morphism
Y Y in C, the following diagram commutes in sSet,
N C [1;1] (X, Y )

LH C(X, Y )

N C [1;1] (X , Y )

LH C(X , Y )

where the left vertical arrow is defined by composition and the right vertical arrow is defined by concatenation.
9

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Proof. (i). This is Proposition 6.2 in [Dwyer and Kan, 1980b]. Note that the
second half of the homotopy calculus of right fractions condition is not used,
so it does indeed suce to have a homotopical calculus of right fractions.
(ii). Obvious.

Corollary 2.11. Let C be a relative category. If C admits a homotopical


calculus of right fractions, then for any weak equivalences X X and Y Y
in C, the induced functor
C [1;1] (X, Y ) C [1;1] (X , Y )
is a weak homotopy equivalence of categories.
Proof. Use naturality (as in theorem 2.10) and Proposition 3.3 in [Dwyer and

Kan, 1980b].

The homotopical calculus of cocycles


The following notion of cocycle is originally due to Jardine [2009].
Definition 3.1. Let C be a relative category and let V weq C be a subcategory that contains all identity morphisms.
Given objects X and Y in C, a V-cocycle (f, v) : X [ Y in C is a
diagram in C of the form below,
X

X is a morphism in V.
where v : X
[1;1]

We write CV
(X, Y ) for the full subcategory of C [1;1] (X, Y ) spanned
by the V-cocycles.
If V = weq C, then we may simply say cocycle instead of V-cocycle.
Remark 3.2. In other words, a cocycle in C is a zigzag of type [1; 1].
Proposition 3.3. Let C be a relative category and let : C Ho C be the
localising functor. If C admits a homotopical calculus of right fractions, then:
(i) Every morphism X Y in Ho C can be factored as (f ) (w)1 for
some cocycle (f, w) : X
[ Y in C.
(ii) Two cocycles X
[ Y represent the same morphism X Y in Ho C if
and only if they are in the same connected component of C [1;1] (X, Y ).
10

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Proof. This is an immediate consequence of Proposition 3.1 in [Dwyer and
Kan, 1980b] and theorem 2.10.

Recall that a category with weak equivalences is a relative category
in which the weak equivalences have the 2-out-of-3 property and include all
isomorphisms.
Heuristically, a homotopical calculus of cocycles for a category with weak
equivalences consists of three pieces of data: a class of good weak equivalences, a category of enhanced cocycles, and a forgetful functor from the
category of enhanced cocycles to the category of cocycles, such that:
The class of good weak equivalences is closed under composition and
pullback.
Enhanced cocycles can be pulled back along pairs of weak equivalences.
The underlying cocycle of an enhanced cocycle is a V-cocycle.
Every cocycle can be replaced with an enhanced cocycle in a homotopically unique way.
More precisely, we make the following denition.
Definition 3.4. Let C be a category with weak equivalences. A homotopical
calculus of cocycles for C consists of a subcategory V weq C containing
all isomorphisms, a category C fun , and a functor U : C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h
satisfying the following conditions:
V is closed under pullback in C in the sense that, for any morphism
v : X Y in V and any morphism g : Y Y in C, there is a pullback
diagram in C of the form below,
X

X
v

and in any such pullback diagram, v : X Y is also in V.


The composite
C fun

weq [[1; 1], C]h

hdom, codomi

weq C weq C

is a Grothendieck bration, where dom (resp. codom) is the functor


weq [[1; 1], C]h weq C sending a cocycle X [ Y to X (resp. Y ), and
U : C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h preserves cartesian morphisms.
11

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


For each object E in C fun , the leftward-pointing arrow of the cocycle UE
is a morphism in V.
For each pair (X, Y ) of objects in C, writing C fun (X, Y ) for the strict
bre of the above functor C fun weq C weq C, the induced functor
UX,Y : C fun (X, Y ) C [1;1] (X, Y )
is homotopy conal.
Remark 3.5. Morphisms in V can be pulled back along arbitrary morphisms
[1;1]
in C, so the V-cocycle category CV
(X, Y ) is contravariantly pseudofunctorial
in X and strictly functorial in Y .
Remark 3.6. We do not require hdom, codomi : weq [[1; 1], C]h weq C
weq C to be a Grothendieck bration. Nonetheless, it still makes sense to talk
about cartesian morphisms in weq [[1; 1], C]h . For example, consider a cocycle
in C,
X

where v : Z X is in V; then, for any weak equivalence w : X X in C, we


can form the following commutative diagram in C,
X

where the left square is a pullback diagram in C, and it is straightforward to


verify that the corresponding morphism (f , v ) (f, v) is a cartesian morphism in weq [[1; 1], C]h .
The primary example of a homotopical calculus of cocycles is the case where
C is a category of brant objects, V is the subcategory of trivial brations
in C, C fun is a certain full subcategory of weq [[1; 1], C]h , and the functor
U : C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h is the inclusion. The details of this are deferred to
the following sections.
For the remainder of this section, let C be a category with weak equivalences
and let V weq C, C fun , and U : C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h be the data of a
homotopical calculus of cocycles in C.
Lemma 3.7. Let D be a full subcategory of C (regarded as a relative category
with the same weak equivalences) and let U : D fun weq [[1; 1], D]h be defined

