Counter-example to the existence of left Bousfield localization of combinatorial model categoryLeft 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?

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?













6












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
    $endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    3 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
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    3 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
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TimCampion : I thought it was in Hirschhorn's book, but he does it for "cellular" model categories instead of combinatorial. I just found the statement in Barwick "On left and right model categories and left and right bousfield localizations" as theorem 4.7. He attributed the results to J.Smith. I thought it was more "well known" than that. But maybe I missed a more classical reference.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    2 hours ago















6












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
    $endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    3 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
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    3 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
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TimCampion : I thought it was in Hirschhorn's book, but he does it for "cellular" model categories instead of combinatorial. I just found the statement in Barwick "On left and right model categories and left and right bousfield localizations" as theorem 4.7. He attributed the results to J.Smith. I thought it was more "well known" than that. But maybe I missed a more classical reference.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    2 hours ago













6












6








6





$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 4 hours ago









Simon HenrySimon Henry

15.3k14888




15.3k14888







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
    $endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    3 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
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    3 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
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TimCampion : I thought it was in Hirschhorn's book, but he does it for "cellular" model categories instead of combinatorial. I just found the statement in Barwick "On left and right model categories and left and right bousfield localizations" as theorem 4.7. He attributed the results to J.Smith. I thought it was more "well known" than that. But maybe I missed a more classical reference.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    2 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
    $endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    3 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
    3 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    3 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
    3 hours ago







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @TimCampion : I thought it was in Hirschhorn's book, but he does it for "cellular" model categories instead of combinatorial. I just found the statement in Barwick "On left and right model categories and left and right bousfield localizations" as theorem 4.7. He attributed the results to J.Smith. I thought it was more "well known" than that. But maybe I missed a more classical reference.
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    2 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Is there a standard example where $S$ is a class?
$endgroup$
– Tim Campion
3 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
3 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
3 hours ago












$begingroup$
Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Though I suspect one needs the negation of Vopenka's principle to get such an example ?
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
3 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
3 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
3 hours ago





1




1




$begingroup$
@TimCampion : I thought it was in Hirschhorn's book, but he does it for "cellular" model categories instead of combinatorial. I just found the statement in Barwick "On left and right model categories and left and right bousfield localizations" as theorem 4.7. He attributed the results to J.Smith. I thought it was more "well known" than that. But maybe I missed a more classical reference.
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago




$begingroup$
@TimCampion : I thought it was in Hirschhorn's book, but he does it for "cellular" model categories instead of combinatorial. I just found the statement in Barwick "On left and right model categories and left and right bousfield localizations" as theorem 4.7. He attributed the results to J.Smith. I thought it was more "well known" than that. But maybe I missed a more classical reference.
$endgroup$
– Simon Henry
2 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

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$requireAMScd$
$$
beginCD
a @>sim>> b\
@VVV @VVV\
c @>>> d
endCD
$$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    2 hours ago










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
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















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









6












$begingroup$

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$requireAMScd$
$$
beginCD
a @>sim>> b\
@VVV @VVV\
c @>>> d
endCD
$$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    2 hours ago















6












$begingroup$

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$requireAMScd$
$$
beginCD
a @>sim>> b\
@VVV @VVV\
c @>>> d
endCD
$$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    2 hours ago













6












6








6





$begingroup$

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$requireAMScd$
$$
beginCD
a @>sim>> b\
@VVV @VVV\
c @>>> d
endCD
$$

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.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



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$requireAMScd$
$$
beginCD
a @>sim>> b\
@VVV @VVV\
c @>>> d
endCD
$$

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.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









Reid BartonReid Barton

19.1k151109




19.1k151109











  • $begingroup$
    Woa ! This is a very nice example ! I was going to say that it is not combinatorial... but it actually is
    $endgroup$
    – Simon Henry
    2 hours 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
    2 hours 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
2 hours 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
2 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































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.




draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Möglingen Índice Localización Historia Demografía Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación48°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.129166666666748°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.1291666666667Sitio web oficial Mapa de Möglingen«Gemeinden in Deutschland nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Postleitzahl am 30.09.2016»Möglingen

Virtualbox - Configuration error: Querying “UUID” failed (VERR_CFGM_VALUE_NOT_FOUND)“VERR_SUPLIB_WORLD_WRITABLE” error when trying to installing OS in virtualboxVirtual Box Kernel errorFailed to open a seesion for the virtual machineFailed to open a session for the virtual machineUbuntu 14.04 LTS Virtualbox errorcan't use VM VirtualBoxusing virtualboxI can't run Linux-64 Bit on VirtualBoxUnable to insert the virtual optical disk (VBoxguestaddition) in virtual machine for ubuntu server in win 10VirtuaBox in Ubuntu 18.04 Issues with Win10.ISO Installation

Torre de la Isleta Índice Véase también Referencias Bibliografía Enlaces externos Menú de navegación38°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.3838888938°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.38388889Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta o Torre Saleta. Base de datos de bienes inmuebles. Patrimonio Cultural. Secretaría de Estado de CulturaFicha BIC Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta. Dirección General de Patrimonio Cultural. Generalitat ValencianaLugares de interés. Ayuntamiento del CampelloTorre de la Isleta en CastillosNet.org