Let X be a topological space and G an abelian group. There are many different definitions for the cohomology group H n (X; G); we will single out three of them for discussion here. First of all, we have the singular cohomology groups H n sing (X; G), which are defined to be cohomology of a chain complex of G-valued singular cochains on X. An alternative is to regard H n (•, G) as a representable functor on the homotopy category

We outline the main features of the definitions and applications of crossed complexes and cubical #-groupoids with connections.

Abstract. Homotopy limits and colimits are homotopical replacements for the usual limits and colimits of category theory, which can be approached either using classical explicit constructions or the modern abstract machinery of derived functors. Our first goal is to explain both and show their equivalence. Our second goal is to generalize this result to enriched categories and homotopy weighted limits, showing that the classical explicit constructions still give the right answer in the abstract sense, thus partially bridging the gap between classical homotopy theory and modern abstract homotopy theory. To do this we introduce a notion of “enriched homotopical categories”, which are more general than enriched model categories, but are still a good place to do enriched homotopy theory. This demonstrates that the presence of enrichment often simplifies rather than complicates matters, and goes some way toward achieving a better understanding of “the role of homotopy in homotopy theory.” Contents

Let X be a topological space and G an abelian group. There are many different definitions for the cohomology group H n (X, G); we will single out three of them for discussion here. First of all, one has the singular cohomology H n sing(X, G), which is defined as the cohomology of a complex of G-valued singular cochains. Alternatively, one may regard H n (•, G) as a representable functor on the homotopy category of topological spaces, and thereby define H n rep(X, G) to be the set of homotopy classes of maps from X into an Eilenberg-MacLane space K(G, n). A third possibility is to use the sheaf cohomology H n sheaf (X, G) of X with coefficients in the constant sheaf G on X. If X is a sufficiently nice space (for example, a CW complex), then all three of these definitions agree. In general, however, all three give different answers. The singular cohomology of X is constructed using continuous maps from simplices ∆k into X. If there are not many maps into X (for example if every path in X is constant), then we cannot expect H n sing (X, G) to tell us very much about X. Similarly, the cohomology group H n rep(X, G) is defined using maps from X into a simplicial complex, which (ultimately) relies on the existence of continuous real-valued functions on X. If X does not admit many real-valued functions, we should not expect H n rep (X, G) to be a useful invariant. However, the sheaf cohomology of X seems to be a good invariant for arbitrary spaces: it has excellent formal properties in general and sometimes yields

Abstract. The results of a previous paper on the equivariant homotopy theory of crossed complexes are generalised from the case of a discrete group to general topological groups. The principal new ingredient necessary for this is an analysis of homotopy coherence theory for crossed complexes, using detailed results on the appropriate Eilenberg–Zilber theory, and of its relation to simplicial homotopy coherence. Again, our results give information not just on the homotopy classification of certain equivariant maps, but also on the weak equivariant homotopy type of the corresponding equivariant function spaces. Mathematics Subject Classifications (2001): 55P91, 55U10, 18G55. Key words: equivariant homotopy theory, classifying space, function space, crossed complex.

Dedicated to Hvedri Inassaridze for his 70th birthday The category of crossed complexes gives an algebraic model of CW-complexes and cellular maps. Free crossed resolutions of groups contain information on a presentation of the group as well as higher homological information. We relate this to the problem of calculating non-abelian extensions. We show how the strong properties of this category allow for the computation of free crossed resolutions for amalgamated sums and HNN-extensions of groups, and so obtain computations of higher homotopical syzygies in these cases. 1

Abstract. This paper is a rather informal guide to some of the basic theory of 2-categories and bicategories, including notions of limit and colimit, 2-dimensional universal algebra, formal category theory, and nerves of bicategories. 1. Overview and basic examples This paper is a rather informal guide to some of the basic theory of 2-categories and bicategories, including notions of limit and colimit, 2-dimensional universal algebra, formal category theory, and nerves of bicategories. As is the way of these things, the choice of topics is somewhat personal. No attempt is made at either rigour or completeness. Nor is it completely introductory: you will not find a definition of bicategory; but then nor will you really need one to read it. In keeping with the philosophy of category theory, the morphisms between bicategories play more of a role than the bicategories themselves. 1.1. The key players. There are bicategories, 2-categories, and Cat-categories. The latter two are exactly the same (except that strictly speaking a Cat-category should have small hom-categories, but that need not concern us here). The first two are nominally different — the 2-categories are the strict bicategories, and not every bicategory is strict — but every bicategory is biequivalent to a strict one, and biequivalence is the right general notion of equivalence for bicategories and for 2-categories. Nonetheless, the theories of bicategories, 2-categories, and Catcategories have rather different flavours.

For locally homotopy trivial fibrations, one can define transition functions gαβ: Uα ∩ Uβ → H = H(F) where H is the monoid of homotopy equivalences of F to itself but, instead of the cocycle condition, one obtains only that gαβgβγ is homotopic to gαγ as a map of Uα ∩ Uβ ∩ Uγ into H. Moreover, on multiple intersections, higher homotopies arise and are relevant to classifying the fibration. The full theory was worked out by the first author in his 1965 Notre Dame thesis [17]. Here we present it using language that has been developed in the interim. We also show how this points a direction ‘on beyond gerbes’.

Abstract. We apply the Dwyer-Kan theory of homotopy function complexes in model categories to the study of mapping spaces in quasi-categories. Using this, together with our work on rigidification from [DS1], we give a streamlined proof of the Quillen equivalence between quasi-categories and simplicial categories. Some useful material about relative mapping spaces in quasi-categories is developed along the way. Contents

cal structures suggests, then sustained interaction is essential. Bringing people together will result in significant technical progress and significantly greater conceptual understanding of these structures. Despite their complexity, if developed coherently, these structures, like categories themselves, should eventually become part of the standard mathematical culture. PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXPLORATIONS OF HIGHER CATEGORICAL STRUCTURES AND THEIR APPLICATIONS PROPOSED RESEARCH 1. Historical background and higher homotopies Eilenberg and Mac Lane introduced categories, functors, and natural transformations in their 1945 paper [47]. The language they introduced transformed modern mathematics. Their focus was not on categories and functors, but on natural transformations, which are maps between functors. Higher category theory concerns higher level notions of naturality, which can be viewed as maps between natural transformations, and maps between such maps, and so for