12

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

by the following pullback diagram in Cat:


U

D fun
C fun

weq [[1; 1], D]h


weq [[1; 1], C]h

If D is a homotopically replete in C,[3] then V D weq D, D fun , and U :


D fun weq [[1; 1], D]h define a homotopical calculus of cocycles in D.
Proof. Since D is a full and homotopically replete subcategory of C, V D is
closed under pullback in D. It is not hard to verify that the following diagram
is a pullback square in Cat,
weq [[1; 1], D]h
weq [[1; 1], C]h

hdom, codomi

hdom, codomi

weq D weq D

weq C weq C

so by the pullback pasting lemma, the outer rectangle in the diagram below is
also a pullback diagram in Cat:
D fun
C fun

weq [[1; 1], D]h


weq [[1; 1], C]h

hdom, codomi

weq D weq D

hdom, codomi

weq C weq C

Recalling that the class of Grothendieck brations is closed under pullback


in Cat, we deduce that the composite of the top row is a Grothendieck
bration, as required. Moreover, any morphism in weq [[1; 1], D]h that is a
cartesian morphism in weq [[1; 1], C]h is automatically a cartesian morphism
in weq [[1; 1], D]h , so U : D fun weq [[1; 1], D]h preserves cartesian morphisms. Since the remaining axioms can be checked brewise, this completes the
proof.

Lemma 3.8. For each object Y in C, there exist an object IY in C fun and a
commutative diagram in W of the form below,
id

id

p1

Path(Y )

p0

where the bottom row is the cocycle UIY .


[3] i.e. for any weak equivalence w : X Y in C, if either X or Y is in D, then X, Y , and
w : X Y are all in D.

13

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Proof. Let Z be the cocycle (idY , idY ) : Y [ Y in C. By denition, UY,Y :
C fun (Y, Y ) C [1;1] (Y, Y ) is a homotopy conal functor, so the comma category (Z UY,Y ) is weakly contractible. In particular, it is inhabited, so there
indeed exist an object IY in C fun and a commutative diagram of the required
form.

Lemma 3.9. For any pair (X, Y ) of objects in C, in the following commutative
diagram,
[1;1]

C fun (X, Y )
C fun (X, Y )

CV

UX,Y

(X, Y )

C [1;1] (X, Y )

every arrow is a weak homotopy equivalence of categories.


Proof. The bottom horizontal arrow is a homotopy conal functor and the
right vertical arrow is fully faithful. By lemma 1.5, the top horizontal arrow
is also a homotopy conal functor, so by Quillens Theorem A (1.6) and the
2-out-of-3 property, the inclusion is indeed a weak homotopy equivalence of
categories.

Lemma 3.10. Let W = weq C, let Y be an object in C, and let R be the
following category:
The objects are tuples (E, w, u), where E is an object in C fun , and w
and u are weak equivalences in C making the diagram in C shown below
commute,
Y

Y
u

id

where the bottom row is the cocycle UE. (So (codom U )E = Y .)


The morphisms are morphisms k in C fun such that the morphism Uk
in weq [[1; 1], C]h makes the evident diagram commute. (In particular,
(codom U )k = idY in C.)
Composition and identities are inherited from C fun .
Then the functor P : R Y / W defined by sending (E, w, u) to w is a Grothendieck fibration whose (strict) fibres are weakly contractible.

14

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Proof. Let (E, w, u) be an object in R and suppose UE is the following cocycle:
v

Let w : Y X and f : X X be weak equivalences in C such that the


diagram below commutes:
Y

Y
w

Since hdom, codomi U : C fun W W is a Grothendieck bration, there is


a cartesian morphism k : E E in C fun such that Uk is of the form below:
X

id

Moreover, since Uk : UE UE is a cartesian morphism in weq [[1; 1], C]h ,


there is a weak equivalence u : Y Z in C making the following diagram
commute:
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y
u

Y
id

r
g

id

id

Thus, (E , w , u ) is an object in R and k : E E denes a morphism


(E , w , u) (E, w, u) in R.
We now show that k : (E , w , u ) (E, w, u) is a cartesian morphism in
R. Suppose we have a morphism h : (E , w , u) (E, w, u) in R and a
commutative diagram in W of the form below,
Y

Y
w

w
x

15

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


where f x : X X is the underlying morphism in C of P h : w
w. Since k : E E is a cartesian morphism in C fun , there is a unique
morphism h : E E such that k h = h with (dom U )h = x and
(codom U )h = idY . A similar argument using the fact that Uk : UE UE
is a cartesian morphism in weq [[1; 1], C]h shows that k denes a morphism
(E , w , u ) (E , w , u) in R. Hence, k : (E , w , u) (E, w, u) is indeed a
cartesian morphism in R.
Finally, it remains to be shown that the (strict) bres of P : R Y / W
are weakly contractible. But for any object w : Y X in Y / W, the corresponding bre of P is isomorphic to the comma category ((idY , w) UX,Y ),
and since UX,Y : C fun (X, Y ) C [1;1] (X, Y ) is a homotopy conal functor,
((idY , w) UX,Y ) is weakly contractible, as required.

