Higher Equipments, Double Colimits and Homotopy Colimits

Haderi; Redi

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 24 references

Higher Equipments, Double Colimits and Homotopy Colimits

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In any higher equipment, homotopy colimits are double colimits of companion diagrams.

desk verdict A genuinely promising unifying idea whose central theorem currently rests on an unproved (and likely false as stated) equipment property for sSet^♯. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06201 v1 pith:TKK4GXHC submitted 2019-08-16 math.AT math.CT

Redi , Haderi This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.ATmath.CT MSC 18N1018G3055U35

keywords simplicialcategoriesdoubleequipmentscolimitshomotopysimpliciallyenrichedcompanionshighermappingcylinders

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is trying to show that simplicial categories—simplicial objects in the category of categories—are two-fold categorical structures in their own right, and that their double category theory is homotopically meaningful. The central claim is Theorem 4: for any higher equipment E, indexing category J, and functor F : J → E0, the double colimit of the diagram F* obtained by composing F with the companion construction is isomorphic to the homotopy colimit of F computed in the vertical simplicially enriched category Ev. If true, this gives homotopy colimits a clean universal property of the kind double categories provide, without requiring a model structure. It also unifies two worlds usually treated separately: double-category tools for bimodules and profunctors, and simplicially enriched tools for homotopy limits and colimits.

What carries the argument

The equipment property is the load-bearing mechanism: for x ∈ E_n, any coherent family f_i : d_i x → y_i in E_{n-1} with matching faces extends universally to f : x → y in E_n with d_i y = y_i and d_i f = f_i. The companion construction σ* = s^n x_0(φ_{d_n σ}, ..., φ_{d_0 σ}) recursively fills the cylinder over x0 along the faces, and the tower representation expresses σ* as a composition of universal extensions. The vertical sSet-category Ev, with mapping spaces E_v(x,y)_n = E_n($s_0^{{(n)}}$x, $s_0^{{(n)}}$y), is the bridge that turns double colimits into homotopy colimits.

What would settle it

For a specific boundary datum in sSet^♯, say an n=2 datum with three face collages Y0, Y1, Y2 glued along common edges, form the pushout Y = X ⊔_{∂X} Y• and check whether the three faces of the resulting map Y → $Δ^{2}$ are the specified Y_i up to the natural isomorphism the paper allows. If any face comes out with extra identifications or the induced map fails the universal property, the equipment property—and with it Theorem 4—fails in the main example.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Simplicial categories, functors E : Δ^op → Cat, are presented as two-fold structures: objects of E0 are objects, maps of E0 are vertical arrows, objects of En are horizontal n-simplices, and morphisms in En are bisimplices. The paper defines an equipment property for such E: every map from the boundary ∂x of an n-simplex x to a compatible family y• extends universally to a map x → y whose faces are exactly y•. Using this property it constructs a companion σ* for each vertical n-simplex σ = (x0 → ... → xn), built recursively as a universal extension of the companions of its faces; in sSet^♯, where E_n = sSet/Δ^n, the companion is the homotopy colimit of the chain, i.e. its higher mapping cylinder. The vertical direction Ev is a simplicially enriched category, and the main result is that the double colimit of F* equals the homotopy colimit of F in Ev.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the claim that the pushout construction in examples like sSet^♯ really satisfies the equipment property—that filling a simplex boundary by pushout produces an object over Δ^n whose faces are exactly the specified ones and whose universal property is the stated one; the paper asserts this with a one-line diagram rather than verifying the simplicial identities and coherence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In any higher equipment, the homotopy colimit of F : J → E0 in Ev is representable as a double colimit, so it inherits the unique-morphism universal property of double colimits.
For sSet^♯, the companion of a chain is the higher mapping cylinder, so the homotopy colimit of a diagram of spaces is assembled by gluing mapping cylinders of its simplices, now with a universal property.
Because Theorem 3 shows Ev is cotensored when E has double colimits, the double-colimit structure supplies tensors K ⊙ x = dcolim K_x for every simplicial set K.
The dual right-equipment property gives homotopy limits as double limits, so the same framework covers limits by reversing arrows.
The theorem generalizes the earlier result that the Grothendieck construction of a diagram of categories is the double colimit of its companion profunctors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the equipment property holds coherently for sSet^♯, then every homotopy colimit of simplicial sets can be computed as a colimit of cotabulators, suggesting a purely categorical account of the homotopy colimit that avoids coend formulas.
The paper's note that the axioms do not force invertible comparison maps for degeneracies leaves a natural test: find a higher equipment where the comparison fails to be an isomorphism, which would delimit how close the companion construction is to a strict functor.
One could test the same double-colimit machinery on diagrams indexed by arbitrary simplicial sets rather than ordinary categories, potentially defining homotopy colimits for a wider class of indexing shapes.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

