arxiv:math/ v2 [math.at] 9 Nov 1998

Transcription

1 ariv:math/ v2 [math.at] 9 Nov 1998 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES CHARLES REZK Abstract. We show that homotopy pullbacks o sheaves o simplicial sets over a Grothendieck topology distribute over homotopy colimits; this generalizes a result o Puppe about topological spaces. In addition, we show that inverse image unctors between categories o simplicial sheaves preserve homotopy pullback squares. The method we use introduces the notion o a sharp map, which is analogous to the notion o a quasi-ibration o spaces, and seems to be o independent interest. 1. Introduction Dold and Thom [3] introduced a class o maps called quasi-ibrations. A map : Y o topological spaces is called a quasi-ibration i or each point y Y the iber 1 (y) is naturally weakly equivalent to the homotopy iber o over y. Thus, quasi-ibrations behave or some purposes o homotopy theory very much like other types o ibrations; or example, there is a long exact sequence relating the homotopy groups o, Y, and 1 (y). A notable eature o quasi-ibrations is that (as shown by Dold and Thom) quasi-ibrations deined over the elements o an open cover o a space Y can sometimes be patched together to give a quasi-ibration mapping to all o Y. In this paper we study a class o maps called sharp maps. In our context, a map : Y will be called sharp i or each base-change o along any map into the base Y the resulting pullback square is homotopy cartesian. We are particularly interested in sharp maps o sheaves o simplicial sets. We shall show that sharp maps o sheaves o simplicial sets have properties analogous to those o quasi-ibrations o topological spaces. In particular, they can be patched together, in a sense analogous to the way that quasi-ibrations can be patched together. We give several applications Applications. Let E denote a Grothendieck topos; that is, a category equivalent to a category o sheaves on a small Grothendieck site. The category se o simplicial objects in E admits a Quillen closed model category structure, as was shown by Joyal (unpublished), and by Jardine in [5] and [6]. Let : I se be a diagram o simplicial sheaves indexed on a small category I. We say that such a diagram is a homotopy colimit diagram i the natural map hocolim I colim I is a weak equivalence o objects in se, where hocolim denotes the homotopy colimit unctor or simplicial sheaves, generalizing that deined by Bousield and Kan [1] or simplicial sets. Date: November 3, Mathematics Subject Classiication. Primary 18G30; Secondary 18B25, 55R99. Key words and phrases. simplicial sheaves, ibrations, homotopy colimits. 1

2 2 CHARLES REZK Given a map : Y o I-diagrams o simplicial sheaves, or each object i o I there exists a commutative square (1.2) i i Yi colim I colim I Y and or each morphism α: i j o I there exists a commutative square (1.3) i i Yi α j Yα Yj The ollowing theorem essentially says that in a category o simplicial sheaves, homotopy pullbacks distribute over homotopy colimits. Theorem 1.4. Let : Y be a map o I-diagrams o simplicial objects in a topos E, and suppose that Y is a homotopy colimit diagram. Then the ollowing two properties hold. (1) I each square o the orm (1.2) is homotopy cartesian, then is a homotopy colimit diagram. (2) I is a homotopy colimit diagram, and each diagram o the orm (1.3) is homotopy cartesian, then each diagram o the orm (1.2) is also homotopy cartesian. The proo o (1.4) is given in Section 7. This result is well-known when se is the category o simplicial sets: Puppe [9] ormulates and proves a version o the above result or the category o topological spaces, which can be used to derive (1.4) or simplicial sets; see [4, Appendix HL] or more discussion o Puppe s result. Also, Chachólski [2] has proved a result o this type in the category o simplicial sets using purely simplicial methods. As another application we give the ollowing. Let p: E E be a geometric morphism o Grothendieck topoi, and let p : E E denote the corresponding inverse image unctor. This unctor prolongs to a simplicial unctor p : se se. Theorem 1.5. The inverse image unctor p : se se preserves homotopy cartesian squares. The prooo(1.5)isgiveninsection 5. Anexampleoaninverseimageunctor is the sheaiication unctor L 2 : PshC ShC associated to a Grothendieck topology on C. Thus,(1.5) shows in particular that sheaiication unctors preserve homotopy cartesian squares Organization o the paper. In Section 2 we deine sharp maps and state some o their general properties. In Section 3 we recall acts about shea theory and the model category structure on simplicial sheaves. Section 4 gives several useul characterizations o sharp maps o simplicial sheaves, which are used to prove a number o properties in Section 5, as well as the proo o (1.5). In Section 6 we prove a result about how sharp maps are preserved by taking the diagonal o a simplicial object. This result is used in Section 7 to prove a similar act about how sharp maps are preserved by homotopy colimits; this result is used j

3 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES 3 in turn to give a proo o (1.4). Section 8 does the hard work o showing that sharp maps which agree up to homotopy can be glued together, thus providing lemmas which were needed or Section 6. Section 9 proves a result about sharp maps in a boolean localization which was needed in Section 4. In Section 10 we prove that in a boolean localization the local ibrations are the same as the global ibrations, a act which is used at several places in this paper Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Phil Hirschhorn, Mike Hopkins, Mark Johnson, Brooke Shipley, and Carlos Simpson or their comments on various parts o this work. 2. Sharp maps In this section, we deine the notion o a sharp map in a general closed model category, and prove some o its general properties. I learned about the notion o a sharp map rom Mike Hopkins, who was originally led, or dierent reasons, to ormulate the dual notion o a lat map. Let M be a closed model category [10], [11]. We say that a map : Y in M is sharp i or each diagram in M o the orm A i A B j B Y in which j is a weak equivalence and each square is a pullback square, the map i is also a weak equivalence. It ollows immediately rom the deinition that the class o sharp maps is closed under base-change Proper model categories. A model category M is said to be right proper i or each pullback diagram in M o the orm i Y j Y such that is a ibration and j is a weak equivalence, then i is also a weak equivalence. The categories o topological spaces and simplicial sets are two well-known examples o right-proper model categories. There is an dual notion, in which a model category or which pushouts o weak equivalences along coibrations are weak equivalences is called let proper. A model category is proper i it is both let and right proper. Since the class o ibrations in a model category is closed under base-change, we have the ollowing. Proposition 2.2. A model category M is right proper i and only i each ibration is sharp.

