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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology 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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI am hereby moving ancient query-box discussion out of the entry to here: *** +-- {: .query} [[Mike Shulman|Mike]]: I just made this up, but it seems right. With a $\le$-version of cyclic orders we could maybe recover monotone functions more directly. Whatever the definition of monotone function is, it should let us recover $\Lambda$ as below. _Toby_: Doubting a $\le$ version and believing that reflecting linear orders is quite natural, I\'ve phrased this entirely in those terms. Also, fixed (in my opinion) the definition of strict monotone function. (It\'s interesting that this suggests that $\Delta$ should be seen as a category of linearly ordered sets; being finite sets, this is equivalent even constructively.) =-- +-- {: .query} [[Mike Shulman|Mike]] and [[Toby Bartels|Toby]]: If anyone wants to have a go at a cyclic analogue of a total order, be our guest. =-- **** <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/cyclic+order/15">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/cyclic+order/15">v15</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/cyclic+order">current</a>

   I am hereby moving ancient query-box discussion out of the entry to here:

   ---

   +– {: .query} Mike: I just made this up, but it seems right. With a $\le$-version of cyclic orders we could maybe recover monotone functions more directly. Whatever the definition of monotone function is, it should let us recover $\Lambda$ as below.

   Toby: Doubting a $\le$ version and believing that reflecting linear orders is quite natural, I've phrased this entirely in those terms. Also, fixed (in my opinion) the definition of strict monotone function. (It's interesting that this suggests that $\Delta$ should be seen as a category of linearly ordered sets; being finite sets, this is equivalent even constructively.) =–

   +– {: .query} Mike and Toby: If anyone wants to have a go at a cyclic analogue of a total order, be our guest. =–

   ---

   diff, v15, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexmore such query-box discussion, hereby moved out of the entry to here: *** +-- {: .query} [[Todd Trimble|Todd]]: Guys, I may be confused here, but I'm having a problem: it seems that the empty relation on the 1-element set 1 is a cyclic order (in fact the only one on 1), and therefore (under the definition that monotone functions are those which reflect the cyclic order) that 1 is terminal. But then the category of finite (nonempty) cyclically ordered sets and monotone sets would have to be contractible. How does this square with the homotopy type of Connes' cyclic category (which I'm told is the same as that of $S^1$)? This is the point that I stumbled on in the blog discussion on the cyclic category almost exactly two years ago, when I attempted to give my own description of $\Lambda$ (but using a cyclic analogue of total orders, which you two have challenged readers to give). You can see my attempted description [here](http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/06/the_curious_incident_of_the_do.html#c010503), and my retraction [here](http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/06/the_curious_incident_of_the_do.html#c010511). _Toby_: The problem is that the $0$-cycle (unlike the $[0]$-simplex) should not be a point but instead have a nontrivial loop, is that right? And so it\'s not terminal, since a map to it from $[n]$ really consists of $n + 1$ binary choices (whether to be a degeneracy or to map to the nontrivial loop). _Todd_: I'm sorry -- I must be making some embarrassingly stupid mistake -- but I still don't follow. What loop? For the 1-element set {t}, there are only two ternary relations. The relation consisting of the point (t, t, t) cannot be a cyclic order by irreflexivity. So the only cyclic order is the empty one (which seems to be vacuously allowed by the axioms). And it seems that the condition that the unique map f: C --> {t} is monotone [by Mike's definition], for any cyclically ordered set C, is vacuously satisfied. Trust me -- I want you guys to be right, because I think that the definition of $\Lambda$ I attempted two years ago is (in classical logic) equivalent to yours (although I should check that carefully) -- and I was disappointed when I thought it failed. _Toby_: It\'s also possible that I\'m making an embarrassingly stupid mistake, but if you\'re making one, then it\'s probably missing my word 'should'. I agree with you that there is a unique cyclic order (as defined here) on the $1$-element set and that this gives the terminal cyclically ordered set. What I\'m not certain about is that I understand what the cycle category is supposed to be, but is it right that the $1$-element cycle (the $0$-cycle) *should* have a nontrivial loop? Because if so, then I understand what your objection is! _Todd_: Part of the problem is that I don't have a deep feeling myself for Connes' $\Lambda$. But David Ben-Zvi (I believe) mentioned on the blog that $\Lambda$ has the homotopy type of a circle, meaning I guess that the classifying space of the nerve $B N \Lambda$ has this homotopy type. But the classifying space of a category with a terminal object is contractible. That's the point where I got worried about my own construction, and it's a worry for me here as well: terminal objects would seem to be fatal. _Toby_: OK, so neither of us understands it well enough to be sure. Still, if I get the description as an ordered graph, then I see that there is a problem with maps to the $0$-cycle. The good news is that, looking at your definition of a cyclically reflexive notion of cyclic order, I can no longer imagine why I might have thought that such a thing would not work. Indeed, applying [[de Morgan duality]] to the axioms above for an irreflexive version, we immediately get a reflexive version that is (classically, and even constructively for finite sets) equivalent to your definition. (It\'s still true that the irreflexive version is probably better from a constructive perspective, much as is true for linear/total orders, because cyclic totality fails for the reflexive ternary order relation on the unit circle in the located Dedekind complex plane, but that\'s not what was concerning me before, nor is it relevant for finite sets.) [[Mike Shulman]]: Probably this whole discussion should be taking place at [[cycle category]]. According to [Berger-Moerdijk](http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3341)'s characterization of the cycle category (Example 2.7), I think the $0$-cycle is not terminal. They describe it as the "total category" of a certain "crossed $\Delta$-group" which is a presheaf $n\mapsto G_n$ of groups on $\Delta$ with certain extra structure; in this case the relevant presheaf sends each set $[n] = \{0,1,\dots,n\}$ to $C_n$, the cyclic group on $n$ letters. The total category of a crossed $\Delta$-group has the same objects as $\Delta$, and the morphisms $[m]\to [n]$ are pairs $(\alpha,g)$ where $\alpha:[m]\to [n]$ in $\Delta$ and $g\in G_m$. Thus, in particular, the morphisms $[m]\to [0]$ in $\Lambda$ can be identified with elements $g\in C_m$, so there is more than one of them. I think I have just lost whatever geometric intuition I used to think I had for the cycle category. [[David Corfield]]: I think I understood it [once](http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2007/06/cohomology_and_computation_wee_6.html#c010094) as "$\Lambda$ is the category whose objects $[n]$ are circles marked by the sets of $n$ th roots of unity. Maps are degree 1 mappings between circles which send marked points to marked points, and are increasing. This is quite like $\Delta$ but where you are allowed to cycle round the domain before you choose an order-preserving map." It's good to see how the morphisms are counted. So $\Lambda$ is a kind of [product](http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2006/10/euler_characteristic_of_a_cate.html#c010304) between $\Delta$ and the groupoid which is a union of one copy of each finite cyclic group. =-- ***