Lemma 3.11. Let W = weq C and let (X, Y ) be a pair of objects in C, let k
be a natural number, let H0 (X, Y ) = C [1;k] (X, Y ), let H1 (X, Y ) = C [1;k;1] ,
and let H2 (X, Y ) be defined by the following pullback diagram in Cat,
Q

H2 (X, Y )

R
P

d
Y/

H1 (X, Y )

where H1 (X, Y ) Y / W is the evident projection and P : R


Grothendieck fibration defined in lemma 3.10.

Y/

W is the

(i) The functor d : H2 (X, Y ) H1 (X, Y ) is a weak homotopy equivalence


of categories.
(ii) There is a weak homotopy equivalence s2 : H0 (X, Y ) H2 (X, Y ) such
that the composite d s2 : H0 (X, Y ) H1 (X, Y ) is the functor s :
H0 (X, Y ) H1 (X, Y ) defined by inserting an identity morphism.
Proof. (i). Lemma 3.10 says P : R Y / W is a Grothendieck bration with
weakly contractible (strict) bres, and these properties are preserved by pullback, so d : H2 (X, Y ) H1 (X, Y ) is also a Grothendieck bration with
weakly contractible (strict) bres. Hence, by lemma 1.4 and Quillens Theorem A (1.6), d : H2 (X, Y ) H1 (X, Y ) is a weak homotopy equivalence of
categories.
(ii). Let s2 : H0 (X, Y ) H2 (X, Y ) be the unique functor such that d s2 = s
and Q s2 is the constant functor with value IY , where IY is an object in R as
in lemma 3.8. We will construct a functor r 2 : H2 (X, Y ) H0 (X, Y ) making

16

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


the following diagram commute in Ho sSet,
N(H0 (X, Y ))

N s2

N(H2 (X, Y ))
N r2

id

N(d)

N(H0 (X, Y ))

N(s)

N(H1 (X, Y ))

and (by the 2-out-of-6 property) it will follow that s2 : H0 (X, Y ) H2 (X, Y )
is indeed a weak homotopy equivalence of categories.
First, observe that every object in H2 (X, Y ) has an underlying commutative diagram in C of the form below:
Y

id

X
k
vk

0
X

k1
X

fk1

k
X

j X
j+1 in the above diagram.
For 0 j < k, write fj for the morphism X

X
k is in V, we may functorially construct the following
Since vk : X
k
commutative diagram in C,

X
0

X
k1

X
k

vk1

v0

0
X

fk1

k1
X

vk

fk1

k
X

where each square is a pullback diagram in C. We then obtain the diagram in


C shown below,
X

X
0

X
k1

id

X
0

X
k1

vk1

v0

0
X

fk1

k1
X

X
k
vk

fk1

k
X

where every vertical arrow is a weak equivalence in C. Omitting the rightmost


arrow in the top row gives an object in H0 (X, Y ), so this construction denes
a functor r 2 : H2 (X, Y ) H0 (X, Y ) equipped with a zigzag of natural weak
equivalences connecting d and s r 2 .
17

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


k = Y and w = idY . Then, for 0 j < k, there is a unique
Now suppose X
j X
in C making the diagram below commute,
morphism uj : X
j
j
X

fj

j+1
X

uj
id

X
j

uj+1
fj

X
j+1

vj

j
X

vj+1

fj

j+1
X

where (for convenience) we dene uk = u. Since q u = idY , we obtain the


following commutative diagram in C,
X

0
X

X
0

fk1

uk1

u0

k1
X

X
k1

q fk1

where every vertical arrow is weak equivalence in C. Thus, we have a natural


weak equivalence idH0 (X,Y ) r 2 s2 . This completes the proof of the claim. 
Theorem 3.12. Let C be a category with weak equivalences, let LH C be the
hammock localisation, and let X and Y be objects in C. If C admits a homotopical calculus of cocycles with distinguished subcategory V weq C, then:


[1;1]
(i) The reduction morphism N CV
(X, Y ) LH C(X, Y ) is a weak homotopy equivalence.


[1;1]
(ii) The reduction morphism N CV
(X, Y ) LH C(X, Y ) is natural in
the following sense: for any morphisms X X and Y Y in C, the
following diagram commutes in Ho sSet,


[1;1]
N CV
(X, Y )
LH C(X, X)


[1;1]
N CV
(X , Y )

LH C(X , Y )

where the left vertical arrow is defined as in remark 3.5 and the right
vertical arrow is defined by concatenation.
(iii) There is an isomorphism


[1;1]
N CV
(, )
= LH C(, )
of functors Ho C op Ho C Ho sSet.
18

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Proof. (i). Combine theorem 2.10 with lemmas 3.9 and 3.11.
(ii). Straightforward.
(iii). This is an immediate consequence of (i) and (ii).

