added full publication details for the following item (wasn’t so easy to find…)

- Wojciech Chacholski, Wolfgang Pitsch, and Jerome Scherer,
*Homotopy pullback squares up to localization*, in Dominique Arlettaz, Kathryn Hess (eds.)*An Alpine Anthology of Homotopy Theory*(arXiv:math/0501250, pdf, doi:10.1090/conm/399)

have added to the section *Fiberwise characterisation* the statement for stable model categories: a square is a homotopy pullback iff it is a homotopy pushout iff it induces an equivalence on homotopy fibers. With a pointer to the 2007 version of Hovey’s book, for a proof.

Ok, I’ve made some changes to factorization lemma now, mainly adding lemma 3 and rewriting the proof of the factorization lemma (prop 1). I hope everything is still coherent.

Edit: also edited homotopy pullback a bit. I changed the limit in Corollary 1 to the pullback you see now, just for simplicity of exposition.

]]>Thanks!

]]>Oh thanks, I see now, the argument is in the proof of Lemma 1 in that version. I’ll try to make some edits.

]]>Okay, so maybe we need to add more to Richard’s version then after all.

If you go back to revision number 10 (or any previous one) then the statement in question is right in the first paragraphs.

If that’s what you need, maybe could you edit the entry again such as to make this clear (again)?

]]>I can’t really make the connection, is it Proposition 3 which is supposed to be used? I thought that was just the analogue of the factorization axiom for categories of fibrant objects.

]]>Hm, this is supposed to be the key argument laid out at *factorization lemma*.

Just recently Richard Williamson had rewritten that entry. See our recent discussion around here.

If the above doesn’t become clear enough there, then we should add more amplification again.

]]>I am having some trouble following the discussion between Remark 1 and Corollary 1 at homotopy pullback,

If all objects involved are already fibrant, then such a resolution is provided by the factorization lemma. This says that a fibrant resoltuion of $B \to C$ is given by the total composite vertical morphism in

$\array{ C^I \times_C B &\to& B \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ C^I &\to& C \\ \downarrow \\ C } \,,$where $C \stackrel{\simeq}{\to} C^I \to C \times C$ is a path object for the fibrant object $C$

With a friend we were able to see that this vertical composite $C^I \times_C B \to C$ is a fibration by factoring it as two fibrations,

$C^I \times_C B \to (C \times C) \times_C B \simeq C \times B \to C \times \ast$After some reflection one can see that this is the same as the morphism in question. However I wonder if the author maybe had a more elegant argument in mind (I don’t really understand the reference to the “factorization lemma”)?

]]>at *homotopy pullback* I have added another brief section *Constructions - In homotopy type theory* where I spell out briefly how applying the categorical semantics interpretation to the HoTT formulation of the homotopy pullback does reproduce the derived pullback formula discussed further above in this entry.

At *homotopy pullback* I have added a brief section *In homotopy type theory* with just a basic remark. Should be expanded, eventually.

The *zee* is a *cee* :-)

The morphism is induced from the canonical section $s : C \to C^I$ into the path space object, namely from the commuting diagram

$\array{ A \times_C B &\to& C &\stackrel{s}{\to}& C^I \\ \downarrow &&&{}_{\mathllap{\Delta}}\searrow& \downarrow \\ A \times B &&\to&& C \times C } \,.$Thanks for catching this. I have fixed it.

]]>There is a sentence in the middle

The canonical morphism $A \times_{C} B \to A \times_C^h B$ here is induced by the section $Z \to Z^I$.

Not only that there is some apparent notation confusion here, but I do not know which canonical morphism, I mean the ordinary pullback $A\times_C B$ is not mentioned in the preceding diagrams. Well, it is, in a different notation, the whole page scrolled above, in a different section. What is going on ?

]]>Ah, right. Thanks!

]]>Thanks. I added a comment about the Reedy model structure which “explains” the first condition.

]]>prompted by a question by email, I have expanded at homotopy pullback the section on Concrete constructions by listing and discussing the precise conditions under which ordinary pullbacks are homotopy pullbacks.

Most of this information is scattered around elswehere on the $n$Lab (such as at homotopy limit and right proper model category) and I had wrongly believed that it was already collected here. But it wasn’t.

]]>