4 4 CHARLES REZK 2.3. Homotopy cartesian squares. Let (2.4) P be a commutative square in M. Say such a square is homotopy cartesian i or some choice o actorizations B and Y Y B o and g into weak equivalences ollowed by ibrations, the natural map P B Y is a weak equivalence. It is straightorward to show that the choice o actorizations does not matter. Clearly, any pullback square o the orm (2.4) in which and g are already ibrations is homotopy cartesian. Any square weakly equivalent to a homotopy cartesian square is itsel homotopy cartesian. Lemma 2.5. In a right proper model category, a pullback square as in (2.4) in which g is a ibration is a homotopy cartesian square. Proo. Choose a actorization pi o into a weak equivalence i: ollowed by a ibration p: B. Then we obtain pullback squares (2.6) P j P h i in which j is a weak equivalence by (2.2), since it is obtained by pulling back the weak equivalence i along the ibration h. Thus the square (2.4) is weakly equivalent to the right-hand square o (2.6) which is homotopy cartesian. The ollowing proposition gives the characterization o sharp maps which was alluded to in the introduction; it holds only in a right proper model category. Proposition 2.7. In a right proper model category, a map g: Y B is a sharp map i and only i each pullback square (2.4) is a homotopy cartesian square. Proo. First suppose that g is sharp. As in the proo o (2.5) choose a actorization pi: B o into a weak equivalence i ollowed by a ibration p, obtaining a diagram (2.6). Then the right hand square o this diagram is homotopy cartesian by (2.5), and i and j are weak equivalences, since j is the pullback o the weak equivalence i along the sharp map g. Conversely, suppose g is a map such that each pullback along g is a homotopy cartesian square. Given a diagram o pullback squares as in (2.6) in which i is a weak equivalence, it ollows that j is also a weak equivalence, since both the right-hand square and the outer rectangle are homotopy cartesian squares which are weakly equivalent at the three non-pullback corners. Thus g is sharp. Example 2.8. The category o topological spaces is a right proper model category. The class o sharp maps o topological spaces includes all Serre ibrations, as well as all iber bundles. Every sharp map is clearly a quasi-ibration in the sense o Dold and Thom [3]. It is not the case that all quasi-ibrations are sharp; indeed, the class o quasi-ibrations is not closed under base change, see [3, Bemerkung 2.3]. I do not know o a simple characterization o sharp maps o topological spaces. Y B p g Y B g

5 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES 5 3. Facts about topoi In this section we recall acts about sheaves and simplicial sheaves. Our main reerence or shea theory is Mac Lane-Moerdijk [8] Grothendieck topoi. A Grothendieck topos E is a category equivalent to some category ShC o sheaves o sets on a small Grothendieck site C. Among the many properties o a Grothendieck topos E, we note that E has all small limits and colimits, and that E is cartesian closed. The internal hom object in E is denoted by Y. Example The category Set is a Grothendieck topos, since it is sheaves on a one-point space. 2. The preshea category PshC, deined to be the category o unctors C op Set, is the category o sheaves o sets in the trivial topology on C, and thus is a Grothendieck topos. 3. The category Sh(T) o sheaves o sets on a topological space T is a Grothendieck topos. A geometric morphism : E E is a pair o adjoint unctors : E E : such that the let adjoint preserves inite limits. The let adjoint is called the inverse image unctor, and the direct image unctor Boolean localizations. Let B be a complete Boolean algebra. Then B, viewed as a category via the partial order on B, has a natural Grothendieck topology, and hence gives us a Grothendieck topos ShB. (This topos is discussed in more detail in Section 10.) A Boolean localization o a topos E is a geometric morphism p: ShB E such that the inverse image unctor p : E ShB is aithul. Example The category o sets is its own Boolean localization, since it is equivalent to sheaves on the trivial Boolean algebra. 2. For a category C, let C 0 C denote the subcategory consisting o all objects and all identity maps. Then p: PshC 0 PshC is a boolean localization, where p : PshC PshC 0 is the obvious restriction unctor; this is because PshC 0 isequivalenttothecategoryosheavesonthebooleanalgebrap(obc), the power set o obc. 3. For a topologicalspace T, let T δ denote the underlying set T with the discrete topology. Then Sh(T δ ) Sh(PT δ ) is a boolean localization o Sh(T); the inverse image unctor p : Sh(T) Sh(T δ ) sends a shea to the collection o all stalks o over every point o T. Remark 3.5. In each o the examples above, the Boolean localization turned out to be equivalent to a product o copies o Set. However, there exist topoi E which do not admit a Boolean localization o this type. Boolean localizations have the ollowing properties. 1. Every Grothendieck topos has a Boolean localization.

6 6 CHARLES REZK 2. The inverse image unctor p associated to a Boolean localization unctor p: ShB E relects isomorphisms, monomorphisms, epimorphisms, colimits, and inite limits. 3. The topos ShB has a choice axiom: every epimorphism in ShB admits a section. 4. The topos ShB is boolean; that is, each subobject A in ShB admits a complement, namely a subobject B such that A B = and A B =. Property (1) is shown in [8, I.9]. See Jardine [6] or proos o the other properties A distributive law. For our purposes it is important to note the ollowing relationship between colimits and pullbacks in a topos E. Proposition 3.7. Let Y : I E be a unctor rom a small category I to a topos, and let A B = colim I (i Yi) be a map. Then the natural map is an isomorphism. colim I (i A Yi) A B This proposition says that i an object is pulled back along a colimit diagram, then that object can be recovered as the colimit o the pulled-back diagram. It makes sense to think o this as a distributive law. In act, in the special case in which B = 1 2, and A B is the projection ( 1 2 ) Y 1 2 the proposition reduces to the usual distributive law o products over coproducts: ( 1 Y) ( 2 Y) ( 1 2 ) Y. To prove (3.7), note that it is true i E = Set, and thus is true i E = PshC. The general result now ollows rom the properties o the sheaiication unctor L 2 : PshC ShC. Remark 3.8. Consider the diagram deined by i A B Yi. It is equipped with a natural transormation : Y with the property that or each α: i j in I the map α is the pullback o Yα along j. One can ormulate the ollowing converse to (3.7) which is alse. Namely, given a natural transormation : Y o I-diagrams such that or each α: i j in I the map α is the base-change o Yα along j, one may ask whether the natural maps i A B Yiareisomorphisms, wherea = colim I. A counterexamplein E = Set is to take I to be a group G and Y to be any map o non-isomorphic G-orbits. (1.4, part 1) may be viewed as a homotopy theoretic analogue o (3.7). (1.4, part 2) may be viewed as a homotopy theoretic analogue o the converse to (3.7) Simplicial sheaves. We let se denote the category o simplicial objects in a Grothendieck topos E. Note that se is itsel a Grothendieck topos. The ull subcategory o discrete simplicial objects in se is equivalent to E; thus, we regard E as a subcategory o se. For any topos E there is a natural unctor Set E sending a set to the corresponding constant shea. This prolongs to a unctor sset se, and we will thus regard any simplicial set as a constant simplicial shea.

