4
$\begingroup$

In Jacob Lurie's Higher Topos Theory book, he defines the following notion of a simplicial nerve:

Definition 1.1.5.5. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a simplicial category. The simplicial nerve $N(\mathcal{C})$ is the simplicial set described by the formula

$$ \text{Hom}_{\mathcal{S}et_{\Delta}}(\Delta^n,N(\mathcal{C}))=\text{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}at_{\Delta}}(\mathfrak{C}[\Delta^n],\mathcal{C}). $$

Lurie then goes on to say (in Warning 1.1.5.7) that if one considers a simplicial category $\mathcal{C}$ as an ordinary category by forgetting about all the positive dimensional simplices in the mapping spaces of $\mathcal{C}$, then (generally) the simplicial nerve of $\mathcal{C}$ will not coincide with the ordinary notion of the nerve of $\mathcal{C}$.

Question: Why is this the case? What exactly is the difference between the two?

I mean, it seems clear to me that the difference should lie in the forgetting of simplices in $\mathcal{C}$ when considering it as an ordinary category, which would still be present in the case of the simplicial nerve, but I'm just trying to get a better sort of intuitive picture of the differences between the two. Anyone have a nice example that highlights this?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Again, the difference should lie in the fact that the simplicial nerve is a higher-dimensional construction (as evinced by, for example, Prop. 1.1.5.10, which shows that if the mapping spaces are all Kan complexes, then the simplicial nerve is an $\infty$-category), but I was just wondering if anyone has a nice, simple, specific example that highlights the differences. $\endgroup$ – Ralph Mellish Feb 6 '14 at 2:05
2
$\begingroup$

Take, for example, a simplicial category $\mathcal{C}$ with exactly one object $*$ and $B G$ for its unique simplicial set of morphisms, where $B G$ is the classifying Kan complex for an abelian group $G$. (Composition is induced by the group structure of $G$.) Then:

  • As an ordinary category, $\mathcal{C}$ is isomorphic to the terminal category $\mathbb{1}$.
  • As a simplicial category, $\mathcal{C}$ is Dwyer–Kan equivalent to $\mathbb{1}$ if and only if $G$ is the trivial group.

Since the simplicial nerve is conservative up to the appropriate notion of weak equivalence, we deduce that the simplicial nerve of $\mathcal{C}$ cannot be contractible.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.