arxiv: v3 [math.at] 28 Feb 2014

arxiv:1101.1025v3 [math.at] 28 Feb 2014 CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING (WITH AN APPENDIX BY ROSONA ELDRED) KRISTINE BAUER, BRENDA JOHNSON, AND RANDY MCCARTHY Abstract. We studyunctors F : C D where C and D are simplicial model categories and C is the category consisting o objects that actor a ixed morphism : A B in C. We deine the analogs o Eilenberg and Mac Lane s cross eect unctors in this context, and identiy explicit adjoint pairs o unctors whose associated cotriples are the diagonals o the cross eects. With this, we generalize the cotriple Taylor tower construction o [12] rom the setting o unctors rom pointed categories to abelian categories to thato unctors rom C to S, a suitable category o spectra, to produce a tower o unctors Γ n+1f Γ nf Γ n 1F F(B) whose nth term is a degree n unctor. We compare this tower to Goodwillie s tower, P n+1f P nf P n 1F F(B), o n-excisive approximations to F ound in [9]. When F is a unctor that commutes with realizations, the towers agree. More generally, or unctors that do not commute with realizations, we show that the terms o the towers agree when evaluated at the initial object o C. 1. Introduction Tom Goodwillie s calculus o homotopy unctors is a technique or studying homotopy unctors o spaces and spectra ([8], [9]). It provides a means by which a homotopy unctor can be approximated by an n-excisive unctor in a manner analogous to the degree n Taylor polynomial approximation o a real-valued unction. Because o this analogy, the sequence o approximating unctors, P 1 F,P 2 F,...,P n F,..., associated to a unctor F by Goodwillie s methodisreerredtoas thetaylor tower o F. Inthedecades sinceits initial development, Goodwillie s theory has been urther developed and applied by many other mathematicians. In an eort to apply the calculus o unctors to a more algebraic setting and to better understand the combinatorics underlying Goodwillie s constructions, the second and third authors o this paper developed a model or a Taylor tower or unctors o abelian categories based on a particular collection o cotriples arising rom Eilenberg and Mac Lane s cross eect unctors ([12]). For a unctor F, the terms in the resulting sequence o approximations, {Γ n F}, behave in a slightly dierent way than the n-excisive approximations provided by Goodwillie. Goodwillie s unctors P n F satisy a higher-order excision property, while the polynomial unctors Γ n F satisy 1

2 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY a kind o higher additivity property. The cotriple model or calculus has the advantage that the dierence between a homotopy unctor F and its polynomial approximation Γ n F can be modeled by cotriple homology, which is well understood. Furthermore, in good situations the cotriple method recovers inormation about Goodwillie s unctors. In particular, i C is the category o based topological spaces, and F : C C is a homotopy unctor taking values in connected spaces that commutes with geometric realization, Andrew Mauer-Oats generalized the cotriple method and showed that P n F Γ n F ([15], [16]). The cotriple method as established in [12] is limited; it only applies to unctors F : C D where C is a pointed category (a category with an object that is both initial and inal) with inite coproducts and D is an abelian category. The generalization o the cotriple method to the topological setting in [15] and [16] is similarly limited as it applies to unctors o based spaces. On the other hand, Goodwillie s construction can be used or unctors whose source categories are not pointed and whose target categories are not abelian, in particular, unctors rom the category T op o unbased topological spaces or Top/Y o topological spaces over a ixed space Y to categories o spaces or spectra. In [12], the essential cotriples are obtained by identiying adjoint pairs o unctors or which the right adjoint is a cross eect unctor. Goodwillie ([9]) identiies a similar adjunction up to homotopy in the topological setting o (not necessarily basepointed) spaces and spectra. Working with basepointed spaces, Mauer-Oats ([15]) shows directly that diagonals o cross eect unctors orm the cotriples in which we are interested, but does not identiy the adjoint pairs rom which these cotriples arise. This suggests that there should be some adjoint pairs o unctors that generate the cotriples in the topological setting, at least when the objects are basepointed. A key result in the present paper is to show that this is true or airly general model categories, even in the unpointed case. As an application o the cotriples that one obtains rom these strict adjoint pairs, we generalize the construction o the Taylor tower in [12] and obtain analogous results, including a variation o Mauer-Oats result that relates the terms in the cotriple Taylor tower to those o Goodwillie s. We summarize the main results o the paper below. We work with unctors F : C D where C and D are simplicial model categories and C is the category that consists o objects A X B actoring a ixed morphism : A B in C. In [12], we used an adjoint pair involving the nth cross eect unctor to deine a cotriple n on the category o unctors rom a pointed category with inite coproducts to an abelian category. The cotriple n yielded the (n 1)st term in our Taylor tower. The main diiculty in reconstructing the cotriple n in the category o unctors rom C to D is that the pair o unctors used in [12] is no longer an adjoint pair, butinstead only gives us an adjunction up to homotopy. We resolve this issue by actoring through a category o coalgebras associated to a certain cotriple t to obtain a pair o adjunctions whose composition

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 3 produces the adjunction we need. This gives us the ollowing result. The unctor n is the diagonal o the nth cross eect. Theorem 3.8, Theorem 3.14, Theorem 3.17. For each n 1, there is a cotriple t on the category o unctors o n variables rom C to D, and an adjoint pair o unctors (U +,t + ) between this category and the category o t-coalgebras, where the orgetul unctor U + is the let adjoint. There is a second adjoint pair o unctors (, n ) between the category o unctors o n variables rom C to D and the category o unctors o a single variable rom C to D, with the diagonal unctor as the let adjoint. The composition yields the adjoint pair ( U +,t + n ) whose associated cotriple is n, deined on the category o unctors rom C to D. We can use the cotriples o Theorem 3.17 as the basis or constructing terms in a Taylor tower or F : C S, where S is a suitable category o spectra. However, the nth term in this tower, Γ n F, is not an n-excisive unctor as Goodwillie constructs, but instead a degree n unctor. A unctor is degree n i its (n + 1)st cross eect vanishes, whereas a unctor is n- excisive i it takes strongly cocartesian (n + 1)-cubical diagrams o objects (i.e., diagrams whose square aces are all homotopy pushouts) to homotopy pullback diagrams. We compare the notions o n-excisive and degree n, proving that being degree n is a weaker condition that can yield n-excisive behavior in certain circumstances. When F commutes with realizations, we prove that the notions o degree n and n-excisive coincide, and that the unctors P n F and Γ n F agree. In particular, we have the ollowing results. Proposition 4.11. I F : C S commutes with realizations, then F is degree n i and only i F is n-excisive. We use Proposition 4.11 to obtain a Mauer-Oats style result, showing that there is a ibration sequence o unctors involving P n F and +1 n+1 F, the simplicial object associated to the cotriple n+1 and unctor F. Theorem 6.5. Let F : C S be a unctor that commutes with realizations. Then there is a (co)ibration sequence o unctors +1 n+1 F F P nf. As a consequence o Theorem 6.5, we obtain Corollary 6.8. Let F : C S be a unctor that commutes with realizations. Then P n F and Γ n F are weakly equivalent as unctors rom C to S. When F does not commute with realizations, the role o the initial object, A, in C becomes more critical in comparing the notions o degree n and