7 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES Model category or simplicial sheaves. We will make use o the elegant model category structure on simplicial sheaves provided by Jardine in [6]. We summarize here the main properties o this structure which we need. Let se denote the category o simplicial objects in a topos E. Let p: ShB E denote a ixed boolean localization o E. A map : Y in se is said to be 1. a local weak equivalence (or simply, a weak equivalence) i (L 2 Ex p )(b): (L 2 Ex p )(b) (L 2 Ex p Y)(b) is a weak equivalence or each b B. Here Ex : sshb spshb denotes the unctor obtained by applying Kan s Ex unctor [7] at each b B, and L 2 denotes the simplicial prolongation spshb sshb o the sheaiication unctor. 2. a local ibration i p (b): p (b) p Y(b) is a Kan ibration or each b B. It should be pointed out that local ibrations are not in general the ibrations in the model category structure on se; but note (3.14). 3. a coibration i it is a monomorphism. 4. a global ibration (or simply, a ibration) i it has the right liting property with respect to all maps which are both coibrations and weak equivalences. Note that the deinition o local weak equivalence simpliies when E = ShB, since ShB is its own boolean localization. Furthermore, a map in se is a local weak equivalence i and only i p in sshb is a local weak equivalence. Theorem (Jardine [6], [5]) The category se with the above classes o coibrations, global ibrations, and local weak equivalences is a proper simplicial closed model category. Furthermore, the characterizations o local weak equivalences, local ibrations, and global ibrations do not depend on the choice o boolean localization. Example When se = sset this model category structure coincides with the usual one, and local ibrations coincide with global ibrations. 2. For se = spshc, a map : Y is a local weak equivalence, coibration, or localibrationioreachc obc, themapc: (C) Y(C)isrespectively a weak equivalence, monomorphism, or Kan ibration o simplicial sets. 3. For se = ssh(t), a map : Y is a local weak equivalence, coibration, or local ibration i or each point p T the map p : p Y p o stalks is respectively a weak equivalence, monomorphism, or Kan ibration o simplicial sets. We also need the ollowing property. Proposition [6, Lemma 13(3)] Let E be sheaves on a Grothendieck topos. I i : i Y i is a amily o local weak equivalences in se indexed by a set I, then the induced map : i I i i I Y i is a local weak equivalence. We need one additional act about ibrations in a boolean localization. Proposition In the category sshb o simplicial sheaves on a complete boolean algebra B, the local ibrations are precisely the global ibrations. The proo o (3.14) is given in Section 10.

8 8 CHARLES REZK Finally, we note that i : E E is a geometric morphism, then the induced inverse image unctor : se se preserves coibrations and weak equivalences; this is because the composite se se p sshb must preserve such i p: ShB E is a boolean localization o E Model category or simplicial presheaves. Although we will not make much use o it here, we note that i E = ShC or some Grothendieck site C, then Jardine [6, Thm. 17] constructs a preshea closed model category structure on spshc related to that on se (and not to be conused with the shea model category structure obtained by applying the remarks o the previous section to E = PshC). In this structure on spshc, the coibrations are the monomorphisms, and the weak equivalences are the maps in spshc which sheaiy to local weak equivalences in se. Furthermore, a map in spshc is called a local ibration i it sheaiies to a local ibration in se. The natural adjoint pair spshc se induces an equivalence o closed model categories in the sense o Quillen; in particular, the homotopy category o spshc (induced by the preshea model category structure) is equivalent to the homotopy category o se. Thus, many results stated or se such as (1.4) carry over to the preshea model category o spshc without change. 4. Local character o sharp maps o simplicial sheaves The ollowing theorem provides several equivalent characterizations o sharp maps in se. There are two types o such statements: (5) and (6) say that sharpness is a local condition, i.e., sharpness is detected on boolean localizations, while (2), (3), and (4) say that sharpness is detected on ibers, i.e., by pulling back to the product o a discrete object and a simplex. Theorem 4.1. Let : Y be a map o simplicial objects in a Grothendieck topos E. The ollowing are equivalent. (1) is sharp. (2) For each n 0 and each map S Y n in E, the induced pullback square P S [n] Y is homotopy cartesian. (3) For each n 0 there exists an epimorphism S n Y n in E such that the induced pullback square P S n [n] Y is homotopy cartesian.

