I believe there is a notion of a nerve functor into any $\infty$-cosmos $\mathcal{K}$. My inclination is that it would be defined as the colimit of the constant functor that sends all objects to the terminal object in $\mathcal{K}$, which exists by the definition of an $\infty$-cosmos . Is this the correct definition? I cannot seem to find anywhere in Riehl and Verrity's work where this is explicitly defined. Thanks!
2026-04-01 11:57:34.1775044654
A Nerve functor into any $\infty$-comos $\mathcal{N}: Cat \to \mathcal{K}$
54 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in CATEGORY-THEORY
- (From Awodey)$\sf C \cong D$ be equivalent categories then $\sf C$ has binary products if and only if $\sf D$ does.
- Continuous functor for a Grothendieck topology
- Showing that initial object is also terminal in preadditive category
- Is $ X \to \mathrm{CH}^i (X) $ covariant or contravariant?
- What concept does a natural transformation between two functors between two monoids viewed as categories correspond to?
- Please explain Mac Lane notation on page 48
- How do you prove that category of representations of $G_m$ is equivalent to the category of finite dimensional graded vector spaces?
- Terminal object for Prin(X,G) (principal $G$-bundles)
- Show that a functor which preserves colimits has a right adjoint
- Show that a certain functor preserves colimits and finite limits by verifying it on the stalks of sheaves
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Your formula would, interpreted literally, produce a coproduct of terminal objects indexed by the connected components of your category. There is an interpretation of your proposal as a lax colimit which works when these exist, but they are not assumed in a general cosmos. It's probably clearer to define $\mathcal N(J)$ as the simplicial tensor of the terminal object with the ordinary simplicial set $N(J)$.
But those tensors are also not generally assumed to exist, and they shouldn't be. For instance, in the $\infty$-cosmos of Kan complexes, to get a tensor $*\otimes \Delta^1$ we would need a Kan complex $I$ such that maps out of $I$ were naturally isomorphic to maps out of $\Delta^1$, which is impossible. Of course, any Kan fibrant replacement of $\Delta^1$ works up to weak equivalence, but that's not strict enough for the $\infty$-cosmos approach. Weak tensors like this exist in any cocomplete $(\infty,2)$-category $\mathcal K$, and in this way such a thing does always admit a "nerve" like your $\mathcal N$. This won't necessarily be a strict functor, if such a thing even makes sense in your setting for $(\infty,2)$-categories.