4 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY n-excisive, and in comparing Γ n F and P n F. We say that a unctor is n- excisive relative to A i it behaves like an n-excisive unctor on strongly cocartesian (n + 1)-cubical diagrams whose initial objects are A, and prove Proposition 4.3. Let F be a unctor rom C to S. Let n 1 be an integer. The unctor F is degree n i and only i F is n-excisive relative to A. We also prove that the results o Theorem 6.5 and Corollary 6.8 apply when the unctors are evaluated at A. In particular, we have Theorem 6.9. Let F : C S where C is the category o objects actoring the morphism : A B. Then Γ n F(A) P n F(A). An important realization is that Theorem 6.9 can be rephrased to show that or any X, the nth term o Goodwillie s tower can be recovered rom the nth term in some cotriple Taylor tower, even though the towers do not agree as unctors. To do so, we change our ocus to the category o objects over a ixed terminal object B. This ocus on the terminal object is exactly the same as the setting in [9]. Let C /B be the category o objects in C over B, and let F be a unctor rom C /B to spectra. Given any β : X B in C /B, we have a weak equivalence o spectra P n F(X) Γ β nf(x) where {Γ β nf} is the cotriple Taylor tower obtained by restricting F to the category C β. A key step in proving Theorem 6.9 is the observation below. The unctor T n F is the irst stage in the sequence o unctors that Goodwillie uses to construct P n F. Lemma 6.10. Let F : C S. Then is a ibration sequence in S. n+1 F(A) F(A) T n F(A) As an appendix, we include a generalization o this result due to Rosona Eldred: Proposition B.1. For a unctor F : C S, sk k ( +1 n+1 F)(A) F(A) F(A) is a homotopy iber sequence where sk k denotes the k-skeleton o T k+1 n the simplicial object +1 n+1 F. The paper is organized as ollows. In section 2 we take care o preliminaries: we deine the types o categories in which we will be working, describe the models or and properties o homotopy limits and colimits that we use, and review some basic notions associated to n-cubical diagrams o objects in our categories. In section 3 we deine cross eects or unctors rom C to D. We also identiy the composition o adjoint pairs that yields n as a cotriple. In section 4, notions o degree n and n-excisive are compared

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 5 via the intermediate concept o n-excisive relative to A. In section 5, the cotriple Taylor tower is deined and various properties are veriied or it. This leads to a comparison in section 6 o the cotriple Taylor tower in this context with Goodwillie s tower. Acknowledgments: The authors were able to meet and work together several times during the writing o this paper because o the generosity and hospitality o the ollowing: the Midwest Topology Network (unded by NSF grant DMS-0844249), the Union College Faculty Research Fund, the Paciic Institute or the Mathematical Sciences, and the mathematics department o the University o Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. We thank them or their support. We thank Rosona Eldred, Agnès Beaudry, Mona Merling, and Sarah Yeakel or their assistance in conirming the homotopy limit properties o Lemma 2.5. We also thank Tom Goodwillie or the body o work that inspired this paper, and or the understanding o the calculus o unctors that he has imparted to us over the years. Finally, we thank the anonymous reeree or a very careul and thoughtul review. The reeree s comments and corrections improved this paper substantially. In particular, the reeree identiied a critical error in an earlier version o section 3, and his/her suggestion that we prove t is a cotriple directly and use the category o t-coalgebras was crucial in resolving this problem. 2. Prerequisites In this section we describe the context in which we will be working, and review some essential concepts that will be used throughout this paper. The section is divided into three parts. The irst describes the categories with which we work and provides a summary o some properties o model categories, simplicial model categories, and categories o simplicial objects that we need. The second covers necessary acts about homotopy limits and colimits. The third discusses n-cubical diagrams. 2.1. The setting. We work with unctors rom C to D where C and D are suitable model categories. By suitable, we mean that C and D should be simplicial model categories, that C has a unctorial coibrant replacement unctor and that D has a unctorial ibrant replacement unctor. For many results, we will also require that D (but not C) be pointed, i.e., that it has an object that is both initial and inal. Recall that a model category comes equipped with distinguished classes o morphisms weak equivalences, coibrations, and ibrations satisying the standard axioms (as ound on pp. 1.1-1.2 o [17], or in several expository accounts, such as Deinition 1.3 o [7]). Requiring that a category D be a simplicial model category gives us the ollowing extra structure: or every simplicial set K andobject X o D there is an object X K in D; and

6 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY or every simplicial set K and object Y o D there is an exponential object Y K in D deined by the adjunction ormula hom D (X K,Y) = hom D (X,Y K ). or each pair o objects X and Y, there is a simplicial set o morphisms in D, Hom D (X,Y), satisying an additional axiom (see pp. 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2 o [17]). For much o this paper we ocus on subcategories o C determined by morphisms in C. In particular, or a morphism : A B in C, the category C is the category whose objects are pairs o morphisms in C o the orm A X B that provide a actorization o : A B. We will usually denote objects o C simply by the object X through which actors. A morphism in C is a commuting diagram: 7777777 X g 7 A Y B which we will denote as g : X Y when the context is clear. The category C has initial object A = A B (the irst map is the identity and the second map is ) and terminal object A B = B (the irst map is and the second map is the identity). The category C inherits structure rom C. More speciically, it is a simplicial model category whenever C is ([17], II.2, Proposition 6). The map g in C is a weak equivalence i the underlying map g : X Y is a weak equivalence in C, a coibration in C i the underlying map in C is a coibration, and a ibration i g is a ibration in C. For convenience, we assume rom the outset that all objects o C in this paper are coibrant. That is, we assume that an object X o C is a actorization A X B o where the map A B is a coibration in C. Since we assume all objects are coibrant, we abuse notation and simply denote the category o coibrant objects by C. Limits and colimits in C are also inherited rom C, i.e., they can be computed in the underlying category C. We will occasionally pass to the category sc o simplicial objects in C. When doing so, we extend the model category structure o C to sc using the Reedy model structure. Recall that to do so, one uses a Quillen pair. The ollowing deinition dates to [17] and can be ound in many modern reerences, e.g. [7]. Deinition 2.1. Let C and D be model categories and F : C D : G be an adjoint pair o unctors, with F : C D the let adjoint. Then F and G are called a Quillen pair (or Quillen unctor) i F preserves coibrations and weak equivalences between coibrant objects and