9 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES 9 (4) For each n 0 there exists an epimorphism S n Y n in E such that or each map δ: [m] [n] o standard simplices, the induced diagram o pullback squares P S n [m] h P 1 δ S n [n] Y is such that h is a weak equivalence o simplicial sheaves. (5) For any boolean localization p: ShB E, the inverse image p : p p Y o is sharp in sshb. (6) There exists a boolean localization p: ShB E such that the inverse image p : p p Y o is sharp in sshb. Proo. (1) implies (2): This ollows rom (2.7), and the act that se is right proper. (2) implies (3) and (4): Let S n = Y n. either (3) or (4) implies (5): This will ollow rom (9.1), since p : E ShB preserves pullbacks and epimorphisms. (5) implies (6): This is trivial, since every E has a boolean localization (3.10). (6) implies (1): I p: ShB E is a boolean localization, and p is sharp, then since p : se sshb preserves pullbacks and relects weak equivalences (3.10), it ollows that is sharp. Remark 4.2. In the case when se = S, and : Y a map o simplicial sets, the above theorem implies that the ollowing three statements are equivalent. (1) is sharp. (2) For each map g: [n] Y the pullback square o along g is homotopy cartesian. (3) For each diagram o pullback squares o the orm P h P [m] δ [n] Y the map h is a weak equivalence. Note that characterization (2) is reminiscent o the deinition o quasi-ibration o topological spaces. A sharp map to a simplicial set Y induces a good diagram indexed by the simplices o Y, in the sense o Chachólski [2]. Remark 4.3. Recall rom (3.4) that i E = PshC is a category o presheaves on C, then a suitable boolean localization or E is PshC 0. This implies using part (6) o (4.1) that a map : Y o presheaves on C is sharp i and only i or each object C C the map (C): (C) Y(C) is a sharp map o simplicial sets. Remark 4.4. Recall rom (3.4) that i E = Sh(T) where T is a topological space, then a boolean localization or E is ShT δ. This implies using part (6) o (4.1) that

10 10 CHARLES REZK a map : Y o sheaves over T is sharp i and only i or each point p T the induced map p : p Y p on stalks is a sharp map o simplical sets. Remark 4.5. The statement o (4.1) remains true i we replace se with spshc equipped with the preshea model category structure o (3.15), and replace boolean localizations ShB E with composite maps ShB ShC PshC. That this is the case ollows easily rom the observation that : Y spshc is sharp i and only i L 2 : L 2 L 2 Y sshc is sharp, the proo o which is straightorward. 5. Basic properties o sharp maps o simplicial sheaves In this section we give some basic properties o sharp maps in a simplicial topos. Theorem 5.1. The ollowing hold or simplicial objects in a topos E. P1 Local ibrations are sharp. P2 For any object se the projection map 1 is sharp. P3 Sharp maps are closed under base-change. P4 I is a map such that the base-change o along some epimorphism is sharp, then is sharp. P5 I maps α are sharp or each α A or some set A, then the coproduct α is sharp. P6 I p: E E is a geometric morphism o topoi, the inverse image unctor p : se se preserves sharp maps. Proo. Property P1 ollows rom part (6) o (4.1), the act that global ibrations are sharp (2.2), and the act that local ibrations are global ibrations in a Boolean localization (3.14). Property P2 ollows immediately rom the act weak equivalences in se are precisely those maps such that (L 2 Ex p )(b) is a weak equivalence or each b B (where p: ShB E is a boolean localization), together with the act that the unctor L 2 Ex p preserves products. Property P3 has already been noted in Section 2. To prove property P4, consider the pull-back squares Q C n [m] q Q 1 δ C n [n] C p Y where g is sharp and p is an epimorphism. Then q is a weak equivalence since 1 δ is, whence is sharp by part (4) o (4.1), since the map C n Y n is an epimorphism in E. To prove property P5, let α : α Y α be a collection o sharp maps, and let = α I α. Then P5 ollows rom the act that a coproduct o weak equivalences is a weak equivalence (3.13) and using part (4) o (4.1). Property P6 ollows easily rom part (4) o (4.1), and the act that inverse image unctors preserve pullbacks, epimorphisms, and weak equivalences. We can now easily prove (1.5). Proo o (1.5). Recall (3.10) that any homotopy cartesian square is weakly equivalent to a pullback square in which all the maps are ibrations. Since ibrations P g

11 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES 11 are sharp by (2.2), the square obtained by applying the inverse image unctor p : E E is a pullback square in which the maps are sharp by P6, and hence is a homotopy cartesian square by (2.7). Since p preserves weak equivalences the conclusion ollows. Remark 5.2. Parts P1 P5 o(5.1) remain true i we replace se with spshc equipped with the preshea model category o (3.15), or the reasons discussed in (4.5). 6. Diagonal o a simplicial object Let : op se be a simplicial object in se; we write [n] (n) where (n) se. The diagonal o is an object in se deined by [n] (n) n. Theorem 6.1. Let p: Y be a map o simplicial objects in se such that each p(n): (n) Y(n) is sharp, and each square (n) (m) Y(n) Y(m) is homotopy cartesian. Then p : Y is sharp. We prove this theorem using the ollowing well-known inductive construction o the diagonal o a simplicial object. Namely, colim n F n, where F 0 = (0) and each F n is obtained rom F n 1 by a pushout diagram o the orm (n) [n] L n 1 [n] (n) [n] (6.2) L n 1 [n] F n 1 F n where L n 1 denotes the subobject o (n) which is the union o the images o all degeneracy maps s i : n 1 n or 0 i n Colimits on posets o proper subsets. Beore going to the proo o (6.1) we collect some acts about colimits o diagrams indexed by the subsets o a inite set. These acts will also be needed in Sections 8 and 9. I S is a inite set, let PS denote the poset o subsets o S, and let PS denote the poset o proper subsets o S; we regard PS and PS as categories with T T i T T S. Given a unctor : PS se and a subset S S, we deine S : PS se to be the restriction o to PS via the ormula S (T) = (T) or T S. We also speakotherestriction S : PS se to PS. Wesaythataunctor: PS se (resp. a unctor : PS se) is coibrant i or each subset (resp. proper subset) T S the induced map colim PT T (T) is a monomorphism. (The coibrant unctors are in act the coibrant objects in a model category structure on the categories o unctors PS se and PS se.) Say that S = {1,...,n}, and let S = {1,...,n 1}. Deine : PS se by the ormula (T) = (T {n}) or T S. There is a natural map S o diagrams indexed by PS.

