Geodesic
EQUIVALENCE OF MODELS FOR EQUIVARIANT (∞, 1)-CATEGORIES
Glasgow mathematical journal, Tome 59 (2017) no. 1, pp. 237-253

Voir la notice de l'article provenant de la source Cambridge University Press

In this paper, we show that the known models for (∞, 1)-categories can all be extended to equivariant versions for any discrete group G. We show that in two of the models we can also consider actions of any simplicial group G. 
BERGNER, JULIA E. EQUIVALENCE OF MODELS FOR EQUIVARIANT (∞, 1)-CATEGORIES. Glasgow mathematical journal, Tome 59 (2017) no. 1, pp. 237-253. doi: 10.1017/S0017089516000136
@article{10_1017_S0017089516000136,
     author = {BERGNER, JULIA E.},
     title = {EQUIVALENCE {OF} {MODELS} {FOR} {EQUIVARIANT} (\ensuremath{\infty}, {1)-CATEGORIES}},
     journal = {Glasgow mathematical journal},
     pages = {237--253},
     year = {2017},
     volume = {59},
     number = {1},
     doi = {10.1017/S0017089516000136},
     url = {http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/articles/10.1017/S0017089516000136/}
}
TY  - JOUR
AU  - BERGNER, JULIA E.
TI  - EQUIVALENCE OF MODELS FOR EQUIVARIANT (∞, 1)-CATEGORIES
JO  - Glasgow mathematical journal
PY  - 2017
SP  - 237
EP  - 253
VL  - 59
IS  - 1
UR  - http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/articles/10.1017/S0017089516000136/
DO  - 10.1017/S0017089516000136
ID  - 10_1017_S0017089516000136
ER  - 
%0 Journal Article
%A BERGNER, JULIA E.
%T EQUIVALENCE OF MODELS FOR EQUIVARIANT (∞, 1)-CATEGORIES
%J Glasgow mathematical journal
%D 2017
%P 237-253
%V 59
%N 1
%U http://geodesic.mathdoc.fr/articles/10.1017/S0017089516000136/
%R 10.1017/S0017089516000136
%F 10_1017_S0017089516000136

[1] 1. Bergner, J. E., A characterization of fibrant Segal categories, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 135 (2007), 4031–4037. Google Scholar

[2] 2. Bergner, J. E., A model category structure on the category of simplicial categories, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), 2043–2058. Google Scholar

[3] 3. Bergner, J. E., Three models for the homotopy theory of homotopy theories, Topology 46 (2007), 397–436. Google Scholar

[4] 4. Bergner, J. E. and Chadwick, S. G., Equivariant complete Segal spaces, Homology, Homotopy Appl. 17 (2), (2015), 371–381. Google Scholar

[5] 5. Bohmann, A. M., Mazur, K., Osorno, A., Ozornova, V., Ponto, K. and Yarnall, C., A model structure on , in Women in topology: collaborations in homotopy theory, Contemp. Math., vol. 641 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015), 123–134. Google Scholar

[6] 6. Cisinski, D.-C. and Moerdijk, I., Dendroidal Segal spaces and ∞-operads, J. Topol. 6 (3) (2013), 675–704. Google Scholar | DOI

[7] 7. Cisinski, D.-C. and Moerdijk, I., Dendroidal sets and simplicial operads, J. Topol. 6 (3) (2013), 705–756. Google Scholar

[8] 8. Cisinksi, D.-C. and Moerdijk, I., Dendroidal sets as models for homotopy operads, J. Topol. 4 (2) (2011), 257–299. Google Scholar

[9] 9. Cordier, J. M. and Porter, T., Vogt's theorem on categories of homotopy coherent diagrams, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 100 (1986), 65–90. Google Scholar

[10] 10. Dotto, E. and Moi, K., Homotopy theory of G-diagrams and equivariant excision, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 16 (1) (2016), 325–395. Google Scholar

[11] 11. Dugger, D. and Spivak, D. I., Rigidification of quasicategories, Algebr. Geom. Topol. 11 (2011), 225–261. Google Scholar

[12] 12. Dyckerhoff, T. and Kapranov, M., Higher Segal spaces I, preprint available at math.AT/1212.3563. Google Scholar

[13] 13. Elmendorf, A. D., Systems of fixed point sets. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 277 (1) (1983), 275–284. Google Scholar

[14] 14. Hirschhorn, P. S., Model categories and their localizations, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 99 (AMS, 2003). Google Scholar

[15] 15. Joyal, A., Simplicial categories vs quasi-categories, in preparation. Google Scholar

[16] 16. Joyal, A., The theory of quasi-categories I, in preparation. Google Scholar

[17] 17. Joyal, A. and Tierney, M., Quasi-categories vs Segal spaces, Contemp. Math. 431 (2007), 277–326. Google Scholar

[18] 18. Lack, S., Re: Classifying functor and colimits, Category theory list, http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3407. Google Scholar

[19] 19. Lurie, J., Higher topos theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 170 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009). Google Scholar

[20] 20. Lurie, J., On the classification of topological field theories, in Current developments in mathematics, 2008 (Int. Press, Somerville, MA, 2009), 129–280. Google Scholar

[21] 21. Pelissier, R., Catégories enrichies faibles, preprint available at math.AT/0308246. Google Scholar

[22] 22. Piacenza, R. J., Homotopy theory of diagrams and CW-complexes over a category, Canad. J. Math. 43 (4) (1991), 814–824. Google Scholar | DOI

[23] 23. Reedy, C. L., Homotopy theory of model categories, unpublished manuscript, available at http://www-math.mit.edu/~psh. Google Scholar

[24] 24. Rezk, C., A cartesian presentation of weak n-categories, Geom. Topol. 14 (2010), 521–571. Google Scholar

[25] 25. Rezk, C., A model for the homotopy theory of homotopy theory, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353 (3), 973–1007. Google Scholar

[26] 26. Stephan, M., On equivariant homotopy theory for model categories, Homology, Homotopy Appl. preprint available at math.AT/1308.0856. Google Scholar

Cité par Sources :