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 7 G preserves ibrations and weak equivalences between ibrant objects. We would like to produce an adjoint pair o unctors between C and sc which becomes a Quillen pair when we put the correct model structure on sc. The let adjoint o the (potential) Quillen pair is the geometric realization unctor. Recall that is the category whose objects are ordered sets [n] = {0,1,2,...,n} or n 0 and morphisms are order-preserving set maps. For m 0, the standard m-simplex is m = hom (,[m]). I C (and hence C ) is a simplicial model category and X. is a simplicial object over C, then the object m X n is well-deined or each m,n 0. The geometric realization o X. in sc, denoted X., is the coequalizer o [m] [n] m X n n X n where the irst coproduct runs over all possible morphisms rom [m] to [n] in and the two arrows correspond to evaluation on m and X n, respectively. Its right adjoint is the singular simplicial set unctor. The singular simplicial set o an object Y is the simplicial object Y. deined by (Y ) n = Y n, with ace and degeneracy maps induced by the ones in. Placing the Reedy model category structure on sc guarantees that the geometric realization and the singular simplicial set unctors are a Quillen pair. The coibrations and ibrations or this structure can be readily described via latching and matching objects. The nth latching object consists o the degenerate simplices in the degree n part o a simplicial object. I X. sc, then L n X. := (sk n 1 X) n = colim φ:[n] [m] φ X m where the colimit is taken over all surjections rom [n] in. Note that the degeneracy maps o X. provide a (natural) map L n X X n. The nth matching object is deined similarly, M n X := lim φ:[m] [n] φ X m where the limit is now taken over injections. There is a natural map X n M n X that comes rom the ace maps o X.. The next theorem describes the Reedy structure and establishes that it gives us the desired model category structure. Theorem 2.2. ([18]) There is a model category structure on sc where a morphism g : X. Y. is a weak equivalence i X n Y n is a weak equivalence in C or all n 0; a coibration i the natural morphism X n + LnX L n Y := colim(x n L n X L n Y) Y n is a coibration in C or all n 0; and n

8 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY a ibration i the natural morphism X n Y n MnY M n X := lim(m n X M n Y Y n ) is a ibration in C or all n 0. With this model category structure, the geometric realization and the singular simplicial set unctors orm a Quillen pair. 2.2. Homotopy limits and colimits. We use homotopy limits and colimits to describe certain desirable properties o our unctors. Homotopy limits and colimits can be deined abstractly as total derived unctors or, depending on the category, concretely in terms o speciic models. There are several models or homotopy limits and colimits, typically involving a simplicial construction coming rom the nerve o the underlying diagram category I. We describe the two particular models that we use in this paper and the properties o these models that we will need. For more details, we reer readers to [19], which provides a good expository account o homotopy limits and colimits in model categories, [8], which establishes many o the properties we use or topological spaces and spectra, [10] or more details about the model we use or homotopy limit or [1], the classical reerence. The homotopy colimit model is that o [19] whereas the homotopy limit model is essentially the one described in [1], [8], and [10]. To construct homotopy colimits, we use the generalized bar construction o [19]. Let X : I C be a unctor. Then hocolim I X B (I,X) where the right hand side is the geometric realization o the simplicial object B (I,X) with B n (I,X) = i 0 i n X(i 0 ). The coproduct is indexed by the n-simplices o N (I), the nerve o I, and the ace and degeneracy maps are given by those in N (I). The ollowing properties o B (I,X) are used in section 4. Lemma 2.3. I X is objectwise coibrant, then (1) B (I,X) is coibrant under the Reedy model structure on s.c. (2) or any ull subcategory I o I, the induced map B (I,X) B (I,X) is a coibration in the Reedy model structure. (3) i N (I) = N (I ) N (I ), then B (I I,X) B (I,X) is a pushout diagram. B (I,X) B (I,X)

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 9 Proo. The irst statement (1) is Lemma 9.2 o [19]. To prove (2), we must show that the map j : B n (I,X) L n B (I,X) B n (I,X) L nb (I,X) is a coibration in C. Note that L n B (I,X) is the coproduct i 0 i n X(i 0 ) indexedby chains o maps i 0 i n in I or whichsome i k i k+1 is the identity map. Thestructuremaps L n B (I,X) B n (I,X) and B n (I,X) B n (I,X) are induced by inclusion maps: the irst is the inclusion o the degenerate elements while the second is induced by the orgetul unctor rom I to I. These inclusions mean that the map j is constructed rom maps that are coibrations. That is, each summand X(i 0 ) in B n (I,X) L n B (I,X) L nb (I,X) is indexed by a chain o maps i 0 i n either in I, which is a subcategory o I, or else in I itsel (coming rom a degenerate chain o maps in I), or both. Thus, X(i 0 ) also represents a summand o B n (I,X). To complete the construction o j, we take the coproduct o identity maps, one or each summand X(i 0 ) o B n (I,X) L nb (I,X) L nb (I,X) together with the coproduct over the initial object A o maps A X(i 0 ) or each summand X(i 0 ) o B n (I,X) indexed by a chain o maps i 0 i n which is neither degenerate nor contained in the subcategory I. Since X(i 0 ) is coibrant, each o the maps A X(i 0 ) is a coibration and the identity map is always a coibration. The coproduct o coibrations is again a coibration so it ollows that j is a coibration. For (3), let F(i 0 ) be a simplex o B (I,X) indexed by i 0 i n. Since i 0 i n is a simplex o N (I), the hypothesis implies that i 0 i n is a chain o morphisms in either I or I. Thus the simplex F(i 0 ) came rom one in B (I,X) or B (I,X). Hence the diagram o (3) is a pushout. Convention. Given a simplicial model category M, the simplicial realization rom the category o simplicial objects in M to M preserves weak equivalences between coibrant simplicial objects. I M has unctorial coibrant replacements, then one can deine hocolim op as a weak-equivalencepreserving unctor rom simplicial objects in M to M by composing the coibrant replacement with a model or hocolim such as the one in [10, 18.1.2]. The unctor hocolim op is sometimes called the at realization, and written X = hocolim opx. There is a natural transormation X X which is a weak equivalence when X is a coibrant simplicial object in M.