12 12 CHARLES REZK Proposition 6.4. Suppose : PS se is a unctor. There is a natural pushout square colim PS S colim PS (S ) colim PS and i is a coibrant unctor, then both vertical maps in the above square are monomorphisms. Proo. This is a straightorward induction argument on the size o S, using the act that in a topos, pushouts o monomorphisms are again monomorphisms. Corollary 6.5. Given a coibrant unctor : PS se such that or all T T the map (T) (T ) is a weak equivalence, the induced map colim PS (S) is a weak equivalence. Proo. This is proved by a straightorward induction argument on the size o S, using (6.4). Corollary 6.6. Given coibrant unctors,y : PS se and a map : Y such that each map (T) Y(T) is a weak equivalence, then the induced map colim PS colim PT Y is a weak equivalence. Proo. This is proved by induction on the size o S, using (6.4) and the act that se is a let proper model category The proo o the theorem. The object L n 1 has an alternate description using the above notation. Let S = {1,...,n}. Deine a unctor F : PS se sending T S to (#T), and sending i: T T to the map induced by the simplicial operatorσ: [#T ] [#T] deined by σ(0) = 0 and σ(k) = max(l i(k) l) or 0 < k #T. Then L n 1 = colim PS F. Furthermore, F is a coibrant unctor Proo o (6.1). Each map [n] [n] is mono, as are the maps L n 1 (n), and the top horizontal arrow in (6.2). The proo is a straightorward induction ollowing the inductive construction o diagonal given above and using(8.1) together with (6.4). That is, suppose by induction that F n 1 F n 1 Y is sharp. Using (8.1, 3) one shows that L n 1 L n 1 Y is sharp. Then using (8.1, 2) one shows that the induced map rom the upper let-hand corner o (6.2) to the upper let-hand corner o the corresponding square or Y is sharp. Applying (8.1, 2) to the whole square (6.2) gives that F n F n Y is sharp. Finally, (8.1, 1) shows that Y is sharp, as desired. Remark 6.8. I : Y is a map o simplicial objects in se such that in each degree n the map (n): (n) Y(n) is a weak equivalence, then one may show by using the above inductive scheme together with (6.6) that : Y is a weak equivalence, since se is a proper model category and the coibrations are precisely the monomorphisms.

13 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES Homotopy colimits Let : I se be a diagram o simplicial sheaves. As in [1] the homotopy colimit o, denoted hocolim I, is deined to be the diagonal o the simplicial object in se given in each degree n 0 by [n] i 0, i 0 i n where the coproduct is taken over all composable strings o arrows in I o length n. From (3.13) and (6.8) it ollows that hocolim I is a weak homotopy equivalence invariant o. Let (I i) denote the category o objects over a ixed object i in I. Given an I-diagram, one can deine an I-diagram by i = hocolim (I i). Thus, i is the diagonal o the simplicial object in se given by [n] i 0. i 0 i n i There is a natural map o I-diagrams, and an isomorphism o simplicial sheaves hocolim I colim I. (This is the construction o [1].) Theorem 7.1. Let : Y be a map o I-diagrams o simplicial sheaves such that (1) each map i: i Yi is sharp or i obi, and i j (2) each square Then Yi Yj or α: i j I is homotopy cartesian. (a) the induced map hocolim I : hocolim I hocolim I Y is sharp, and i hocolim (b) or each object i in I the square Ỹi hocolimy is a pull-back square. Proo. First, we note that (b) ollows without need o the hypotheses (1) and (2). This is because or each n 0, the square i 0 i 0 i n i i 0 i 0 i n Yi 0 i 0 i n i Yi 0 i 0 i n is a pullback square by the distributive law (3.7), and taking diagonals o bisimplicial objects commutes with limits.

14 14 CHARLES REZK To show (a), we consider the square i 0 i 0 i n j 0 j m j 0 Yi 0 i 0 i n j 0 j m Yj 0 where the horizontal arrows are induced by a map δ: [m] [n]. The vertical arrows are sharp by (5.1, P5), and the square is homotopy cartesian using (7.2). (In act, the square is a pullback square except when δ is a simplicial operator or which δ(0) 0, in which case the square is only homotopy cartesian.) The result then ollows rom (6.1). Lemma 7.2. In se, an arbitrary coproduct o homotopy cartesian squares is homotopy cartesian. Proo. A coproduct o weak equivalences is a weak equivalence by (3.13), and a coproduct o pullback squares is a pullback square by the distributive law (3.7). Thus it suices to actor the sides o each square into a weak equivalence ollowed by a ibration and demonstrate the result or the resulting pullback squares; since ibrations are sharp (2.2), the coproduct o sharp maps is sharp (5.1, P5), and pullbacks along sharp maps are homotopy cartesian, the result ollows. Proo o (1.4). To prove (1), choose a actorization colim I j W p colimi Y such that j is a weak equivalence and p is sharp (e.g., a ibration). Deine an I-diagram by i = W Yi; by the distributive law (3.7) we see that colim Y colim I W. Note also that the induced map i i is a weak equivalence, since p is sharp and by the hypothesis that each square (1.2) is homotopy cartesian. In the diagram colim i colim colimỹ k colim j colim p l colimy the map p is sharp and the indicated maps are weak equivalences; that i and l are weak equivalences ollows rom the homotopy invariance o homotopy colimits and the hypothesis that Y is a homotopy colimit diagram. Thus to show that k is a weak equivalence, and hence that is a homotopy colimit diagram, it suices to show that the right-hand square is a pull-back square. Since each i is deined to be the pullback o colim colimy along a map Yi colimy, we see that i is the pullback o colim along the composite map Ỹi Yi colimy. The assertion that the right-hand square is a pullback square now ollows using the distributive law (3.7). To prove (2), choose a actorization o : Y into j p Y, in which j is an object-wise weak equivalence and p is an object-wise ibration, and hence