Categories of fibrant objects


The following denition is due to Brown [1973].
Definition 4.1. A category of fibrant objects is a category C with nite
products and equipped with a pair (W, F ) of subclasses of mor C satisfying
these axioms:
(A) (C, W) is a category with weak equivalences.
(B) Every isomorphism is in F , and F is closed under composition.
(C) Pullbacks along morphisms in F exist in C, and the pullback of a morphism that is in F (resp. W F ) is also a morphism that is in F (resp.
W F ).
(D) For each object X in C, there is a commutative diagram of the form
below,
X

Path(X)

X X
where : X X X is the diagonal morphism, i : X Path(X) is
in W, and Path(X) X X is in F .
(E) For any object X in C, the unique morphism X 1 is in F .
In a category of brant objects as above,
a weak equivalence is a morphism in W,
a fibration is a morphism in F , and
a trivial fibration (or acyclic fibration) is a morphism in W F .
Example 4.2. Of course, the full subcategory of brant objects in a model
category is a category of brant objects, with weak equivalences and brations
inherited from the model structure.
19

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Example 4.3. Let M be a right proper model category, let W be the class of
weak equivalences, and let F be the class of morphisms p : X Y with the
following property: every pullback square in M of the form below
X

X
p

is also a homotopy pullback square in M. (In other words, F is the class of


sharp maps in M in the sense of Rezk [1998].) Let E be the full subcategory
of M spanned by those objects X such that the unique morphism X 1 is
in F . Then E is a category of brant objects, with weak equivalences W and
brations F .
Definition 4.4. Let C be a category of brant objects and let (X, Y ) be a pair
of objects in C. A functional correspondence (p, v) : X [ Y is a cocycle,
v

Y X is a bration.
such that hp, vi : X
fun
We write C (resp. C fun (X, Y )) for the full subcategory of weq [[1; 1], C]h
(resp. C [1;1] (X, Y )) spanned by the functional correspondences.
Remark 4.5. Since product projections in a category of brant objects are
X is a trivial bration and p : X
Y is a
brations, it follows that v : X
bration. However, the converse is not true: for instance, (idY , idY ) : Y [ Y
is rarely a functional correspondence.
Lemma 4.6. Let C be a category of fibrant objects and let W = weq C.
(i) The functor C fun W W sending functional correspondences X [ Y
to the pair (X, Y ) is a Grothendieck fibration.
(ii) The inclusion C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h preserves cartesian morphisms.
Proof. Consider a functional correspondence in C, say:
v

Let f : X X and g : Y Y be weak equivalences in C. By axiom C, we


may form the following pullback diagram in C:

hp , v i

Y X

X
hp, vi

gf

20

Y X

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


By considering the cases f = id and g = id separately and using the pullback
X is a trivial bration, and
pasting lemma, we may deduce that v : X
hence that (p , v ) : X [ Y is a functional correspondence in C. It is then
straightforward to verify that the commutative diagram
v

Y
g

denes a cartesian morphism in both C fun and weq [[1; 1], C]h .

It is convenient to slightly strengthen the axioms given earlier.


Definition 4.7. A path object functor for a category of brant objects C
consists of the following data:
A functor Path : C C.
Natural transformations i : idC Path and p0 , p1 : Path idE such
that (Path(C), iX , (p0 )X , (p1 )X ) is a path object for every object X in C,
i.e. h(p0 )X , (p1 )X i : Path(X) X X is a bration and (p0 )X iX =
(p1 )X iX = idX .
We say C has functorial path objects if it admits a path object functor.
Lemma 4.8 (Factorisation lemma). Let f : X Y be a morphism in a
category of fibrant objects C.
(i) There exists a commutative diagram in C of the form below,
X

id

Ef

where the bottom row is a functional correspondence in C.


(ii) Moreover, if C has functorial path objects, then u, v, and p can be chosen
functorially (with respect to f ).
Proof. See (the proof of) the factorisation lemma in [Brown, 1973].

Lemma 4.9. Let C be a category of fibrant objects and let (X, Y ) be a pair
of objects in C. If C has functorial path objects, then the inclusion UX,Y :
C fun (X, Y ) C [1;1] (X, Y ) is homotopy cofinal.
21

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Proof. Let (f, w) : X [ Y be a cocycle in C. We must show that the comma
category ((f, w) UX,Y ) is weakly contractible. By lemma 4.8, we may factor
Y X as a weak equivalence followed by a bration, yielding an
hf, wi : X
object in ((f, w) UX,Y ). We may then use the functoriality of this factorisation to construct a zigzag of natural weak equivalences between id((f,w)UX,Y )
and a constant endofunctor, and it follows that ((f, w) UX,Y ) is weakly contractible.

Remark 4.10. The argument in the proof above is essentially the same as
the proof of Theorem 14.6.2 in [Hirschhorn, 2003], but applied in a dierent
context.
Theorem 4.11. Let C be a category of fibrant objects and let V be the subcategory of trivial fibrations in C. If C has functorial path objects, then V weq C,
C fun , and C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h constitute a homotopical calculus of cocycles
in C.
Proof. Combine lemmas 4.6 and 4.9.

To extend the above result to the case where C is not assumed to have functorial path objects, we would have to prove lemma 4.9 without using functorial
factorisations. We will do this in the appendix.

Simplicial categories of fibrant objects


One way of getting a category of brant objects with functorial path objects
is to take the full subcategory of brant objects in a simplicial closed model
category. We may treat these axiomatically as follows:
Definition 5.1. A simplicial category of fibrant objects is a simplicially
enriched category C with simplicially enriched nite products and equipped
with a pair (W, F ) of subclasses of mor C satisfying axioms A, B, C, E, and
these additional axioms:
(C ) Simplicially enriched pullbacks along morphisms in F exist in C.
(F) For any nite simplicial set K and any object X in C, there exists an
object K X in C equipped with a (simplicially enriched natural) isomorphism
sSet(K, C(, X))
= C(, K X)
of simplicially enriched functors C op sSet.