10 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY We will be using the at realization throughout. We will ollow the convention (which is a slight abuse o notation) and simply write X or the at realization (as was done in [16]). We note that by Lemma 2.3(1), when X is objectwise coibrant, we can apply the at realization to the diagram in (3) and obtain a cocartesian diagram. The model or homotopy colimits described above can be dualized to produce a model or homotopy limits. Instead, we construct homotopy limits in the ollowing ashion. Deinition 2.4. Let I be a small category and F : I C be an I-diagram in C. For each object i in our indexing category I, let I i denote the category o elements in I over i; this category has objects j i and morphisms given by commuting triangles. Let N (I i) be the nerve o the category I i. Then (1) holim I F = hom I (N (I ),F( )) where or a unctor G rom I to s.set (simplicial sets) and a unctor H : I C, the construction hom I (G,H) is the equalizer o the two obvious maps H(j) G(i). H(i) G(i) i I We make use o the ollowing properties o homotopy limits. The irst our are essential or the key results in section 3. We include their proos in Appendix A. The last property ollows easily rom the deinition o homotopy limit above. i j Lemma 2.5. Let I and J be small categories. (1) I F : I J C, then holim I J F = holim I (holim J F). (2) I α : J I and F : I C, then there is a morphism holim I F holim J F α. (3) I T is a constant I-diagram with T(C) = T and T() = id T where T is a terminal object o C, then holim I T = T. (4) I I is the trivial diagram on i, then or any I-diagram X, holim I X = X(i). (5) I F,G : I C and η : F G is a natural transormation (also called a map o I-diagrams), then η induces a map rom holim I F holim I G. As noted on page 379 o [10], the deinition o homotopy limit above is homotopy invariant only when the diagram is objectwise ibrant. When the I-diagram F is objectwise ibrant, holim I F is ibrant by Corollary 18.5.2(2)

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 11 o [10]. For this reason, we will use unctors that take values in ibrant objects. The irst property o Lemma 2.5 is oten reerred to by the slogan homotopylimitscommute, sinceitalsoimpliesthatholim I holim J = holim J holim I. A special case o this property tells us that homotopy ibers and homotopy limits commute, where homotopy ibers are deined as ollows. Deinition 2.6. Let D be a pointed model category with initial/inal object, and let g : X Y be a morphism in D. Then the homotopy iber o g, denoted hoiberg, is the homotopy limit o X g Y. Note that in this paper, all homotopy ibers are computed in the target category D. 2.3. Cubical diagrams. Later in this paper, we examine two undamental concepts, degree n and n-excisive, each o which is used to deine a notion o degree n polynomial unctor. Both concepts are determined by the behavior o a unctor when applied to certain types o diagrams in C. Deinition 2.7. Let n = {1,2,...,n} and let P(n) be the power set o n treated as a category whose objects are the subsets o n and morphisms are the set inclusions. An n-cubical diagram (or n-cube) in a category D is a unctor rom P(n) to D. One can picture an n-cubical diagram as being shaped like a cube o dimension n. For this reason, we say that the object χ(s) C or any ixed S n is a vertex o the n-cube χ. Similarly, the image o the inclusion S S {i} (1 i n, i / S) under χ is called an edge, and or i,j / S, the image o S S {j} S {i} S {i,j} under χ is a 2-ace. To a unctor o n variables rom C, we associate two special n-cubical diagrams. Example 2.8. In the category C, every object X is equipped with a map β X to the terminal object B. Let H : C n D be a unctor o n variables rom C to an arbitrary category D. For an n-tuple o objects X = (X 1,...,X n ) in C, the n-cube HB X in D is deined by H X B(S) = H(X 1 B(S),...,X n B(S))

12 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY where X i B(S) = { X i i i / S B i i S. The image o the inclusion map S T under HB X is induced by the maps β Xi. We will make use o an n-cube o this type obtained by using the unctor n : C n C with n (X 1,...,X n ) = X 1... X n. A A In particular, the 2-cube ( 2 ) (X,Y) B is the square diagram X B AY AY X B B A AB. We will also make use o an n-cubical diagram that exploits the act that every object in C is equipped with a map rom A. Recall that we assume that the map A X is a coibration. Example 2.9. For an object X in C, let α X : A X denote the coibration rom the initial object to X. Let H : C n D be a unctor o n variables rom C to an arbitrary category D. Then or an n-tuple o objects X = (X 1,...,X n ) in C, the n-cube HX A : P(n) D is deined by where H A X (S) = H(XA 1 (S),...,XA n (S)) X A i (S) = { A i i / S X i i i S. The image o the inclusion map S T under HX A is induced by the maps α Xi. Again, the unctor n produces useul examples. The 2-cube ( 2 ) A (X,Y) is the square diagram A A AA AY X A X A AY. Since A A A = A, A A Y = Y and X A A = X, the diagram is the diagram which deines the coproduct in C. In particular, it is homotopy cocartesian, as deined below.