15 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES 15 object-wise sharp. Then the square i colim I Ỹi colim I Ỹ is homotopy cartesian by (7.1), and since is by hypothesis a homotopy colimit diagram it ollows that this square is weakly equivalent to (1.2), and we get the desired result. 8. Lemmas on sharp maps o special diagrams In this section we show that or special kinds o maps o diagrams, the induced map o colimits is sharp. These results were the key element o the proo o (6.1). Proposition 8.1. Let I denote a small category, and p: Y a map o I- diagrams in se. Suppose that pi: i Yi is sharp or each i obi, and that pi i Yi α j Yα Yj is a homotopy cartesian square or each α: i j in I. Then under each o the ollowing cases (1) (3), the induced map colim I colim I Y is sharp, and or each i obi, the square i colim I pj is homotopy cartesian. Yi colim I Y (1) I is the category obtained rom the poset N o non-negative integers, and each map (n) (n+1) and Y(n) Y(n+1) is a monomorphism. (2) I = (i 1 α i0 β i2 ) and β and Yβ are monomorphisms. (3) I is the category obtained rom the poset PS o proper subsets o a inite set S, and and Y are coibrant diagrams in the sense o (6.3). Lemma 8.2. Consider a countable sequence o maps over B Y(0) i0 Y(1) i1 Y(2) i2... B such that each i n is a trivial coibration, and each map q n : Y(n) B is sharp. Then the induced map q: colim n Y(n) B is sharp. Proo. Given a map : A B, consider the pullbacks (n) = Y(n) B A. By the distributive law (3.7), colim n (n) = colim n Y(n) B A. Since each map Y(n) B is sharp and each i n is a weak equivalence, it ollows that each (n) (n+1) is a weak equivalence and thus a trivial coibration. Thus the composite (0) colim n (n) is a trivial coibration, and so base-change o q along yields a homotopy cartesian square.

16 16 CHARLES REZK Proo o part 1 o (8.1). Let (n) = Y(n) colimy(n) colim(n), whence we have that colim (n) colim(n) by the distributive law (3.7). It suices to show (1) that each map (n) Y(n) is sharp, and (2) that each map (n) (n) is a weak equivalence. Thisisbecause(1), togetherwith(4.1, P4)andtheactthat ny(n) colimy(n) is epi, implies that colim(n) colimy(n) is sharp, and (2) then demonstrates that the appropriate squares are homotopy cartesian. Let (n,m) = Y(n) Y(m) (m) or m n. Then (n) colim m (n,m) by the distributive law. We have that (n,n) (n), and each map (n,m) (n,m + 1) is a weak equivalence since (m + 1) Y(m + 1) is sharp. Thus (n) colim m (n,m) (n) is a weak equivalence, proving (2). Claim (1) ollows rom (8.2) applied to the sequence (n,m) over Y(n). The ollowing lemma describes conditions under which one may glue an object onto a sharp map and still obtain a sharp map. Lemma 8.3. Let i Y Y g p A be a commutative diagram such that the top square is a push-out square, p, p, and qg are sharp, is a weak equivalence, and either i or is a monomorphism. Then q is also sharp. Proo. It suices by (2.7) to show that every base-change o q along a map U B produces a homotopy cartesian square. Since qg is sharp it suices to show that U B g: U B is a weak equivalence. Via the pushout square U B U B U B B q Y U Y B U i B U Y B U B in which either the top or the let arrow is a coibration, we see that it suices to show that U B is a weak equivalence, since se is a let-proper model category. In act, U B (U B A) A ; that is, U B is a base-change o along a map into A. Thus since p and p are sharp, this base-change o is a weak equivalence, as desired. We have need o the ollowing peculiar lemma. Y

17 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES 17 Lemma 8.4. In a Grothendieck topos E consider a diagram o the orm A p A B Y q in which the horizontal arrows are mono, the top square is a pushout square, and the large rectangle is a pullback rectangle. Then the bottom square is also a pullback square. Proo. It suices to show that the lemma holds in a Boolean localization o E. In this case every subobject has a complement, so we may write = A C, = A C, and Y = B D. To show that the lower square is a pullback, it suices to show that q(c ) D. Since the top square is a pushout, p(c) = C, and since the big rectangle is a pullback, qp(c) D, producing the desired result. Proo o part 2 o (8.1). We have a diagram o the orm (8.5) 1 p 1 0 p 0 Y 1 Y 0 i 2 j Y 2 p 2 where p n is sharp or n = 0,1,2, each square is homotopy cartesian, and i and j are mono. We must show that the induced map 12 Y 12 o pushouts is sharp, and that each square n 12 (8.6) p n p 12 Y n Y 12 is homotopy cartesian or n = 0,1,2. We prove the claim by proving it or the ollowing cases: (a) under the additional hypothesis that both o the squares in (8.5) are pullback squares, (b) under the additional hypothesis that the right-hand square in (8.5) is a pull back square, and (c) under no additional hypotheses. In case (a), each square o the orm (8.6) is necessarily a pullback square since i and j are mono; this can be seen by passing to a boolean localization, in which case and Y 2 Y 0 Y 2 so that and Y 12 Y 1 Y 2. Thus p 12 : 12 Y 12 must be sharp using (4.1, P4), since the pullback o p 12 along the epimorphism Y 1 Y 2 Y 12 is sharp.

18 18 CHARLES REZK In case (b), we let 0 = Y 0 Y 1 1 and 2 = 0 0 2, obtaining a diagram o the orm 1 0 i p 1 p 0 Y 1 Y 0 j Y 2 p 2 The map p 0 is sharp since it is a base-change o the sharp map p 1. The map p 2 is sharp by (8.3) since i is mono. The lower right-hand square is a pullback square by (8.4). Then the claim reduces to case (a), since In case (c), let 0 = Y 0 2 and 1 = 1 0, obtaining a diagram o the Y 2 0 orm i 2 p 1 p 0 Y 1 Y 0 j Y 2 p 2 The map p 0 is the base-change o a sharp map p 2 and hence is sharp; the map p 1 is sharp by (8.3) (note that 0 0 is mono). Thus the claim reduces to case (b), since Proo o part 3 o (8.1). Let S = {1,...,n}; we prove the result by induction on n. The cases n = 0,1 are trivial, and case n = 2 ollows rom (8.1, part 2). For a set T, as in (6.3) let PT denote the poset o proper subsets o T as in (6.3). Then (6.4) provides a pushout square colim PS S (S ) colim PS colim PS in which the vertical arrows are mono; here S = {1,...,n 1}. There is a similar diagram or Y. One now deduces the result by induction on the size o S, applying (8.1, part 2) to the above square to carry out the induction step. Note that in order to apply the induction step, we need to know that the square colim PS S colim PS colim PS Y S colim PS Y