If you look at this paper, the thing to know is that it has a real idea and then leaves it largely unproven. The central construction—a simplicial category sSet^♯ with n-simplices the slice category sSet/Δ^n—and the slogan that simplicial categories are to sSet-categories what double categories are to 2-categories are worth taking seriously. The expository build-up from collages to equipments is clear, and the Grothendieck construction as a double colimit (Theorem 1) is plausible and adequately sketched.

The problem is the equipment property. Definition 4 requires that for a coherent family of maps from the faces of x to objects y_i, the universal extension y satisfies d_i y = y_i. For sSet^♯ this is asserted via a one-line pushout, but the pushout does not obviously produce that equality. I checked the stress-test concern and it lands: when n = 3, if Y_1 has an extra simplex over an edge shared with Y_0, that simplex survives in the face d_0 of the pushout, so d_0 Y contains Y_0 plus extra stuff. The compatibility condition d_i f_j = d_{j-1} f_i only identifies the images of the source under the two maps; it does not force Y_i and Y_j to have the same extra data on shared subfaces. So the flagship example may fail the equipment property as stated. Since companions, the tower representation, and Theorem 4 all depend on that property, this is load-bearing, not a cosmetic gap.

There is also a strictness issue. The paper admits the simplicial identities for Cat^♯ and sSet^♯ hold only up to isomorphism, yet everything is written as if E is a strict simplicial category. No definition of a weak simplicial category or coherence theorem is supplied. And the proof of Theorem 4 is a paragraph: for J = Δ^n it says the tower representation plus Proposition 6 imply the correspondence, without spelling out the verification. That is a sketch, not a proof.

What is genuinely good here: the intuition that companions are mapping cylinders, that double colimits of companions compute homotopy colimits, and that the vertical enrichment of a simplicial category is a sSet-category. These are worth developing. But as it stands, the paper is a program with the main theorem unsupported. I would not cite it for the central result yet.

Who is this for? Category theorists working on equipments or double categorical frameworks for homotopy theory, and perhaps graduate students who want a readable introduction to the motivations. A serious referee should see it—conditional acceptance with major revision is the right call, not desk rejection. The author needs to either fix the equipment property (maybe by requiring the Y_i to agree on all overlaps as objects, or by weakening the equality to an isomorphism and proving coherence) or find a different class of examples. The idea deserves another pass.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a theory of higher equipments: simplicial categories E (simplicial objects in Cat) equipped with a universal extension property for maps from the boundary of an n-simplex, together with examples Cat^♯, sSet^♯, Top^♯ and coSpan(C)^♯. It defines companions of vertical simplices, double colimits of horizontal diagrams, and a vertical simplicially enriched category E_v. The main result, Theorem 4, asserts that for a higher equipment E, an indexing category J, and a functor F:J→E_0, the double colimit of the companion diagram F* is isomorphic to the homotopy colimit of F in E_v. The paper also states an adjunction between simplicial categories and sSet-categories and proposes the principle that simplicial categories are to simplicially enriched categories what double categories are to 2-categories.