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 13 More generally, we are interested in n-cubes that are pullbacks or pushouts up to homotopy. In particular, we use the notions o homotopy cartesian and cocartesian diagrams introduced in [8]. To deine these terms, we let P 0 (n) be the ull subcategory o P(n) determined by the non-empty subsets o n and P 1 (n) be the ull subcategory o P(n) determined by the subsets other than n itsel. Deinition 2.10. Let χ be an n-cubical diagram in a model category D. There are natural maps rom the initial vertex χ( ) to holim S P0 (n)χ(s) and hocolim S P1 (n)χ(s) to the terminal vertex χ(n) determined by the compositions and χ( ) = lim(χ) holim P(n) χ holim P0 (n)χ, hocolim P1 (n)χ hocolim P(n) χ colim P(n) χ = χ(n), respectively. We say that χ is homotopy cartesian i the map rom the initial vertex χ( ) to holim S P0 (n)χ(s) is a weak equivalence. We say that χ is homotopy cocartesian i the map rom hocolim S P1 (n)χ(s) to the terminal vertex χ(n) is a weak equivalence. We say that χ is strongly homotopy cocartesian i each o its 2-aces is homotopy cocartesian. Following [8] we generally omit the term homotopy when speaking o these types o diagrams. 3. Cross eects The cross eects or unctors o abelian categories were introduced by Eilenberg and Mac Lane in [5]. Given a unctor F between two abelian categories and a positive integer n, Eilenberg and Mac Lane deined a unctor o n variables, cr n F, that measures in some sense the extent to which F ails to be additive. Drawing on their ideas, the second and third authors o this paper used the cross eects to deine the degree o a unctor and construct degree n polynomial approximations to unctors rom a pointed category to an abelian category in [12]. The construction o the polynomial approximations depended on showing that the cross eect unctors were parts o adjoint pairs and as such could be used to produce cotriples and cotriple resolutions that readily yielded the desired approximations. In the present work, we extend these ideas to unctors whose domain category is not pointed and whose target is not necessarily abelian. While some o the results o [12] carry through to this new context quite easily, others do not. In particular, identiying the adjoint pair that yields the desired cotriple requires a dierent approach. We use this section to adapt cross eects and the notion o the degree o a unctor to a setting where the

14 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY domain is o the orm C that we introduced in Section 2.1. We also identiy adjoint pairs and cotriples associated to cross eects that we need. Throughout this section we work with unctors rom the category C to the target category D where C and D are both simplicial model categories as described in Section 2.1. In our constructions, we need to use the act that the target category (but not the domain category) is pointed. Thus we assume that D is pointed and denote the initial/inal object by. To ensure that our homotopy limit constructions behave nicely with respect to weak equivalences, we urther assume that all unctors take ibrant values in D. The cross eect unctors will be unctors o unctors. For this reason, we will oten need to consider the category o unctors rom one category to another. Strictly speaking, we can not do so since these categories rarely have sets o morphisms (which are deined by natural transormations). In practice, this can oten be resolved. The unctors rom C to D will orm a category i C is skeletally-small or i we are careul to ix a suitable universe o sets in which to work (as in [9]). For the remainder o this paper, we assume that we are in a situation in which such categories o unctors make sense. We use Fun(C,D) to denote the category o unctors rom C to D that preserve weak equivalences, and Fun(C n,d) to denote the category o unctors o n variables rom C to D that preserve weak equivalences. 3.1. Iterated Fibers and Cross Eects. Our irst step is to deine cross eects or our context. The deinition o the nth cross eect unctor involves the iterated ibers o n-cubical diagrams associated with the n-old coproduct unctor n. To better understand the deinition, consider a commuting square o objects in D: (2) A B C D. I we take homotopy ibers vertically, we obtain a map o homotopy ibers: A B hoiber hoiber. C D We can take the homotopy iber o this map to obtain an object, X, in D, that we call the iterated iber o the diagram: A B X = hoiber hoiber hoiber. C D

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 15 Recall that the homotopy iber o a map such as A C is deined to be the homotopy limit o the diagram A C. Using this, we see that X is the homotopy limit o A B holim C holim D. Using properties (1) and (3) o Lemma 2.5, we see that X is the homotopy limit o (3) A B C D This is also isomorphic to hoiber(a B) hoiber hoiber(c D) and, as a consequence, we see that hoiber(a B) A B hoiber = hoiber hoiber hoiber. hoiber(c D) C D In other words, the order o the directions in which we take ibers does not matter when deining the iterated iber o X. We generalize this to deine the iterated iber o an n-cube. To do so we deine a new diagram associated to an n-cubical diagram. Deinition 3.1. Let X be an n-cubical diagram in D. The associated (P 0 (2)) n -diagram X assigns to the n-tuple o sets (S 1,...,S n ) in P 0 (2) the object { X i S i = {2} or at least one i, (S 1,...,S n ) = X({i S i = {1,2}}) otherwise..

16 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY X takes a morphism o sets in (P 0 (2)) n, φ : (S 1,...,S n ) (T 1,...,T n ), to the map X (φ) deined as ollows: X({i S i = {1,2}} {j T j = {1,2}}) S i,t j {2},1 i,j n, X (φ) = X (S 1,S 2,...,S n ) T j = {2} or some j, X (T 1,...,T n ) S i = {2} or some i, where the second and third maps are uniquely determined by the act that is the initial/inal object in D. We note that i X is the diagram in (2), then X is the diagram in (3). Deinition 3.2. Let X be an n-cubical diagram in D. The iterated (homotopy) iber o X, denoted iiberx, is given by iiberx = holim (P 0 (2)) nx. Asdemonstratedinthecaseoa2-cube, onecanthinkotheiterated iber o an n-cube as the object constructed by irst taking ibers in one direction, U U {i}, in the n-cube, then taking ibers o the resulting ibers in another direction, and continuing until one has exhausted all independent directions in the cube. As an immediate consequence we have the ollowing. Lemma 3.3. Let X be an n-cube and let X 1 and X 2 be (n 1)-cubes with X = X 1 X 2. Then iiberx = hoiber(iiber(x 1 ) iiber(x 2 )). We use iterated ibers to deine the nth cross eect o a unctor. Deinition 3.4. Let F : C D be a unctor. The nth cross eect o F is the unctor o n variables cr n F : C n D that or an n-tuple X = (X 1,X 2,...,X n ) is the iterated iber o the n-cube F(( n ) X B ) that results rom applying the unctor F to the n-cubical diagram ( n ) X B (as deined in Example 2.8). When we precompose cr n with the diagonal unctor : X (X,X,...,X), the result is a unctor rom C to D. We use n to denote this composition, that is, n F(X) = cr n F(X,X,...,X). When C is pointed and D is abelian, these deinitions agree with those o [12]. Example 3.5. For n = 2, cr 2 F(X 1,X 2 ) is the iterated iber o F(X 1 A X 2 ) F(B A X 2 ) F(X 1 A B) F(B A B),