22

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


(G) For any monomorphism i : K L of nite simplicial sets and any
bration p : X Y in C, the morphisms
i idY : L Y K Y

idK p : K X K Y

are brations in C, the morphism


i  p : L X (K X) KY (L Y )
induced by the commutative diagram in C shown below
idL p

LX

LY

i idX

i idY

K X

idK p

KY

is a bration in C, and if i is an anodyne extension (resp. p is a trivial


bration), then both i idY (resp. idK p) and i  p are trivial brations.
Example 5.2. Of course, if M is a simplicial closed model category and
Mf is the simplicially enriched full subcategory of brant objects, then Mf
admits the structure of a simplicial category of brant objects with the weak
equivalences and brations inherited from M.
Proposition 5.3. Let C be a simplicial category of fibrant objects. Then the
underlying ordinary category C (satisfies axiom D and) is a category of fibrant
objects with functorial path objects.
Proof. It straightforward to verify that 1 () is (the functor part of) a path
object functor for C.

Lemma 5.4. Let C be a simplicial category of fibrant objects, let X be an object
in C, let Q be the full subcategory of the simplicially enriched slice category
C /X spanned by the trivial fibrations, and let p : U X be an object in Q, i.e.
a trivial fibration in C.
(i) For any finite simplicial set K, the cotensor product K X p : K X U
X exists in Q.
(ii) For any monomorphism i : K L of finite simplicial sets, the induced
morphism i X U : L X U K X U is a trivial fibration in C.
Proof. (i). Dene the object K X p : K X U X in C/X by the following
pullback diagram in C,
K X U

K U

K X p

idK p

K X

X
23

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


where the bottom arrow is the morphism induced by the unique morphism
K 0 . By axiom G, idK p : K U K X is a trivial bration in C,
so by axiom C, K X p : K X U X is also a trivial bration in C, hence
is an object in Q. It is straightforward to verify that K X p has the required
simplicially enriched universal property in Q.
(ii). By axiom G, we have a trivial bration
i  p : L U (K U ) KX (L X)
induced by the commutative diagram in C shown below:
LU

idL p

LX

i idU

i idX

K U

idK p

KX

Moreover, by the pullback pasting lemma, we have the following commutative


diagram in C,
L X U

LU

K X U

i idU

ip

i X U

(K U) KX (L X)

Z X p

K U
idK p

LX

i idX

K X

where every square and rectangle is a pullback diagram in C. Thus, by axiom


C, i X U : L X U K X U is indeed a trivial bration in C.

Lemma 5.5. With notation as in lemma 5.4:
(i) Q has simplicially enriched finite products.
(ii) Given any monomorphism i : K L of finite simplicial sets and any
pair (p , p) of objects in Q, for each morphism f : K Q(p , p), there
exist a morphism v : p p in Q and a morphism g : L Q(p , p)
making the following diagram commute:
K

Q(v, p)

Q(p , p)

24

Q(p , p)

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Proof. (i). It is clear that Q has a simplicially enriched terminal object, and
the existence of simplicially enriched binary products is an immediate consequence of axioms C and C .
(ii). By lemma 5.4, f : K Q(p , p) corresponds to a morphism f : p
K X p in Q, and by axiom C, we may form the following pullback diagram
in Q,
p

L X p

i X p
f

K X p

where (the underlying morphism of) v : p p is a trivial bration in C.


Then g : p L X p corresponds to a morphism g : L Q(p , p), and it is
straightforward to see that diagram in question commutes.

Corollary 5.6. Let C be a simplicial category of fibrant objects, let X be
an object in C, let Q be the full subcategory of the simplicially enriched slice
category C /X spanned by the trivial fibrations, and let 0 [Q] be the category
obtained by applying 0 to the hom-spaces of Q. Then 0 [Q]op is a filtered
category.
Proof. Recalling lemma 5.5, it suces to show that, for any parallel pair f0 , f1 :
p p in Q, there is a morphism v : p p in Q such that f0 v = f1 v in
0 [Q]. But (f0 , f1 ) dene a morphism f : 1 Q(p , p), so the lemma implies
there exist a morphism v : p p in Q and a morphism g : 1 Q(p , p)
making the diagram below commute,
1

Q(p , p)
Q(v, p)

Q(p , p)

so we indeed have f0 v = f1 v in 0 Q(p , p).

The next result may be regarded as a homotopical version of Theorem 1


in [Brown, 1973], which describes the hom-sets in the homotopy category of a
category of brant objects. Indeed, we will derive a closely related result as a
corollary.
Theorem 5.7. Let C be a simplicial category of fibrant objects, let LH C be the
hammock localisation, let X be an object in C, let Q be the full subcategory

25

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

of the simplicially enriched slice category C /X spanned by the trivial fibrations,


and let U : Q C be the evident projection. Then,
holimQop C(U , ) LH C(X, )

by a zigzag of weak equivalences of functors C sSet. In particular,


holimQop C(U, ) : C sSet

preserves weak equivalences.