Significance. The central analogy is attractive and, if fully established, would give a genuinely new double-categorical description of homotopy colimits. The paper is written in an expository spirit, with explicit definitions, illustrations, and helpful pedagogical passages. It also honestly flags some of its own limitations, such as the lack of a constructed simplicial category Set^♯. However, the main theorem is only sketched, and the equipment property for the flagship example sSet^♯ is asserted rather than proved. Since companions, the tower representation, and Theorem 4 all rest on the equipment property, the current manuscript does not yet substantiate its principal claims.

major comments (5)

[§3.2, Definition 4] The verification of the equipment property for sSet^♯ is a single sentence: after displaying the pushout diagram, the text says 'Similarly Cat^♯, Top^♯ and coSpan(C)^♯ satisfy the equipment property.' This is load-bearing. For n≥3 the proposed pushout Y = X ∐_{∂X} Y• generally does not satisfy Definition 4(i). For example, when n=3, if Y_1 contains a 1-simplex over the common edge d_0∩d_1 that is not in the image of the corresponding edge of X under f_1, then d_0Y contains that extra simplex, so d_0Y ≠ Y_0. Thus the universal extension is not an object of sSet^♯_n with the prescribed faces. Because Definition 4 underlies the companion construction, Proposition 5, and Theorem 4, this gap is fundamental.
[§3.1, §3.2, §3.3] The paper explicitly says that Cat^♯ and sSet^♯ are only weak simplicial categories: 'Verifying the simplcial identities (up to isomorphism) and coherence laws is an easy but tedious exercice' and d_1s_0≅1. However, Definition 4, the boundary notation ∂x, Proposition 3, the companion recursion in §3.3, and the construction of E_v all treat E as a strict simplicial category. There is no definition of a weak simplicial category and no explanation of how the universal extension property and the equations d_i y = y_i are to be interpreted when face functors compose only up to isomorphism. This ambiguity affects the well-definedness of σ* and of the vertical enrichment E_v.
[§3.6, proof of Theorem 4] The proof of Theorem 4 is a one-paragraph sketch. It invokes Theorem 2, Proposition 5, and Proposition 6, but it does not verify that the composite F* is an oplax transformation satisfying the coherence conditions required by Definition 5, nor does it prove that the claimed isomorphism is natural. The statement that a morphism σ*→s^n y corresponds precisely to morphisms from the staircase diagram is asserted without checking the universal properties at each step. A complete proof must exhibit the double-colimit universal property explicitly and compare it with the mapping-cylinder description of homotopy colimits.
[§3.5, §3.6, Theorem 3] Theorem 3 states that if E has double colimits then E_v is cotensored, but the proof actually defines K⊙x = dcolim K_x and derives the tensor isomorphism sSet(K, E_v(x,y)) ≅ E_v0(K⊙x,y). This is the tensor property, not the cotensor property; the dual statement, using double limits, gives cotensors. The misstatement matters because the homotopy colimit formula in §3.5 uses tensors, and the paper's use of tensors should be grounded in a correctly stated theorem.
[§3.3, companion construction] The companion construction is asserted to define an oplax transformation (·)*: E_0→E, but no proof is given that the comparison maps α_i satisfy the required naturality and coherence diagrams. The recursion indicates that the faces of s_i φ_σ factor through the faces of φ_{s_i σ}, but the coherence laws for the α_i are not demonstrated. This coherence is essential because Theorem 4 composes F:J→E_0 with (·)* to produce the horizontal diagram F* whose double colimit is computed.

minor comments (5)

[§1] In the discussion of collages, the text says 'with p^{-1}(0)=C and p^{-1}(0)=D'; the second occurrence should be p^{-1}(1)=D.
[§3.1] The notation X(n) for the set of n-simplices of a simplicial set X conflicts with the earlier convention X_n and should be standardized.
[§3.1, Definition 3] In the definition of an n-collage, the displayed formula ob(C)=∐_{i=1}^n ob(C_i) should be indexed from i=0 to n, since the tuple is (C_0,...,C_n,C).
[§3.7] In the duality discussion, the sentence 'and the homotopy colimit on the left side is interpreted' should refer to the homotopy limit, since the equation displayed is dlim *F ≅ holim F.
[§2.5.2] In the proof of Proposition 2, the statement that verifying the universal property is 'an easy exercise' leaves the uniqueness clause unaddressed; the proof would be more complete if the universal property were written out.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Theorem 4 reduces to the companion construction: the double-colimit side is, by the paper's own tower representation and Proposition 6, a restatement of the staircase colimit used to define homotopy colimits.