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 17 and 2 F(X) is the iterated iber o F(X A X) F(B A X) F(X A B) F(B A B). As discussed at the beginning o this section, the cross eect unctors play an essential role in the construction o Taylor towers in [12]. When C is a pointed category and A is an abelian category, it is straightorward to show that (,cr n ) is an adjoint pair o unctors. (Here denotes precomposition with the diagonal unctor.) As a consequence, n = cr n is a cotriple this was used to construct the (n 1)st term in the Taylor tower o a unctor F. IntryingtoreplicatethisprocessorunctorsromC tod,oneencounters an obstruction almost immediately. The unctors and cr n no longer orm a strict adjoint pair. Goodwillie has shown that they orm an adjoint pair up to weak equivalence in a topological setting [9], but something more is need to show that n is a cotriple. Our solution is to recognize that n arises naturally rom a pair o adjunctions. The irst involves the unctor t deined as ollows. Deinition 3.6. For a unctor H : C n D, the unctor th : C n D is deined or an n-tuple X = (X 1,X 2,...,X n ) o objects in C by th(x 1,...,X n ) = iiber(h X B ). Remark 3.7. Note that or H = n, the n-old coproduct unctor, a unctor F : C D and an n-tuple (X 1,...,X n ) o objects in C, cr n F(X 1,...,X n ) = t(f n )(X 1,...,X n ). In the next two subsections, we show that t is a cotriple on Fun(C n,d) and identiy an associated adjunction. The other adjoint pair involves n and the diagonal unctor. 3.2. t is a cotriple. Recall that a cotriple on a category A consists o a unctor : A A together with natural transormations ǫ : id A and δ : such that the ollowing diagrams commute: δ δ δ δ Our irst goal is to prove the ollowing. = = 4 4444444δ ǫ ǫ. Theorem 3.8. There are natural transormations γ : t id Fun(C n,d) and + : t tt such that (t,+,γ) is a cotriple on Fun(C n,d).

18 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY To prove this theorem we begin by deining the natural transormations γ : t id Fun(C n,d) and + : t tt. Both o these natural transormations will be determined by applying property (2) o Lemma 2.5 to maps o the indexing sets used in the homotopy inverse limits that deine th and tth. We begin with γ. Deinition 3.9. Let H : C n D and X = (X 1,...,X n ) be an object in C n. Consider the inclusion, g : {({1},{1},...,{1})} (P 0 (2)) n. By properties (2) and (4) o Lemma 2.5, this induces a natural transormation holim (P 0 (2)) n(hx B ) holim {({1},{1},...,{1})} ((HX B ) g) = H(X 1,...,X n ) which is natural in both H and X. This gives us the natural transormation γ : t id Fun(C n,d). The deinition o the second natural transormation requires understanding the two-old iteration o t as the iterated iber o a single cube. Note that there is an isomorphism P(n) P(n) = P(2n) realized or example by sending (S,T) P({1,2,...,n}) P({n+1,...,2n}) to S T. Given this, we can treat 2n-cubes as (P(n) P(n))-diagrams. Lemma 3.10. Let H : C n D and X = (X 1,X 2,...,X n ) be an object in C n. Then tth(x 1,X 2,...,X n ) is isomorphic to the iterated iber o the P(n) P(n)-diagram deined by (S,T) P(n) P(n) H X B(S T). Proo. By deinition, tth(x 1,...,X n ) is the iterated iber o the n-cubical diagram S (th) X B(S). But or each S n, (th) X B (S) is itsel the iterated iber o the n-cubical diagram T (H) X(S) B (T), where X(S) = (X 1 (S),...,X n (S)) is as deined in Example 2.8. As observed in the discussion preceding Deinition 3.1, homotopy ibers commute isomorphically in D. From this we see that tth(x) is the iterated iber o the P(n) P(n)-diagram (S,T) H X(S) B (T). It is easy to check that H X(S) B (T) = HB X (S T) and the result ollows rom this. Remark 3.11. In some instances, it will be more convenient to treat the P(n) P(n)-diagram (S,T) P(n) P(n) HB X (S T) o the previous lemma as the 2n-cube H B X given by U 2n H(M 1 (U),M 2 (U),...,M n (U))

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 19 where M i (U) = { X i i {i,n+i} U =, B i {i,n+i} U. Deinition 3.12. Let + : (P 0 (2)) 2n (P 0 (2)) n be the map where (S 1,S 2,...,S n,t 1,...,T n ) (V 1,V 2,...,V n ) V i = { S i T i i S i,t i {2}, {2} i S i = {2} or T i = {2}. By Lemma 2.5.2, the set map + : (P 0 (2)) 2n (P 0 (2)) n induces a map (4) th(x) = holim (P 0 (2)) n(hx B ) holim (P 0 (2)) 2n((HX B ) +). But, it is straightorward to show that ( H X B ) = (H X B ) +. Hence, (4) gives us a natural transormation (5) + H : th tth. With these deinitions, we prove Theorem 3.8. Proo. We begin by showing that the diagram (6) t + tt + tt t+ commutes. LetH : C n D and X = (X 1,...,X n ) bean n-tupleo objects in C. Note that, as is the case with tth(x), ttth(x) can be realized as the iterated iber o a 3n-cube. In particular, ttth(x) is the iterated iber o the 3n-cube that assigns to the set U 3n the object with J i (U) = ttt + t H(J 1 (U),...,J n (U)) { X i i {i,n+i,2n+i} U =, B otherwise. Hence, ttth(x) can be treated as the holim o a (P 0 (2)) 3n -diagram. From this point o view, we see that (6) commutes by noting that the maps are induced by the commuting diagram o set maps P 0 (2) n + P 0 (2) 2n + + id P 0 (2) 2n id + P 0 (2) 3n.

