Counter-example to the existence of left Bousfield localization of combinatorial model categoryLeft Bousfield...
Counter-example to the existence of left Bousfield localization of combinatorial model category
Left Bousfield localization without properness, what is known?How to localize a model category with respect to a class of maps created by a left Quillen functorHow many model categories have the same weak equivalences?Is the simplicial completion of a localizer always a bousfield localization of the injective model structure?Need M combinatorial for existence of injective model structure on $M^G$?Is there a notion of a “model category which admits left Bousfield localization?”Jardine model structure as left Bousfield localizationWeak equivalences of left Bousfield localizationsBousfield Localization and Quillen EquivalenceTransfer of left Bousfield localizationLeft Bousfield localization without properness, what is known?
$begingroup$
Is there any known example of a combinatorial model category $C$ together with a set of map $S$ such that the left Bousefield localization of $C$ at $S$ does not exists ?
It is well known to exists when $C$ is left proper, and it seems that it also always exists as a left semi-model structure, but I don't known if there is any concrete example where it is known to not be a Quillen model structure.
PS: I technically already asked this question a year ago but it was mixed with other related questions and this part was not answered, so I thought it was best to ask it again as a separate question.
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory model-categories bousfield-localization
asked 2 hours ago
Simon HenrySimon Henry
15.3k14888
$endgroup$
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Is there any known example of a combinatorial model category $C$ together with a set of map $S$ such that the left Bousefield localization of $C$ at $S$ does not exists ?
It is well known to exists when $C$ is left proper, and it seems that it also always exists as a left semi-model structure, but I don't known if there is any concrete example where it is known to not be a Quillen model structure.
PS: I technically already asked this question a year ago but it was mixed with other related questions and this part was not answered, so I thought it was best to ask it again as a separate question.
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory model-categories bousfield-localization
asked 2 hours ago
Simon HenrySimon Henry
15.3k14888
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TimCampion : good question. The left Bousfield localization at $S$ of a category where only iso are weak equivalence exists if and only if the subcategory of objects orthogonal to $S$ is reflective. it seems to me that this is not always the case when $S$ is a class, and that there might be known counter example to this ? but I haven't really thought about it.
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah yes -- the statement that every orthogonality class is reflective is equivalent to weak Vopenka's principle -- this is 6.24 and 6.25 in Adamek and Rosicky. Example 6.25 is an example of an orthogonal subcategory in a locally presentable category which is not reflective (under the negation of weak Vopenka's principle), which I suppose answers your question in a rather artificial way.
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I see that Casacuberta and Chorny showed all Bousfield localizations exist in a left proper, combinatorial, simplicial model category. Is the "simplicial" condition removed somewhere?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Is there any known example of a combinatorial model category $C$ together with a set of map $S$ such that the left Bousefield localization of $C$ at $S$ does not exists ?
It is well known to exists when $C$ is left proper, and it seems that it also always exists as a left semi-model structure, but I don't known if there is any concrete example where it is known to not be a Quillen model structure.
PS: I technically already asked this question a year ago but it was mixed with other related questions and this part was not answered, so I thought it was best to ask it again as a separate question.
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory model-categories bousfield-localization
asked 2 hours ago
Simon HenrySimon Henry
15.3k14888
$endgroup$
Is there any known example of a combinatorial model category $C$ together with a set of map $S$ such that the left Bousefield localization of $C$ at $S$ does not exists ?
It is well known to exists when $C$ is left proper, and it seems that it also always exists as a left semi-model structure, but I don't known if there is any concrete example where it is known to not be a Quillen model structure.
PS: I technically already asked this question a year ago but it was mixed with other related questions and this part was not answered, so I thought it was best to ask it again as a separate question.
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory model-categories bousfield-localization
at.algebraic-topology homotopy-theory model-categories bousfield-localization
asked 2 hours ago
Simon HenrySimon Henry
15.3k14888
asked 2 hours ago
Simon HenrySimon Henry
15.3k14888
asked 2 hours ago
Simon HenrySimon Henry
15.3k14888
asked 2 hours ago
Simon HenrySimon Henry
15.3k14888
asked 2 hours ago
Simon HenrySimon Henry
15.3k14888
15.3k14888
1
$begingroup$
Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TimCampion : good question. The left Bousfield localization at $S$ of a category where only iso are weak equivalence exists if and only if the subcategory of objects orthogonal to $S$ is reflective. it seems to me that this is not always the case when $S$ is a class, and that there might be known counter example to this ? but I haven't really thought about it.
