On the equivalence between Lurie's model and the dendroidal model for infinity-operads (Q317340): Difference between revisions

Operads may be viewed as a generalisation of (enriched) categories where the domain of a morphism no longer has to be a single object but rather a tuple of objects, causing the underlying combinatorics to shift from that of finite linear orders to that of trees. Modern approaches to homotopy theory naturally lead to higher categories, for which numerous models exist, one of which is Joyal's model structure on the category of simplicial sets. By analogy to the category-operad relationship, \(\infty\)-operads are expected to be a generalisation of \(\infty \)-categories. One model of \(\infty\)-operads is Lurie's wherein an \(\infty\)-operad is an \(\infty\)-category endowed with some extra structure. Another model is the Cisinski-Moerdijk model structure on dendroidal sets, where dendroidal sets are presheaves on the dendroidal category \(\Omega\), which directly generalises the simplicial category \(\Delta\). The two approaches to \(\infty\)-operads are quite different. Obviously, Lurie's approach benefits from the existing vast repository of information about simplicial sets and the tamer combinatorics of linear orders, while the dendroidal approach benefits from a combinatorics that is somewhat better tailored for operads. More substantially, tensor products exist in both models, with Lurie's being compatible with the model structure but not symmetric, and the dendroidal one being symmetric but only compatible with the model structure, unless no constants are involved. The comparison carried out in the present article is between Lurie's approach for \(\infty\)-operads and the dendroidal approach, subject to the operads having no constants, establishing a zig-zag of Quillen equivalences. The article is written in a very welcoming fashion, including detailed information about dendroidal sets and the existing models. The result itself, namely that the two approaches to \(\infty\)-operads are equivalent, is not a surprise, and, unfortunately perhaps, the amount of work required to establish a precise equivalence is also not a surprise. To bring the formalisms closer to each other the authors must augment the dendroidal approach firstly to forest sets and then to an extension which accommodates for marking (two fundamental features in Lurie's formalism). The article is extremely well-written, including a friendly introduction in Section 1 followed by a detailed preliminaries review in Section 2. Section 3 is concerned with forest sets where the development of the theory is similar to the established one for dendroidal sets, and in particular normal monomorphisms play an important role. The section culminates with a proof of the equivalence of dendroidal sets and forest sets. The equivalence is direct, namely the inclusion functor \(u: \Omega \to \Phi\) of the dendroidal category into the forest category induces the usual triple of functors between the presheaf categories, and the adjunction formed by \(u^*\) and \(u_*\) is a Quillen equivalence. Fortunately, Section 4 is technically a bit less involved, dealing with marked dendroidal sets and marked forest sets. Again, the comparison is direct, and the operations of marking and forest extension are independent of each other, namely the left Quillen functors forming the Quillen equivalences between the relevant categories form a commutative square. The dendrification functor, yielding the desired final zig-zag in the comparison, is the subject of the last two sections. This functor is very well explained in Section 2.5. The establishment of the equivalence between the two approaches to \(\infty\)-operads is a highly anticipated milestone result, masterfully crafted into the form of this very inviting article.