20 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY To see that t = = + t tt tγ γ t t. commutes, we note that tγ and γ t are induced at the indexing set level by the maps ι 1 : (P 0 (2)) n (P 0 (2)) 2n,ι 1 : (S 1,...,S n ) (S 1,...,S n,{1},...,{1}), and ι 2 : (P 0 (2)) n (P 0 (2)) 2n,ι 2 : (S 1,...,S n ) ({1},...,{1},S 1,...,S n ), respectively. It is straightorward to check that + ι 1 and + ι 2 are the identity map on (P 0 (2)) n. From this it ollows that tγ + and γ t + are the identity on t. 3.3. n is a cotriple. To establish that n is a cotriple, we describe an adjunction determined by the cotriple t. Categories equipped with cotriples have a related category o coalgebras, related to the original category by a orgetul-coree adjunction. Deinition 3.13. ([14], Deinition VI.2, dualized) I (, δ, ǫ) is a cotriple on a category B, then the category B o -coalgebras is the category whose objects are pairs (B,β), where B Ob(B) and β : B B, which satisy β β = δ B β and ǫ B β = Id B. A morphism : (B,β) (B,β ) in B is a morphism : B B in B such that β = β. Thus, the category o t-coalgebras, Fun(C n,d) t, consists o unctors G : C n D that are equipped with a section β : G tg to the natural transormation γ G : tg G which also makes the diagram G β tg β tβ tg +G ttg commute. For example, or any unctor G Fun(C n,d), there is an associated t-coalgebra (tg,+ G ). Let t + : Fun(C n,d) Fun(C n,d) t be the ree coalgebra unctor, which is deined on objects by t + (G) = (tg,+ G ). Theorem 3.14. The unctors Fun(C n,d) t + U + Fun(C n,d) t

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 21 are an adjoint pair o unctors, with the orgetul unctor U + being the let adjoint. Proo. The proo ollows immediately rom Theorem 3.8, since(t, +, γ) orms a cotriple. The adjunction in question is the orgetul-coree adjunction which exists or any category o coalgebras over a cotriple. The proo o this act is ormally dual to the proo o Theorem VI.2.1 ound in [14] or algebras over triples. We now turn our attention to the second adjoint pair o unctors that we use to establish that n is a cotriple. Deinition 3.15. Let : Fun(C n,d) Fun(C,D) be the unctordeined or aunctor H : C n D by H(X) = H(X,...,X). Let n : Fun(C,D) Fun(C n,d) be the unctor deined by precomposition with the unctor n o Examples 2.8 and 2.9. That is, or a unctor F n (F)(X 1,...,X n ) = (F n )(X 1,...,X n ) = F(X 1 A... A X n ). Proposition 3.16. The unctors and n are an adjoint pair o unctors, with being the let adjoint. Proo. Let H : C n isomorphisms D and F : C D. We must prove that there are Φ hom Fun(C,D)( H,F) hom Fun(C n,d) (H, nf). We do so by taking advantage o some coproduct properties. In C, the coproduct o X and Y is the pushout o Ψ Y A X which we denote X A Y. When X = Y, theact that X AX is a pushout means that we have a old map + : X AX X that serves as a section to the inclusion X X AX into either term o the coproduct. Iterating this gives a old map + : nx X that or each 1 k n is a section to ι k : X nx, inclusion into the kth term in the coproduct. The map Φ sends a natural transormation σ : H F to the natural transormation Φσ := n σ H(i 1,...,i n ). On the other hand, a natural transormation τ : H n F is sent to Ψτ := F(+) τ.

22 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY To see that ΨΦσ is equal to σ, consider the diagram: H(X,...,X) H(i 1,...,i n) H( X,..., X) i i H(+) H(X,...,X) σ X F( i X) F(+) σ X F(X) The bottom rectangle commutes by the naturality o σ, and the top triangle commutes because + is a section to each i k. Going along the bottom and let edges o the diagram gives ΨΦσ, while the right hand edge is just σ. On the other hand, the diagram H(X 1,...,X n ) H(i 1,...,i n) H( X i,..., X i ) i i τ X1,...,Xn F( i X i ) τ X i,... X i nf(i 1,...,i n) F( ( X i )) i F(+) F( X i ) i commutes or the same reasons as the previous diagram, and shows that ΦΨτ = τ. Recall that or an adjoint pair o unctors, F : C D : G, where G is the right adjoint, the composition F G orms a cotriple on A. (See, or example, Appendix A.6 o [21].) Since n is the composition o the let adjoint U + with the right adjoint t + n, it orms part o a cotriple. In particular, the counit or the adjunction produced by the pair ( U +,t + n ) yields a natural transormation ǫ : n id. And, a natural transormation δ : n n n is deined by U + (η t + n ) where η is a unit or the adjunction. This gives us the ollowing. Theorem 3.17. The unctor and natural transormations ( n,δ : n n n,ǫ : n id) orm a cotriple on the category o unctors Fun(C,D).

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 23 3.4. Weakly reduced and degree n unctors. We inish this section by introducing some properties o unctors that are related to t and cr n. Deinition 3.18. A unctor F Fun(C n, D) is weakly n-reduced provided that F(X 1,...,X n ) whenever any X i = B. Proposition 3.19. Let H : C n D. The unctor th is a weakly n-reduced unctor. Proo. We assume that X n = B. The argument in other cases is similar. We describe H X B as a map o two (n 1)-cubes: tophx B bottomhx B. For S P(n 1), and toph X B (S) = HX B (S) bottomhb X (S) = HX B (S {n}). Consider the (n 1)-cube, HB X, obtained by taking the homotopy iber o tophb X bottomhx B. More explicitly, or S P(n 1), H X B(S) = hoib(toph X B(S) bottomh X B(S)). Using Lemma 3.3 one can show that iiber( HB X) = iiber(hb X ). For each S P(n 1), the map tophb X(S) bottomhx B (S) is the identity since X n = B. Hence, HB X (S) or each S, and so the iterated homotopy iber o HB X is equivalent to. As a consequence, the iterated homotopy iber o HB X is as well. Corollary 3.20. For a unctor F : C D, cr n F is weakly n-reduced. We use cross eects to deine degree n unctors. Deinition 3.21. A unctor F : C D is degree n i and only i or all (n+1)-tuples X o objects in C, cr n+1 F(X). Whenever a unctor is degree n, it is also degree m or any m > n. This is a consequence o the ollowing lemma, which says that higher cross eects can be obtained by iterating second cross eects. The lemma implies, in particular, that i cr n F, then cr n+1 F as well. Proposition 3.22. For aunctor F : C D, and objects X 1,...,X n,x n+1 in C, cr n F(X 1,...,X n 1, ) can be treated as a unctor o one variable by holding the irst n 1 variables ixed. The second cross eect o this unctor is cr n+1. Speciically, cr 2 [cr n F(X 1,...,X n 1, )](X n,x n+1 ) cr n+1 F(X 1,...,X n+1 ).