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah yes -- the statement that every orthogonality class is reflective is equivalent to weak Vopenka's principle -- this is 6.24 and 6.25 in Adamek and Rosicky. Example 6.25 is an example of an orthogonal subcategory in a locally presentable category which is not reflective (under the negation of weak Vopenka's principle), which I suppose answers your question in a rather artificial way.
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I see that Casacuberta and Chorny showed all Bousfield localizations exist in a left proper, combinatorial, simplicial model category. Is the "simplicial" condition removed somewhere?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TimCampion : good question. The left Bousfield localization at $S$ of a category where only iso are weak equivalence exists if and only if the subcategory of objects orthogonal to $S$ is reflective. it seems to me that this is not always the case when $S$ is a class, and that there might be known counter example to this ? but I haven't really thought about it.
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah yes -- the statement that every orthogonality class is reflective is equivalent to weak Vopenka's principle -- this is 6.24 and 6.25 in Adamek and Rosicky. Example 6.25 is an example of an orthogonal subcategory in a locally presentable category which is not reflective (under the negation of weak Vopenka's principle), which I suppose answers your question in a rather artificial way.
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I see that Casacuberta and Chorny showed all Bousfield localizations exist in a left proper, combinatorial, simplicial model category. Is the "simplicial" condition removed somewhere?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TimCampion : good question. The left Bousfield localization at $S$ of a category where only iso are weak equivalence exists if and only if the subcategory of objects orthogonal to $S$ is reflective. it seems to me that this is not always the case when $S$ is a class, and that there might be known counter example to this ? but I haven't really thought about it.
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TimCampion : good question. The left Bousfield localization at $S$ of a category where only iso are weak equivalence exists if and only if the subcategory of objects orthogonal to $S$ is reflective. it seems to me that this is not always the case when $S$ is a class, and that there might be known counter example to this ? but I haven't really thought about it.
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah yes -- the statement that every orthogonality class is reflective is equivalent to weak Vopenka's principle -- this is 6.24 and 6.25 in Adamek and Rosicky. Example 6.25 is an example of an orthogonal subcategory in a locally presentable category which is not reflective (under the negation of weak Vopenka's principle), which I suppose answers your question in a rather artificial way.
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Ah yes -- the statement that every orthogonality class is reflective is equivalent to weak Vopenka's principle -- this is 6.24 and 6.25 in Adamek and Rosicky. Example 6.25 is an example of an orthogonal subcategory in a locally presentable category which is not reflective (under the negation of weak Vopenka's principle), which I suppose answers your question in a rather artificial way.
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I see that Casacuberta and Chorny showed all Bousfield localizations exist in a left proper, combinatorial, simplicial model category. Is the "simplicial" condition removed somewhere?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I see that Casacuberta and Chorny showed all Bousfield localizations exist in a left proper, combinatorial, simplicial model category. Is the "simplicial" condition removed somewhere?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A surprisingly effective way to construct counterexamples in model category theory is to just write down all the objects and morphisms involved and try to give the resulting (finite!) diagram the structure of a model category.
Here, we know that a counterexample must fail to be left proper, so start with a diagram$require{AMScd}$
$$
begin{CD}
a @>sim>> b\
@VVV @VVV\
c @>>> d
end{CD}
$$
in which $a to b$ is a weak equivalence, $a to c$ is a cofibration, but $c to d$ is not a weak equivalence. Then $a to c$ also cannot be a weak equivalence (otherwise $b to d$ would be one too). Since $a to c$ and $c to d$ are not weak equivalences, they must be both cofibrations and fibrations and therefore the same is true of $a to d$. Then $a to d$ cannot be a weak equivalence (or it would be an isomorphism), so $b to d$ is also not a weak equivalence, and therefore is a fibration too. In summary, all the maps are fibrations and $a to c$, $b to d$, $c to d$ are cofibrations while $a to b$ is a weak equivalence. One can check that this does in fact yield a model category structure (probably the easiest way is to verify that the (acyclic) cofibrations/fibrations are closed under composition and pushout/pullback, and that the factorization axioms hold).
