Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf sheaves simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 1st 2009

    Added to group object the Yoneda-embedding-style definition and added supergroup to the list of examples.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 21st 2021
    • (edited Mar 21st 2021)

    added pointer to

    diff, v26, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2021

    added pointer now also to Eckmann-Hilton’s part III

    Have not added pointer yet to part II. That part is interesting in that it lays out a lot of basic theory of limits and colimits, which apparently was new at that time (and hence maybe should be cited at limit or so) but part II does not seem to talk much about group objects or internalization as such. (Or maybe I missed it, have only skimmed through it, to be frank.)

    diff, v27, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 22nd 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v31, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 18th 2021

    added these two references, apparently preceding Eckmann-Hilton:

    • Alexander Grothendieck, p. 340 (3 of 23) in: Technique de descente et théorèmes d’existence en géométrie algébriques. II: Le théorème d’existence en théorie formelle des modules, Séminaire Bourbaki : années 1958/59 - 1959/60, exposés 169-204, Séminaire Bourbaki, no. 5 (1960), Exposé no. 195 (numdam:SB_1958-1960__5__369_0, pdf)

    • Alexander Grothendieck, p. 104 (7 of 21) in: Techniques de construction et théorèmes d’existence en géométrie algébrique III: préschémas quotients, Séminaire Bourbaki: années 1960/61, exposés 205-222, Séminaire Bourbaki, no. 6 (1961), Exposé no. 212, (numdam:SB_1960-1961__6__99_0, pdf)

    diff, v33, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2021

    fixed the formatting of some of the old diagrams here,

    added mentioning of the example of simplicial groups

    diff, v35, current

  1. rather than overloading 1

    Nathan Brader

    diff, v40, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2023

    added (here) the type-theoretic expression for the type of group data strcutures

    diff, v41, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 27th 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v44, current

  2. Added the generalization of the concept of group object from cartesian monoidal categories to any monoidal category


    diff, v46, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2023
    • (edited Oct 6th 2023)

    No wait. Where are you taking this idea from?

    In this case your habit of saying “one could define” happens to be appropriate (maybe unintentionally?): One could, but one does not.

    What you propose is, in paraphrase, to define a group object in a non-cartesian monoidal category to be a monoid object GG such that its global elements IGI \to G (only) have inverses. This would yield a rather loose notion of group objects. Are there actually any use-cases of this would-be notion?

    What one actually does when discussing group objects in general monoidal categories is to postulate a compatible comonoid object-structure on the given monoid (whose coproduct substitutes for the missing diagonal maps). Then the inverse-assigning map is called an antipode and the whole thing is traditionally called a Hopf monoid.

    I have added a Remark (here) to this extent. It still mentions your “could be”-definition in the last sentence, but unless we have any examples of use-cases, I’d be inclined to delete this.

    diff, v47, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2023

    Anonymouse, since I gather from your reaction in another thread (here) that you have seen my message above, I assume you silently agree. So I went ahead and deleted the last sentence concerning your purported definition.

    diff, v49, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorzuoke
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2024
    Hi everyone. I can't figure out what dose G(S) in the section "In terms of presheaves of groups" mean. As S and G are both objects in C, why can G be applied to S? Thanks in advance
    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 15th 2024
    • (edited Feb 15th 2024)

    This G(S)G(S) is shorthand for y(G)(S)=Hom C(S,G)y(G)(S) = Hom_C(S,G), i.e. for regarding GG as a presheaf (the one represented by GG) and as such evaluated on SS.

    I can’t edit right now. If nobody else does I’ll add clarification to the entry tomorrow.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2024

    Okay, I have expanded the text a little, for clarification (around here).

    diff, v51, current