19 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES 19 is homotopy cartesian. This ollows by induction rom the act that each o the squares in colim PS S (S ) (S) colim PS are homotopy cartesian. colim PS Y S Y(S ) Y(S) colim PS Y 9. Sharp maps in a boolean localization In this section we go back to prove the results needed in the proo o (4.1) on sharp maps in a boolean localization. In the ollowing B denotes a complete boolean algebra. Proposition 9.1. Let : Y be a map in sshb. The ollowing are equivalent. (1) is sharp. (2) For all n 0 and all S n Y n in ShB the induced pullback square P S n [n] Y is homotopy cartesian. (3) For each n 0 there exists an epimorphism S n Y n in ShB such that or each map δ: [m] [n] o standard simplices, the induced diagram o pullback squares P h P S n [m] 1 δ S n [n] Y is such that h is a weak equivalence. Let γ be an ordinal, viewed as a category. Given a unctor : γ se such that colim α<β (α) (β) or each limit ordinal β < γ, we call the induced map (0) colim α<γ (α) a transinite composition o the maps in. Proo. The implications (1) implies (2) implies (3) are straightorward, so it suices to prove (3) implies (1). Consider a diagram o pullback squares (9.2) A g A B h B Y with h a weak equivalence and as in (3). We want to show that g is a weak equivalence. By actoring h into a trivial coibration ollowed by a trivial ibration, we see that we can reduce to the case when h is a trivial coibration.

20 20 CHARLES REZK Let C denote the classotrivialcoibrationsh: B B suchthat oralldiagrams otheorm(9.2)inwhichthesquaresarepullbacks,themapg isaweakequivalence. In order to show that C contains all trivial coibrations, it will suice by (10.16) to show that C (1) is closed under retracts, (2) is closed under cobase-change, (3) is closed under transinite composition, and (4) contains all maps o the orm U Λ k [n] U [n] where U E is a discrete object. Part (1) is straightorward. Part (2) ollows rom the act that pullbacks o monomorphisms are monomorphisms, and the act that the cobase-change o a trivial coibration is again a trivial coibration. Part (3) ollows rom the act that a transinite composite o trivial coibrations is a trivial coibration, and rom the act that i {Y α } is some sequence and : Y = colim α Y α a map, then colim α Y α Y by the distributive law (3.7). Part (4) is (9.3). Let Λ k [n] [n] denote the k-th horn o the standard n-simplex; that is, Λ k [n] is the largest subcomplex o [n] not containing the k-th ace. The ollowing lemma, though simple, is crucial to proving anything about sharp maps. It is essentially Lemma 7.4 o Chachólski [2], at least in the case when ShB = Set. Lemma 9.3. Let : Y be a map in sshb, and let U n Y n be some map in ShB. Suppose that or each map δ: [m] [n] o standard simplices the map i in the diagram i P δ P U n [m] 1 δ U n [n] Y o pullback squares is a weak equivalence. Then or any inclusion Λ k [n] [n] o a simplicial horn into a standard simplex the map j in the diagram Q j P U n Λ k [n] 1 δ U n [n] Y o pullback squares is a weak equivalence. Proo. Let S = {0,...,n} be a set, and identiy S with the set o vertices o [n]. There is a unctor F: PS S sending T S to the smallest subobject o [n] containing the vertices T; thus F(T) [ T ]. Note that F is a coibrant unctor in the sense o (6.3). Let S = S\{k}, and deine F: PS S by F(T) = F(T {k}). Then colim PS F Λ k [n], and F(S ) [n], and F is a coibrant unctor. NowdeineG: PS sshb byg(t) = Y (U n F(T)). Thencolim PS G Q by the distributive law (3.7) and G(S ) P, and the lemma ollows immediately rom (6.5), since G is a coibrant unctor.

21 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES Local ibrations are global ibrations in a boolean localization The purpose o this section is to prove (3.14), as well as (10.16), which was used in Section 9. It is possible with some work to derive these acts rom Jardine s construction o the model category on sshb. However, it seems more enlightening (and no more diicult) to proceed by constructing the model category structure on sshb rom scratch, and showing that it has the desired properties while coinciding with Jardine s structure; it turns out that the construction o the model category structure on sshb is somewhat simpler than the more general case o simplicial sheaves on an arbitrary Grothendieck site Sheaves on a complete boolean algebra. Let B be a complete boolean algebra. Thus B is a complete distributive lattice with minimal and maximal elements 0 and 1, such that every b B has a complement b; that is, i denotes meet and denotes join, then b b = 1 and b b = 0. We view B as a category, with a map b b whenever b b. A preshea on B is a unctor : B op Set. A shea on B is a preshea such that or a collection o elements {b i B} i I, the diagram (10.2) (b) (b i ) (b i b j ) i I is an equalizer whenever i I b i = b. Sayacollectionoelements{b i B} i I isadecompositionob B i i I b i = b and b i b j = 0 i i j. We write i I b i = b to denote a decomposition o b. The collection o decompositions o b B orms a directed set under reinement, with the trivial decomposition {b} as minimal element. Proposition A preshea PshB is a shea i and only i or each decomposition b = i I b i o b, the induced map (b) i I (b i) is an isomorphism. Proo. The only i statement ollows rom the deinition o a shea. To prove the i statement, suppose i I b i = b. For each S I, let ( b S = b b i ) bj. i S i,j I j S\I Note that or T I we have that i T b i = S T b S and i T b i = S T b S. In particular, b = 0 and b = S I b S. To show that is a shea, we need to show that every sequence o the orm (10.2) is exact. By hypothesis this sequence is isomorphic to the diagram S ) S I(b (b T ) (b U ). i I T i i,j I U i,j But the above sequence is maniestly exact, since it is a product o sequences o the orm (b S ) (b S ) (b S ) i S or each S I. Deine a unctor L: PshB PshB by (L)(b) = colim b= b i i i,j S (b i ),