Now, let's try to form the left Bousfield localization at the map $a to c$, which is already a cofibration between cofibrant objects. All objects are fibrant in the original structure, and the local objects are the ones which have the same maps from $a$ and from $c$, which are the objects $c$ and $d$. The map $c to d$ was not a weak equivalence originally, so it has to still not be one in the localization. However, making $a to c$ a weak equivalence also makes $b to d$ a weak equivalence because it is the pushout of the acyclic cofibration $a to c$, which contradicts two-out-of-three.
answered 1 hour ago
Reid BartonReid Barton
19k151109
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325383%2fcounter-example-to-the-existence-of-left-bousfield-localization-of-combinatorial%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A surprisingly effective way to construct counterexamples in model category theory is to just write down all the objects and morphisms involved and try to give the resulting (finite!) diagram the structure of a model category.
Here, we know that a counterexample must fail to be left proper, so start with a diagram$require{AMScd}$
$$
begin{CD}
a @>sim>> b\
@VVV @VVV\
c @>>> d
end{CD}
$$
in which $a to b$ is a weak equivalence, $a to c$ is a cofibration, but $c to d$ is not a weak equivalence. Then $a to c$ also cannot be a weak equivalence (otherwise $b to d$ would be one too). Since $a to c$ and $c to d$ are not weak equivalences, they must be both cofibrations and fibrations and therefore the same is true of $a to d$. Then $a to d$ cannot be a weak equivalence (or it would be an isomorphism), so $b to d$ is also not a weak equivalence, and therefore is a fibration too. In summary, all the maps are fibrations and $a to c$, $b to d$, $c to d$ are cofibrations while $a to b$ is a weak equivalence. One can check that this does in fact yield a model category structure (probably the easiest way is to verify that the (acyclic) cofibrations/fibrations are closed under composition and pushout/pullback, and that the factorization axioms hold).
Now, let's try to form the left Bousfield localization at the map $a to c$, which is already a cofibration between cofibrant objects. All objects are fibrant in the original structure, and the local objects are the ones which have the same maps from $a$ and from $c$, which are the objects $c$ and $d$. The map $c to d$ was not a weak equivalence originally, so it has to still not be one in the localization. However, making $a to c$ a weak equivalence also makes $b to d$ a weak equivalence because it is the pushout of the acyclic cofibration $a to c$, which contradicts two-out-of-three.
answered 1 hour ago
Reid BartonReid Barton
19k151109
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A surprisingly effective way to construct counterexamples in model category theory is to just write down all the objects and morphisms involved and try to give the resulting (finite!) diagram the structure of a model category.
Here, we know that a counterexample must fail to be left proper, so start with a diagram$require{AMScd}$
$$
begin{CD}
a @>sim>> b\
@VVV @VVV\
c @>>> d
end{CD}
$$
in which $a to b$ is a weak equivalence, $a to c$ is a cofibration, but $c to d$ is not a weak equivalence. Then $a to c$ also cannot be a weak equivalence (otherwise $b to d$ would be one too). Since $a to c$ and $c to d$ are not weak equivalences, they must be both cofibrations and fibrations and therefore the same is true of $a to d$. Then $a to d$ cannot be a weak equivalence (or it would be an isomorphism), so $b to d$ is also not a weak equivalence, and therefore is a fibration too. In summary, all the maps are fibrations and $a to c$, $b to d$, $c to d$ are cofibrations while $a to b$ is a weak equivalence. One can check that this does in fact yield a model category structure (probably the easiest way is to verify that the (acyclic) cofibrations/fibrations are closed under composition and pushout/pullback, and that the factorization axioms hold).
Now, let's try to form the left Bousfield localization at the map $a to c$, which is already a cofibration between cofibrant objects. All objects are fibrant in the original structure, and the local objects are the ones which have the same maps from $a$ and from $c$, which are the objects $c$ and $d$. The map $c to d$ was not a weak equivalence originally, so it has to still not be one in the localization. However, making $a to c$ a weak equivalence also makes $b to d$ a weak equivalence because it is the pushout of the acyclic cofibration $a to c$, which contradicts two-out-of-three.
answered 1 hour ago
Reid BartonReid Barton
19k151109
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A surprisingly effective way to construct counterexamples in model category theory is to just write down all the objects and morphisms involved and try to give the resulting (finite!) diagram the structure of a model category.