24 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY Proo. The proo makes repeated use o Lemma 3.3 which allows us to rewrite the diagrams whose iterated ibers yield cr 2 (cr n F) to obtain the (n+1)-cubical diagram deining cr n+1. We begin by noting that cr 2 [cr n F(X 1,...,X n 1, )](X n,x n+1 ) is deined to be the iterated homotopy iber o the diagram cr n F(X 1,...,X n 1,X n A X n+1 ) cr n F(X 1,...,X n 1,B A X n+1 ) cr n F(X 1,...,X n 1,X n A B) cr n F(X 1,...,X n 1,B A B). Each corner o this square diagram is the iterated homotopy iber o an n- cube, so by Lemma 3.3 the iterated homotopy iber o the diagram above can be written as the iterated homotopy iber o the ollowing 2-cube o n-cubes: (7) F(( n ) X B ) F(( n ) X {1} B ) where F(( n ) X {2} B ) F(( n ) X {1,2} B ) X = (X 1,...,X n 1,X n A X n+1 ) X {1} = (X 1,...,X n 1,X n A B) X {2} = (X 1,...,X n 1,B A X n+1 ) X {1,2} = (X 1,...,X n 1,B A B). AsintheproooProposition3.19, wewriteeach othen-cubesin(7) asa map o (n 1)-cubes by replacing an n-cube χ with the map o (n 1)-cubes top(χ) bottom(χ) where or S P(n 1), top(χ)(s) = χ(s) bottom(χ)(s) = χ(s {n}). By again applying Lemma 3.3, we can view the iterated iber o (7) as the homotopy iber o the map rom the iterated homotopy iber o the 2-cube o (n 1)-cubes (top) topf(( n ) X B ) topf(( n ) X {1} B ) topf(( n ) X {2} B ) topf(( n ) X {1,2} B )

CROSS EFFECTS AND CALCULUS IN AN UNBASED SETTING 25 to the iterated homotopy iber o (bottom) bottomf(( n ) X B ) bottomf(( n ) X {1} B ) bottomf(( n ) X {2} B ) bottomf(( n ) X {1,2} B ). All our (n 1)-cubes in (bottom) are the same, so the iterated homotopy iber o (bottom) is weakly equivalent to. Thus we can concentrate on determining the iterated homotopy iber o (top). But this diagram can be rewritten as a single (n + 1)-cube that is precisely the one whose iterated homotopy iber is cr n+1 F(X 1,...,X n,x n+1 ). 4. Degree n and n-excisive unctors In the next section, we use the cotriple n+1 to construct a degree n approximation to a unctor F. In [9], Goodwillie shows how to construct an n-excisive approximation to a unctor. We use this section to compare these two types o unctors, showing that n-excisive unctors are always degree n, and that degree n unctors behave like n-excisive unctors on certain types o cubical diagrams (the condition we call n-excisive relative to A). We conclude by proving that the two notions are equivalent when F is a unctor that commutes with realization. In this section, we work with unctors F : C S, where C is the category o maps actoring : A B and S is a suitable model o spectra, such as in [6] or [11]. We let be the initial/inal object in S. As in previous sections, we assume that F preserves weak homotopy equivalences and takes values in ibrant objects. We also assume that S has unctorial ibrant and coibrant replacements. We irst review the deinition o n-excisive using the notions o cartesian and strongly cocartesian diagrams rom Deinition 2.10. Deinition 4.1. [8] A unctor F is n-excisive i and only i or every strongly cocartesian (n + 1)-cube o objects in C, χ, applying F yields a cartesian (n+1)-cube, F(χ). For X = (X 1,...,X n+1 ) in C n+1, the cube ( n+1 )A X o Example 2.9 is strongly homotopy cocartesian, recalling that each A X i is assumed to be a coibration. In act, any strongly homotopy cocartesian cube with initial vertex A is weakly equivalent to one o this type by Proposition 2.2 o [8]. We prove that a degree n unctor will take strongly cocartesian diagrams like these to cartesian diagrams. Deinition 4.2. The unctor F : C S is n-excisive relative to A i and only i F(( n+1 )A X ) is cartesian or every (n+1)-tuple o objects X in C.

26 K. BAUER, B. JOHNSON, and R. MCCARTHY Proposition 4.3. Let F be a unctor rom C to S. Let n 2 be an integer. The unctor F is degree n 1 i and only i F is (n 1)-excisive relative to A. An integral part o the proo o this proposition will be the n-cube o n-cubes deined below. Deinition 4.4. Let X = (X 1,...,X n ) be an n-tuple o objects in C. Each o these objects is equipped with morphisms α Xi : A X i and β Xi : X i B whose composition is. We use X : P(n) P(n) C n to denote the n-cube o n-cubes that is deined as ollows. For (S, T) P(n) P(n), X(S,T) is the n-tuple whose ith object is A, i i / S T; ( X(S,T)) i = X i, i i S, i / T; B, i i T. For any i / T the map X(S,T) X(S,T {i}) is induced by the map i i / S, and otherwise is induced by the map β Xi. For i / S the map X(S,T) X(S {i},t) is induced by the map α Xi i i / T and otherwise is the identity map. The target category or our unctor F is assumed to be stable. Some o the subsequent results in this section hold in a more general context, but or our current applications using S as the target category suices. This enables us to make use o the ollowing observations. Remark 4.5. An n-cubical diagram in S is cocartesian i and only i it is cartesian. In particular, this implies that inite hocolimits and inite homotopy inverse limits commute. Remark 4.6. In S, inite homotopy inverse limits commute with homotopy colimits o a countable iltered diagram. Thus, combined with the remark above one sees that inite homotopy inverse limits commute with the homotopy colimits over op as these homotopy colimits can be written using the iltration by skeleta as a countable iltered homotopy colimit o inite homotopy colimits. Remark 4.7. Let χ be an n-cubical diagram. The total homotopy iber o χ, denoted tiber(χ) is the homotopy iber o the map χ( ) holim P 0 (n) (χ). For n-cubes χ in S, the iterated iber and homotopy iber o χ are weakly equivalent. See section 1 o [8] or details. The next lemma restates two propositions rom [8]. The lemma makes use o the act that a map o two n-cubes, χ 1 χ 2, is an (n+1)-cube.