Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Homotopy category

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 17 years ago by 69.204.54.113 in topic Homotopy categories of model categories.

Homotopy categories of model categories.

[edit]

It seems to me that this description of a homotopy category is too narrow. From the current perspective homotopy categories are usually understood in the context of model categories. For a model category M its homotopy category is equivalent to the category constructed by taking the full subcategory of M on fibrant-cofibrant objects and then inverting all weak equivalences. As a result one does not need to argue which homotopy category is "the" homotopy category - there is one for each model category. One ("Serre") model category structure on the category of topological spaces yields the homotopy category equivalent to the category of CW-complexes and homotopy classes of maps between CW-complexes. Another ("Hurewicz") model category structure on topological spaces produces the homotopy category equivalent to the category of all spaces with homotopy classes of maps as morphisms. --69.204.54.113 (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Homotopy category/CommentsTalk:Homotopy category/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

* First of all, this article has no references. It also presents as rather stream-of-consciousness, with neither an introductory overview nor a conceptual flow. The context given is mainly of interest to specialists, and the information comes off as having been chosen haphazardly. It could be either a weak "Start" or a strong "Stub", but I think it needs a lot of reorganization, expansion, and polishing. Ryan Reich 01:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Last edited at 01:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)