Here, we know that a counterexample must fail to be left proper, so start with a diagram$require{AMScd}$
$$
begin{CD}
a @>sim>> b\
@VVV @VVV\
c @>>> d
end{CD}
$$
in which $a to b$ is a weak equivalence, $a to c$ is a cofibration, but $c to d$ is not a weak equivalence. Then $a to c$ also cannot be a weak equivalence (otherwise $b to d$ would be one too). Since $a to c$ and $c to d$ are not weak equivalences, they must be both cofibrations and fibrations and therefore the same is true of $a to d$. Then $a to d$ cannot be a weak equivalence (or it would be an isomorphism), so $b to d$ is also not a weak equivalence, and therefore is a fibration too. In summary, all the maps are fibrations and $a to c$, $b to d$, $c to d$ are cofibrations while $a to b$ is a weak equivalence. One can check that this does in fact yield a model category structure (probably the easiest way is to verify that the (acyclic) cofibrations/fibrations are closed under composition and pushout/pullback, and that the factorization axioms hold).
Now, let's try to form the left Bousfield localization at the map $a to c$, which is already a cofibration between cofibrant objects. All objects are fibrant in the original structure, and the local objects are the ones which have the same maps from $a$ and from $c$, which are the objects $c$ and $d$. The map $c to d$ was not a weak equivalence originally, so it has to still not be one in the localization. However, making $a to c$ a weak equivalence also makes $b to d$ a weak equivalence because it is the pushout of the acyclic cofibration $a to c$, which contradicts two-out-of-three.
answered 1 hour ago
Reid BartonReid Barton
19k151109
$endgroup$
A surprisingly effective way to construct counterexamples in model category theory is to just write down all the objects and morphisms involved and try to give the resulting (finite!) diagram the structure of a model category.
Here, we know that a counterexample must fail to be left proper, so start with a diagram$require{AMScd}$
$$
begin{CD}
a @>sim>> b\
@VVV @VVV\
c @>>> d
end{CD}
$$
in which $a to b$ is a weak equivalence, $a to c$ is a cofibration, but $c to d$ is not a weak equivalence. Then $a to c$ also cannot be a weak equivalence (otherwise $b to d$ would be one too). Since $a to c$ and $c to d$ are not weak equivalences, they must be both cofibrations and fibrations and therefore the same is true of $a to d$. Then $a to d$ cannot be a weak equivalence (or it would be an isomorphism), so $b to d$ is also not a weak equivalence, and therefore is a fibration too. In summary, all the maps are fibrations and $a to c$, $b to d$, $c to d$ are cofibrations while $a to b$ is a weak equivalence. One can check that this does in fact yield a model category structure (probably the easiest way is to verify that the (acyclic) cofibrations/fibrations are closed under composition and pushout/pullback, and that the factorization axioms hold).
Now, let's try to form the left Bousfield localization at the map $a to c$, which is already a cofibration between cofibrant objects. All objects are fibrant in the original structure, and the local objects are the ones which have the same maps from $a$ and from $c$, which are the objects $c$ and $d$. The map $c to d$ was not a weak equivalence originally, so it has to still not be one in the localization. However, making $a to c$ a weak equivalence also makes $b to d$ a weak equivalence because it is the pushout of the acyclic cofibration $a to c$, which contradicts two-out-of-three.
answered 1 hour ago
Reid BartonReid Barton
19k151109
answered 1 hour ago
Reid BartonReid Barton
19k151109
answered 1 hour ago
Reid BartonReid Barton
19k151109
answered 1 hour ago
Reid BartonReid Barton
19k151109
19k151109
$begingroup$
Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f325383%2fcounter-example-to-the-existence-of-left-bousfield-localization-of-combinatorial%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@TimCampion : good question. The left Bousfield localization at $S$ of a category where only iso are weak equivalence exists if and only if the subcategory of objects orthogonal to $S$ is reflective. it seems to me that this is not always the case when $S$ is a class, and that there might be known counter example to this ? but I haven't really thought about it.
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah yes -- the statement that every orthogonality class is reflective is equivalent to weak Vopenka's principle -- this is 6.24 and 6.25 in Adamek and Rosicky. Example 6.25 is an example of an orthogonal subcategory in a locally presentable category which is not reflective (under the negation of weak Vopenka's principle), which I suppose answers your question in a rather artificial way.
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I see that Casacuberta and Chorny showed all Bousfield localizations exist in a left proper, combinatorial, simplicial model category. Is the "simplicial" condition removed somewhere?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
1 hour ago