Proof. Let Q be the underlying ordinary category of Q. By lemmas 1.8 and 5.4,
holimQop C(U, ) holimQop C(U, )

so it suces to verify the following:


holimQop C(U, ) LH C(X, )

Moreover, recalling theorem 4.11 and proposition 5.3, we may apply theorem 2.10
and lemma 3.9 to reduce the problem to showing that


[1;1]
holimQop C(U, ) N CV
(X, )

by a zigzag of weak equivalences of functors. By using Thomasons homotopy


colimit theorem (1.11), it is not hard to see that there is a weak equivalence


[1;1]
holimQop disc C(U, ) N CV
(X, )

of functors C sSet, where on the LHS we have the ordinary hom-functor.


In particular,


[1;1]
holimop holimQop disc C(U, ()) holimop N CV
(X, ())

but on the one hand, by corollary 2.11,






[1;1]
[1;1]
N CV
(X, ) holimop N CV
(X, ())

and on the other hand, by the BouseldKan theorem,[4]


holimop disc C(U, ) C(U, )

so by interchanging homotopy colimits, the claim follows.

[4] See paragraph 4.3 in [Bousfield and Kan, 1972, Ch. XII] or Theorem 18.7.4 in [Hirschhorn,
2003].

26

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

Corollary 5.8. With notation as above,


lim [Q]op 0 C(U , )
= Ho C(X, )
0
as functors C Set.
Proof. Since 0 : sSet Set is a simplicially enriched left Quillen functor,
it takes homotopy colimits in sSet to homotopy colimits in Set. Homotopy
colimits in Set are the same as (simplicially enriched) colimits, thus,
limQop 0 C(U, )
= 0 LH C(X, )
= Ho C(X, )

But the evident localising functor Q 0 [Q] induces an equivalence between


the category of simplicially enriched diagrams Qop Set and the category of
(ordinary) diagrams 0 [Q]op Set, so
C(U , )
lim [Q]op 0 C(U , )
= lim
0
Qop 0
and we are done.

Verdiers hypercovering theorem


Throughout this section, let C be a small category with a Grothendieck topology J, let M be the category of simplicial presheaves on C, equipped with
the J-local model structure of Joyal [1984] and Jardine [1987], and for each
regular cardinal , let M< be the full subcategory of -presentable objects
in M.
Proposition 6.1. For arbitrarily large regular cardinals , M< inherits the
structure of a simplicial closed model category from M, including functorial
factorisations.
Proof. Use Propositions 1.17, 5.9, and 5.20 in [Low, 2014a].

Recall also the notion of a J-local bration of simplicial presheaves on C:


in the case where (C, J) is a site with enough points, a morphism of simplicial
presheaves on C is a J-local bration if and only if all its stalks are Kan
brations. Let E be the full subcategory of M spanned by the J-locally brant
simplicial presheaves on C and let E< = E M< .
Proposition 6.2. For arbitrarily large regular cardinals , E< is a simplicial category of fibrant objects, with weak equivalences being the J-local weak
equivalences and fibrations being the J-local fibrations.

27

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Proof. Let be any uncountable regular cardinal such that |mor C| < . It is
clear that axioms A, B, and E are satised, and a cardinality argument can
be used to verify axiom C and C . (Under our hypothesis on , a simplicial
presheaf on C is in M< if and only if it has < elements.) A similar argument
shows that the cotensor products K X are in M< if K is a nite simplicial
set and X is in M< , so it suces to verify that E satises axioms F and
G; for this, we may use the same method as the proof of Lemma 1.15 in
[Low, 2014b], i.e. rst reduce to the case of simplicial sheaves, and then apply
Barrs embedding theorem to reduce to the case of simplicial sets, which is
well known.[5]

Henceforth, x an innite regular cardinal such that M< and E< satisfy
the conclusions of propositions 6.1 and 6.2.
Lemma 6.3. Let : C op M sSet be the functor defined by the following
formula:
(C, X) = X(C)
Then, for each object C in C:
(i) Let hC be the simplicial presheaf represented by C. There is an isomorphism

(C, )
= M hC ,
of functors M sSet, where the RHS is the simplicial hom-functor.
(ii) (C, ) : M sSet is a right Quillen functor. In particular, it has a
total right derived functor R(C, ) : Ho M Ho sSet.
(iii) Let LH M< be the hammock localisation of M< . There is an isomorphism

R(C, )
= LH M< hC ,
of functors Ho M< Ho sSet.
Proof. (i). Use the Yoneda lemma.

(ii). M hC , is a right Quillen functor because M is a simplicial closed model
category where all objects are cobrant, so (C, ) is also a right Quillen
functor. The existence of a total right derived functor is then a standard
result.[6]
(iii). Apply either Remark 5.2.10 in [Hovey, 1999] or Proposition 16.6.23 in
[Hirschhorn, 2003] to Theorem 3.8 in [Low, 2014c].

[5] See e.g. Theorem 3.3.1 in [Hovey, 1999].
[6] See e.g. Theorem 8.5.8 in [Hirschhorn, 2003].

28

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

Lemma 6.4. Let X and Y be objects in E< . Then the morphism


LH E< (X, Y ) LH M< (X, Y )
induced by the inclusion E< M< is a weak homotopy equivalence of simplicial sets.
Proof. Use Proposition 3.5 in [Dwyer and Kan, 1980b].