self definitional [§3.3 (companion recursion), §3.4 Proposition 6, and §3.6 proof of Theorem 4]
"σ∗ = { σ if n = 0, snx0(φdnσ,...,φ d0σ) if n> 0 } ... As we may intuit from the examples the degeneracy s0x0 represents the cylinder of x0 and extending the cylinder along f : x0→ x1 universally to form f ∗ represents the formation of the mapping cylinder of f . ... the tower representation (Proposition 5) of σ∗ together with Proposition 6 imply that morphism in En σ∗→sny for some y ∈ E0 corresponds precisely to morphisms from the step diagram corresponding to Mσ to y."

The companion is not an independently chosen invariant: it is defined by iterated universal extensions whose cotabulators are, by Proposition 6 ('a mere restatement of the universality'), the very pushouts that make up the staircase diagram Mσ. Proposition 5 ('tower representation') asserts that σ∗ is exactly that iterated extension. Hence, for J = Δ^n, the cotabulator of σ∗ is Mσ by construction, and the proof of Theorem 4 uses this correspondence to conclude dcolim F∗ = hocolim F. In the flagship example sSet^♯, the equipment extension is itself defined as the pushout that is the mapping cylinder. The theorem therefore restates the companion construction rather than deriving the equality from first principles.

full rationale

The circularity here is definitional rather than citational: the paper contains no load-bearing self-citation chain. The concerning reduction is that Theorem 4's conclusion is built into the companion recursion. The companion σ∗ is defined by universal extensions, and the paper's Proposition 6 explicitly identifies the cotabulator of any universal extension with a pushout of the constituent cotabulators; the tower representation then identifies σ∗ with the same inductive colimit as the 'staircase diagram' Mσ used in §3.5 to define homotopy colimits. The proof of Theorem 4 is a one-line appeal to these two results, so the claimed equality dcolim F∗ = hocolim F is a translation of definitions, not an independent derivation. Separate from circularity, the verification of the equipment property for sSet^♯ via a one-line pushout is a genuine correctness risk: the paper does not check the simplicial identities or that faces of the pushout exactly equal the prescribed Y_i. That is a mathematical gap, not a circular step, and it does not affect the score. The abstract comparison between double categories and sSet-categories, and the adjunction |·| ⊣ (·)_v, have some independent content, but the central theorem as stated is substantially a reformulation of the companion/homotopy-colimit identification.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central theorem rests on the newly postulated equipment property and its verification in examples, plus the coherence of weak simplicial identities, none of which are fully proved. The free-parameter count is zero because the paper proposes no numeric fits.

assumptions (5)

standard math Basic category theory, simplicial sets, homotopy colimits, double categories, equipments and enriched categories as background.
Used throughout; no proofs provided, citations given to [GJ09], [Rie14], [Shu08], [GP99], etc.
domain assumption Simplicial categories (objects in Cat) can be treated as 2-fold structures with vertical category E0 and horizontal n-simplices.
Section 3.1 interprets simplicial categories as two-fold structures; this interpretation underlies all subsequent definitions.
ad hoc to paper The equipment property (Definition 4) is satisfied by the examples, in particular sSet^♯, via pushouts.
Stated in Section 3.2 with a one-line pushout description; no rigorous verification of the universal property or the coherence of the pushout construction.
ad hoc to paper The weak simplicial identities in Cat^♯ and sSet^♯ can be treated coherence-coherently within the strict theory.
Section 3.1 says verification is an easy but tedious exercise; the paper proceeds as if the examples satisfy the strict definitions without addressing the strict/weak distinction.
domain assumption The vertical sSet-category E_v of a simplicial category is a simplicially enriched category and for sSet^♯ recovers the usual enrichment.
Defined in Section 3.6; for sSet^♯ the identification is shown by a short argument, but for general E it is taken as construction and not fully checked.

