Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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 definitions 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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorYuxi Liu
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Yuxi Liu
   Format: MarkdownItexcreated the page <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/walking+adjoint+equivalence/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/walking+adjoint+equivalence">current</a>

   created the page

   v1, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorYuxi Liu
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Yuxi Liu
   Format: MarkdownItexalso I hope someone would check this since I'm not sure if it's right <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/walking+adjoint+equivalence/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/walking+adjoint+equivalence">current</a>

   also I hope someone would check this since I’m not sure if it’s right

   v1, current

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded related entries [[Adj]] and [[walking equivalence]]. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/walking+adjoint+equivalence/2">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/walking+adjoint+equivalence/2">v2</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/walking+adjoint+equivalence">current</a>

   Added related entries Adj and walking equivalence.

   diff, v2, current

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexCorrections/clarification of notation, removed the adjective 'freely' from the description of the 2-arrows being generated by $\iota_0$ and $\iota_1$. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/walking+adjoint+equivalence/2">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/walking+adjoint+equivalence/2">v2</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/walking+adjoint+equivalence">current</a>

   Corrections/clarification of notation, removed the adjective ’freely’ from the description of the 2-arrows being generated by $\iota_0$ and $\iota_1$.

   diff, v2, current

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2020
   • (edited Jul 5th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexI think we should also describe the relation to [[Adj]], namely the existence of a 2-functor $Adj \to \mathcal{AE}$ that is a bijection on objects and inverts the 2-arrows (modulo checking these details). Maybe this is universal among all such 2-functors. There's probably some nice computad way of saying this.

   I think we should also describe the relation to Adj, namely the existence of a 2-functor $Adj \to \mathcal{AE}$ that is a bijection on objects and inverts the 2-arrows (modulo checking these details). Maybe this is universal among all such 2-functors. There’s probably some nice computad way of saying this.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2020
   • (edited Jul 5th 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexWhy is Proposition 3.1 stated in such a weak form (a mere existence statement)? Can we not upgrade it to an existence and uniqueness statement? Isn't it true that functors AE→C are precisely adjoint equivalences? (Where an adjoint equivalence is equipped with a choice of units and counits.)

   Why is Proposition 3.1 stated in such a weak form (a mere existence statement)?

   Can we not upgrade it to an existence and uniqueness statement?

   Isn’t it true that functors AE→C are precisely adjoint equivalences? (Where an adjoint equivalence is equipped with a choice of units and counits.)

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexI think the entry was largely cut and paste from [[walking equivalence]] and tweaked to be about adjoint equivalences. That's why #2 asks for extra eyes on it.

   I think the entry was largely cut and paste from walking equivalence and tweaked to be about adjoint equivalences. That’s why #2 asks for extra eyes on it.