The following version of Verdiers hypercovering theorem is due to Jardine


[2012] and Rezk [2014].
Proposition 6.5. Let C be an object in C and let V be the subcategory of
J-local trivial fibrations in E< . Then there are isomorphisms





[1;1]
[1;1]
H

R(C, )
L
E
h
,

N
(E
)
h
,

N
(E
)
h
,

=
=
=
< C
<
C
< V
C
of functors Ho E< Ho sSet.
Proof. Combine theorem 2.10 and lemmas 3.9, 6.3, and 6.4.

One may then derive a homotopy colimit formula for R(C, ) analogous
to Verdiers original colimit formula (cf. Thorme 7.4.1 in [SGA 4b, Expos V]
or Theorem 8.16 in [Artin and Mazur, 1969]):
Proposition 6.6. Let C be an object in C, let Q be the simplicially enriched
full subcategory of the simplicially enriched slice category (E< )/hC spanned by
the J-local trivial fibrations, and let U : Q E< be the evident projection
functor. Then there is an isomorphism
E (U , )
R(C, )
= holim
Qop <
of functors Ho E< Ho sSet.
Proof. Apply theorem 5.7 and proposition 6.5.

Corollary 6.7. Let K be a Kan complex of cardinality < and let K be the
constant simplicial presheaf on C with value K. With other notation as above,
we have


R(C, K)
lim

U,
K
sSet
= holim
C op
Qop
as objects in Ho sSet, and this is natural in K.
Proof. As usual, we have the following isomorphism of simplicially enriched
functors Qop sSet:


sSet limC op U, K
= E< (U, K)

The claim follows, by proposition 6.6.


29

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

Categories of fibrant objects redux


The following is what Cisinski [2010a] calls a catgorie drivable gauche:
Definition A.1. A Cisinski fibration category is a category C equipped
with a pair (W, F) of subclasses of mor C satisfying these axioms:
D0. C has a terminal object 1. A fibrant object in C is an object X such
that the unique morphism X 1 in C is in F . Any object isomorphic
to a brant object is brant, and 1 is brant.
D1. (C, W) is a category with weak equivalences.
D2. F is closed under composition and every isomorphism between brant
objects in C is in F . If p : X Y is in F and g : Y Y a morphism
between brant objects in C, then the pullback of p along g exists in C
and is a morphism that is in F .
D3. If p : X Y is in W F and g : Y Y is a morphism between
brant objects in C, then the pullback of p along f (exists in C and) is a
morphism that is in W F .
D4. If f : X Y is a morphism in C and Y is brant, then there exist a
in W and a morphism p : X
Y in F such that
morphism i : X X
f = p i.
In a Cisinski bration category as above,
a weak equivalence is a morphism in W,
a fibration is a morphism in F , and
a trivial fibration (or acyclic fibration) is a morphism in W F .
We will often abuse notation and say C is a Cisinski bration category, without
mentioning the data W and F .
Example A.2. Every category of brant objects is a Cisinski bration category in the obvious way. Moreover, if C is a category of brant objects and
Y is an object in C, then the slice category C/Y is Cisinski bration category
where the brant objects are the brations with codomain Y .
The following result (due to Denis-Charles Cisinski) will appear in [BHH];
we thank Georoy Horel for sharing it with us.
Theorem A.3 (Cisinski). Let C be a Cisinski fibration category and let C
be the full subcategory of C spanned by the fibrant objects. Then the inclusion
weq C weq C is a homotopy cofinal functor.
30

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects


Proof. Let X be an object in C. We must show that the comma category
(X U) is weakly contractible. By the asphericity lemma (1.6) in [Cisinski,
2010b], it suces to verify the following: for any nite poset J and any diagram F : J (X weq C ), there is a zigzag of natural transformations
connecting F to a constant diagram.
First, observe that diagrams F : J (X weq C ) are the same as
diagrams functors Y : J weq C equipped with a cone : X Y .
By Thorme 1.30 in [Cisinski, 2010a], there is a natural weak equivalence
: Y Y where Y is brant over the boundaries (brant sur les bords), so
by Proposition 1.18 in op. cit., the limit limJ Y exists in C and brant. Thus,

the cone : X Y can be factored as a weak equivalence i : X X


Y , where X
is a brant object in C, and
in C followed by a cone : X
hence, we have the following diagram in [J , weq C]:
X

This shows that F : J (X weq C ) is indeed connected to a constant


diagram.

Corollary A.4. Let C be a category of fibrant objects, let (X, Y ) be a pair of
objects in C, and let C fun (X, Y ) be the category of functional correspondences
X [ Y . Then the inclusion UX,Y : C fun (X, Y ) C [1;1] (X, Y ) is homotopy
cofinal.
Proof. Let (f, w) : X [ Y be a cocycle in C. We must show that the comma
category ((f, w) UX,Y ) is weakly contractible. Let D be the slice category
C/Y X considered as a Cisinski bration category in the obvious way. It is not
hard to see that C fun (X, Y ) is isomorphic to a full subcategory of weq C/Y X ,

contained in the full subcategory weq C/Y X spanned by the brant objects
(i.e. brations in C with codomain Y X). Moreover, the comma category
 
((f, w) UX,Y ) is isomorphic to the comma category hf, wi weq C/Y X ,
so by theorem A.3, ((f, w) UX,Y ) is weakly contractible.