invented entities (3)

Higher equipment (simplicial category with equipment property) independent evidence
purpose: Provides universal extension of boundary maps, enabling companion construction and double colimits.
Instantiated by sSet^♯, Cat^♯, Top^♯, coSpan(C)^♯; if the property failed, Theorem 4 would not apply. The property is checkable and is the foundation of the paper.
Companion simplex σ* independent evidence
purpose: Represents higher mapping cylinders and enters the statement dcolim F* = hocolim F.
For a 1-simplex in sSet^♯ it is described as the mapping cylinder M_f, which is an established construction.
Double colimit of a horizontal diagram in a simplicial category independent evidence
purpose: Defines the universal object dcolim F used in Theorem 4.
Defined in Section 3.4; computed via cotabulators and colimits, and independently tied to homotopy colimits by Theorem 4.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Higher Equipments, Double Colimits and Homotopy Colimits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TKK4GXHC

@misc{pith2026190806201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Higher Equipments, Double Colimits and Homotopy Colimits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TKK4GXHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06201}
}

read the original abstract

This document is centered around a main idea: simplicial categories, by which we mean simplicial objects in the category of categories, can be treated as a two-fold categorical structure and their double category theory is homotopically meaningful. The most well-known two-fold structures are double categories, typically used to organize bimodules in various contexts. However there is no double category of spaces even though notions of bimodule are conceivable. We first remedy this defect of double category theory by constructing a meaningful simplicial category of spaces. Then we develop the analogy with double categories by defining double colimits and by postulating an equipment property, which is promptly satisfied in the examples. As an application we prove that certain double colimits are naturally interpreted as homotopy colimits. Quite surprisingly this analogy unveils a principle: simplicial categories are to simplicially enriched categories what double categories are to 2-categories!

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06201 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The homotopy colimit of X0 f −→ X1 g −→ X2 . In this case we join with an interval (1-simplex) every point x ∈ X0 with its image f(x) ∈ X1. The resulting space (after imposing the correct topology) is the mapping cylinder of f (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

[1]

A unified framework for generalized multicategories

Geoffrey SH Cruttwell and Michael A Shulman. A unified framework for generalized multicategories. Theory and Applications of Categories , 24(21):580--655, 2010

work page 2010
[2]

A primer on homotopy colimits

Daniel Dugger. A primer on homotopy colimits. preprint , 2008

work page 2008
[3]

Simplicial matrices and the nerves of weak n-categories

John W Duskin. Simplicial matrices and the nerves of weak n-categories. i. nerves of bicategories. Theory and applications of categories , 9(10):198--308, 2002

work page 2002
[4]

Span and cospan representations of weak double categories

Marco Grandis et al. Span and cospan representations of weak double categories. Categories and General Algebraic Structures with Applications , 6(Speical Issue on the Occasion of Banaschewski's 90th Birthday (I)):85--105, 2017

work page 2017
[5]

Lax colimits and free fibrations in $\infty$-categories

David Gepner, Rune Haugseng, and Thomas Nikolaus. Lax colimits and free fibrations in infinity-categories, 2015. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.02161

work page Pith review arXiv 2015
[6]

Simplicial homotopy theory

Paul G Goerss and John F Jardine. Simplicial homotopy theory . Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

2009
[7]

Limits in double categories

Marco Grandis and Robert Par \'e . Limits in double categories. Cahiers de Topologie et G \'e om \'e trie Diff \'e rentielle Cat \'e goriques , 40(3):162--220, 1999

work page 1999
[8]

Adjoint for double categories

Marco Grandis and Robert Par \'e . Adjoint for double categories. Cahiers de topologie et g \'e om \'e trie diff \'e rentielle cat \'e goriques , 45(3):193--240, 2004

work page 2004

Show all 24 references

[9]

Kan extensions in double categories (on weak double categories, part iii)

Marco Grandis and Robert Par \'e . Kan extensions in double categories (on weak double categories, part iii). Theory and Applications of Categories , 20(8):152--185, 2008

2008
[10]