22 22 CHARLES REZK the colimit being taken over the directed set o decompositions o b. There is a natural transormation η: L corresponding to the trivial decompositions o b B. Typically, oneprovesthatthe compositeunctorl 2 = L Lisasheaiication unctor or sheaves on B. The ollowing shows that L is itsel a sheaiication unctor. Proposition Given PshB, the object L is a shea; urthermore, η : L is an isomorphism i is a shea. Thus L induces a sheaiication unctor L: PshB ShB let adjoint to inclusion ShB PshB. Proo. The proo is a straightorward element chase, using (10.3) and the act that decompositions o an element b B orm a directed set A model category structure or sshb. Let : Y be a map in sshb. Say that is 1. a coibration i it is a monomorphism, 2. a ibration i each (b) Y(b) is a Kan ibration or all b B, and 3. a weak equivalence i (LEx )(b) (LEx Y)(b) is a weak equivalence o simplicial sets. Here Ex : ShB PshB denotes the unctor obtained by applying Kan s Ex unctor at each b B. This unctor commutes with inite limits and preserves ibrations; the same is true o the composite LEx : ShB ShB. We say a map is a trivial coibration i it is both a weak equivalence and a coibration, and we say a map is a trivial ibration i it is both a weak equivalence and a ibration. We say an object is ibrant i the map 1 to the terminal object is a ibration. Theorem With the above structure, sshb is a closed model category in the sense o Quillen. Proo o (3.14) using (10.6). The coibrations and weak equivalences in a closed model category determine the ibrations. Since ShB serves as its own boolean localization, the weak equivalences (resp. ibrations) o (10.6) are precisely the local weak equivalences (resp. local ibrations) o (3.10). Thus the two model category structures coincide, and thus local ibrations are model category theoretic ibrations Characterization o trivial ibrations. Lemma I sshb is ibrant, then (b) (LEx )(b) is a weak equivalence or each b B. Proo. Since is ibrant, each map (b) i (b i) i Ex (b i ) is a product o weak equivalences between ibrant simplicial sets, and thus is a weak equivalence. Thus the map (b) (LEx )(b) colim Ex (b i ) b= b i is a weak equivalence, since the colimit is taken over a directed set. Corollary I,Y sshb are ibrant, then : Y is a weak equivalence i and only i (b): (b) Y(b) is a weak equivalence or each b B The ollowing lemma implies that i : Y sshb is a map such that each (b) is a weak equivalence o simplicial sets, then is a weak equivalence. i

23 FIBRATIONS AND HOMOTOPY COLIMITS OF SIMPLICIAL SHEAVES 23 Lemma I : Y spshb is a map o simplicial presheaves such that each (b): (b) Y(b) is a weak equivalence, then L: L LY is a weak equivalence o simplicial sheaves. Proo. First, note that i W is a simplicial preshea, then LEx LW LEx W. Now i each (b) is a weak equivalence, then so is each Ex (b), and thus we conclude that LEx is a weak equivalence using (10.4). Let y: B ShB denote the canonical unctor sending b to the representable shea hom sshb (,b). Note that y identiies B with the category o subobjects o the terminal object 1 in ShB. Proposition A map : Y sshb is a trivial ibration i and only i each (b): (b) Y(b) is a trivial ibration o simplicial sets. Proo. The i part ollows immediately rom (10.10) and the deinition o ibrations. To prove the only i part, note that since is a ibration it suices to show that or each vertex v Y 0 (b) that the iber o (b) over v is a contractible Kan complex. Let u: yb Y be the map representing v, and orm the pullback square g P yb u Y Note that g is a ibration, and that the inclusion yb 1 o discrete objects is easily seen to be a ibration. Thus P and yb are ibrant. Thus, to show that P(b) is contractible it suices by (10.9) to show that g is a weak equivalence, since yb(b) is a point. The unctor LEx preserves pullbacks, ibrations, and weak equivalences, and urthermorelex yb = yb. Thus(LEx )(b )isatrivialibrationoreachb B, whence so is each (LEx g)(b ), and thus g is a weak equivalence as desired Factorizations. We produce actorizations o maps in sshb by use o the small object argument. Chooseanininitecardinalc > 2 B andletγ bethesmallestordinalocardinality c. Then or each b B the object yb ShB is small with respect to γ. That is, given a unctor : γ ShB, any map yb colim α<γ α actors through some β with β < γ. Lemma Given : Y, there exists a actorization = pi as a coibration i ollowed by a trivial ibration p. Proo. We inductively deine a unctor : γ sshb as ollows. Let (0) =. Let (α) = colim β<α (β) i α < γ is a limit ordinal. Otherwise, deine (α+1) by the pushout square yb [n] yb [n] (α) (α+1)

24 24 CHARLES REZK where the coproducts are taken over the set o all diagrams o the orm yb [n] yb [n] (α) Y The desired actorization is colim α<γ (α) Y. Lemma Trivial ibrations have the right liting property with respect to coibrations. Proo. Note that (10.11) and the choice axiom or ShB (3.3) implies that trivial ibrations are precisely the maps which have the right liting property with respect to all maps o the orm S [n] S [n], where S is any discrete object in ShB. Thus the result ollows when we note that i i: A B is a monomorphism in sshb, then we can write B n A n S n or some S n sshb since ShB is boolean, and in this way construct an ascending iltration F n B B or 1 n < such that F n B F n 1 B S n [n], F 1 B A, and colim n F n B B. S n [n] Let C denote the class o maps in sshb which are retracts o transinite compositions o pushouts along maps o the orm yb Λ k [n] yb [n], where b B and n k 0. Lemma Given : Y, there exists a actorization = qj as a map j C ollowed by a ibration q. Proo. We perorm the small object argument by taking pushouts along coproducts o maps yb Λ k [n] yb [n], indexed by diagrams o the orm yb Λ k [n] yb [n] (α) Y Otherwise, the proo is similar to that o (10.13). Lemma The class C is precisely the class o trivial coibrations. Proo. First we show that C consists o trivial coibrations. It is already clear that every map in C is a coibration. Suppose that is a simplicial shea. Consider the ollowing pushout square in the category o simplicial presheaves. yb Λ k [n] yb [n] Y