As promised, we obtain the following generalisation of theorem 4.11:
Theorem A.5. Let C be a category of fibrant objects, let V be the subcategory
of trivial fibrations in C, and let C fun be the category of all functional correspondences in C. Then V weq C, C fun , and C fun weq [[1; 1], C]h constitute
a homotopical calculus of cocycles in C.
Proof. Combine lemma 4.6 and corollary A.4.
31

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

References
Artin, Michael, Alexander Grothendieck and Jean-Louis Verdier
[SGA 4b] Thorie des topos et cohomologie tale des schmas. Tome 2. Lecture
Notes in Mathematics 270. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1972. iv+418. isbn:
3-540-06012-X.
Artin, Michael and Barry Mazur
[1969] Etale homotopy. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 100. Berlin: Springer-Verlag,
1969. iii+169.
Barnea, Ilan, Yonatan Harpaz and Geoffroy Horel
[BHH] On the pro-category of a weak fibration category. In preparation.
Barwick, Clark and Daniel M. Kan
[2012] Relative categories: another model for the homotopy theory of homotopy
theories. In: Indag. Math. (N.S.) 23.1-2 (2012), pp. 4268. issn: 0019-3577.
doi: 10.1016/j.indag.2011.10.002.
Bousfield, A. K. and Daniel M. Kan
[1972] Homotopy limits, completions and localizations. Lecture Notes in
Mathematics 304. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1972. v+348.
Brown, Kenneth S.
[1973] Abstract homotopy theory and generalized sheaf cohomology. In: Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 186 (1973), pp. 419458. issn: 0002-9947.
Cisinski, Denis-Charles
[2010a] Catgories drivables. In: Bull. Soc. Math. France 138.3 (2010),
pp. 317393. issn: 0037-9484.
[2010b] Invariance de la K-thorie par quivalences drives. In: J. K-Theory 6.3
(2010), pp. 505546. issn: 1865-2433. doi: 10.1017/is009010008jkt094.
Dwyer, William G. and Daniel M. Kan
[1980a] Simplicial localizations of categories. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra 17.3
(1980), pp. 267284. issn: 0022-4049. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(80)90049-3.
[1980b] Calculating simplicial localizations. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra 18.1 (1980),
pp. 1735. issn: 0022-4049. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(80)90113-9.
[1980c] Function complexes in homotopical algebra. In: Topology 19.4 (1980),
pp. 427440. issn: 0040-9383. doi: 10.1016/0040-9383(80)90025-7.
Hirschhorn, Philip S.
[2003] Model categories and their localizations. Mathematical Surveys and

32

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

Monographs 99. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2003.


xvi+457. isbn: 0-8218-3279-4.
Hovey, Mark
[1999] Model categories. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 63. Providence,
RI: American Mathematical Society, 1999. xii+209. isbn: 0-8218-1359-5.
Jardine, John F.
[1987] Simplicial presheaves. In: J. Pure Appl. Algebra 47.1 (1987), pp. 3587.
issn: 0022-4049. doi: 10.1016/0022-4049(87)90100-9.
[2009] Cocycle categories. In: Algebraic topology. Vol. 4. Abel Symp. Berlin:
Springer, 2009, pp. 185218. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-01200-6_8.
[2012] The Verdier hypercovering theorem. In: Canad. Math. Bull. 55.2 (2012),
pp. 319328. issn: 0008-4395. doi: 10.4153/CMB-2011-093-x.
Joyal, Andr
[1984] Letter to Grothendieck. 16th Apr. 1984.
Low, Zhen Lin
[2014a] The heart of a combinatorial model category. 28th Nov. 2014.
arXiv:1402.6659v2.
[2014b] Internal and local homotopy theory. 30th Apr. 2014. arXiv:1404.7788v1.
[2014c] Revisiting function complexes and simplicial localisation. 29th Sept. 2014.
arXiv:1409.8062v1.
Low, Zhen Lin and Aaron Mazel-Gee
[2014] From fractions to complete Segal spaces. 29th Sept. 2014. arXiv:1409.8192.
Quillen, Daniel G.
[1967] Homotopical algebra. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 43. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, 1967. iv+156.
[1973] Higher algebraic K-theory. I. In: Algebraic K-theory, I: Higher K-theories
(Proc. Conf., Battelle Memorial Inst., Seattle, Wash., 1972). Lecture Notes in
Mathematics 341. Springer, Berlin, 1973, pp. 85147.
Rezk, Charles
[1998] Fibrations and homotopy colimits of simplicial sheaves. 9th Nov. 1998.
arXiv:math/9811038v2.
[2014] Modern versions of the Verdier hypercovering theorem? 6th May 2014. url:
http://mathoverflow.net/a/165324.
Thomason, Robert W.
[1979] Homotopy colimits in the category of small categories. In: Math. Proc.

33

Cocycles in categories of fibrant objects

Cambridge Philos. Soc. 85.1 (1979), pp. 91109. issn: 0305-0041. doi:
10.1017/S0305004100055535.

34