The theory of quasi-categories and its applications

Andr \'e Joyal. The theory of quasi-categories and its applications. 2008

2008
[11]

A double-dimensional approach to formal category theory

Seerp Roald Koudenburg. A double-dimensional approach to formal category theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.04070 , 2015

2015 arXiv
[12]

Basic bicategories

Tom Leinster. Basic bicategories. arXiv preprint math/9810017 , 1998

1998 arXiv
[13]

Higher operads, higher categories , volume 298

Tom Leinster. Higher operads, higher categories , volume 298. Cambridge University Press, 2004

2004
[14]

This is the (co) end, my only (co) friend

Fosco Loregian. This is the (co) end, my only (co) friend. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.02503 , 2015

2015 arXiv
[15]

Higher Topos Theory (AM-170) , volume 189

Jacob Lurie. Higher Topos Theory (AM-170) , volume 189. Princeton University Press, 2009

2009
[16]

Categories for the working mathematician , volume 5

Saunders Mac Lane. Categories for the working mathematician , volume 5. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

2013
[17]

Yoneda theory for double categories

Robert Par \'e . Yoneda theory for double categories. Theory and Applications of Categories , 25(17):436--489, 2011

2011
[18]

Weighted limits and colimits

Emily Riehl et al. Weighted limits and colimits. available at math. harvard. edu/ eriehl , 2009

2009
[19]

A leisurely introduction to simplicial sets

Emily Riehl. A leisurely introduction to simplicial sets. Unpublished expository article available online at http://www. math. harvard. edu/\ eriehl , 2011

2011
[20]

Categorical homotopy theory , volume 24

Emily Riehl. Categorical homotopy theory , volume 24. Cambridge University Press, 2014

2014
[21]

Category theory in context

Emily Riehl. Category theory in context . Courier Dover Publications, 2017

2017
[22]

Homotopy limits and colimits and enriched homotopy theory

Michael Shulman. Homotopy limits and colimits and enriched homotopy theory. arXiv preprint math/0610194 , 2006

2006 arXiv
[23]

Framed bicategories and monoidal fibrations

Michael Shulman. Framed bicategories and monoidal fibrations. Theory and applications of categories , 20(18):650--738, 2008

2008
[24]

Equipments

Michael Shulman. Equipments. https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2009/11/equipments.html, 2009

2009

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A unified framework for generalized multicategories

Geoffrey SH Cruttwell and Michael A Shulman. A unified framework for generalized multicategories. Theory and Applications of Categories , 24(21):580--655, 2010

work page 2010

[2] [2]

A primer on homotopy colimits

Daniel Dugger. A primer on homotopy colimits. preprint , 2008

work page 2008

[3] [3]

Simplicial matrices and the nerves of weak n-categories

John W Duskin. Simplicial matrices and the nerves of weak n-categories. i. nerves of bicategories. Theory and applications of categories , 9(10):198--308, 2002

work page 2002

[4] [4]

Span and cospan representations of weak double categories

Marco Grandis et al. Span and cospan representations of weak double categories. Categories and General Algebraic Structures with Applications , 6(Speical Issue on the Occasion of Banaschewski's 90th Birthday (I)):85--105, 2017

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Lax colimits and free fibrations in $\infty$-categories

David Gepner, Rune Haugseng, and Thomas Nikolaus. Lax colimits and free fibrations in infinity-categories, 2015. arXiv preprint arXiv:1501.02161

work page Pith review arXiv 2015

[6] [6]

Simplicial homotopy theory

Paul G Goerss and John F Jardine. Simplicial homotopy theory . Springer Science & Business Media, 2009

2009

[7] [7]

Limits in double categories

Marco Grandis and Robert Par \'e . Limits in double categories. Cahiers de Topologie et G \'e om \'e trie Diff \'e rentielle Cat \'e goriques , 40(3):162--220, 1999

work page 1999

[8] [8]

Adjoint for double categories

Marco Grandis and Robert Par \'e . Adjoint for double categories. Cahiers de topologie et g \'e om \'e trie diff \'e rentielle cat \'e goriques , 45(3):193--240, 2004

work page 2004