   more such query-box discussion, hereby moved out of the entry to here:

   ---

   +– {: .query} Todd: Guys, I may be confused here, but I’m having a problem: it seems that the empty relation on the 1-element set 1 is a cyclic order (in fact the only one on 1), and therefore (under the definition that monotone functions are those which reflect the cyclic order) that 1 is terminal. But then the category of finite (nonempty) cyclically ordered sets and monotone sets would have to be contractible. How does this square with the homotopy type of Connes’ cyclic category (which I’m told is the same as that of $S^1$)?

   This is the point that I stumbled on in the blog discussion on the cyclic category almost exactly two years ago, when I attempted to give my own description of $\Lambda$ (but using a cyclic analogue of total orders, which you two have challenged readers to give). You can see my attempted description here, and my retraction here.

   Toby: The problem is that the $0$-cycle (unlike the $[0]$-simplex) should not be a point but instead have a nontrivial loop, is that right? And so it's not terminal, since a map to it from $[n]$ really consists of $n + 1$ binary choices (whether to be a degeneracy or to map to the nontrivial loop).

   Todd: I’m sorry – I must be making some embarrassingly stupid mistake – but I still don’t follow. What loop? For the 1-element set {t}, there are only two ternary relations. The relation consisting of the point (t, t, t) cannot be a cyclic order by irreflexivity. So the only cyclic order is the empty one (which seems to be vacuously allowed by the axioms). And it seems that the condition that the unique map f: C –> {t} is monotone [by Mike’s definition], for any cyclically ordered set C, is vacuously satisfied.

   Trust me – I want you guys to be right, because I think that the definition of $\Lambda$ I attempted two years ago is (in classical logic) equivalent to yours (although I should check that carefully) – and I was disappointed when I thought it failed.

   Toby: It's also possible that I'm making an embarrassingly stupid mistake, but if you're making one, then it's probably missing my word ’should’. I agree with you that there is a unique cyclic order (as defined here) on the $1$-element set and that this gives the terminal cyclically ordered set. What I'm not certain about is that I understand what the cycle category is supposed to be, but is it right that the $1$-element cycle (the $0$-cycle) should have a nontrivial loop? Because if so, then I understand what your objection is!

   Todd: Part of the problem is that I don’t have a deep feeling myself for Connes’ $\Lambda$. But David Ben-Zvi (I believe) mentioned on the blog that $\Lambda$ has the homotopy type of a circle, meaning I guess that the classifying space of the nerve $B N \Lambda$ has this homotopy type. But the classifying space of a category with a terminal object is contractible. That’s the point where I got worried about my own construction, and it’s a worry for me here as well: terminal objects would seem to be fatal.

   Toby: OK, so neither of us understands it well enough to be sure. Still, if I get the description as an ordered graph, then I see that there is a problem with maps to the $0$-cycle.

   The good news is that, looking at your definition of a cyclically reflexive notion of cyclic order, I can no longer imagine why I might have thought that such a thing would not work. Indeed, applying de Morgan duality to the axioms above for an irreflexive version, we immediately get a reflexive version that is (classically, and even constructively for finite sets) equivalent to your definition. (It's still true that the irreflexive version is probably better from a constructive perspective, much as is true for linear/total orders, because cyclic totality fails for the reflexive ternary order relation on the unit circle in the located Dedekind complex plane, but that's not what was concerning me before, nor is it relevant for finite sets.)

   Mike Shulman: Probably this whole discussion should be taking place at cycle category.

   According to Berger-Moerdijk’s characterization of the cycle category (Example 2.7), I think the $0$-cycle is not terminal. They describe it as the “total category” of a certain “crossed $\Delta$-group” which is a presheaf $n\mapsto G_n$ of groups on $\Delta$ with certain extra structure; in this case the relevant presheaf sends each set $[n] = \{0,1,\dots,n\}$ to $C_n$, the cyclic group on $n$ letters. The total category of a crossed $\Delta$-group has the same objects as $\Delta$, and the morphisms $[m]\to [n]$ are pairs $(\alpha,g)$ where $\alpha:[m]\to [n]$ in $\Delta$ and $g\in G_m$. Thus, in particular, the morphisms $[m]\to [0]$ in $\Lambda$ can be identified with elements $g\in C_m$, so there is more than one of them.

   I think I have just lost whatever geometric intuition I used to think I had for the cycle category.

   David Corfield: I think I understood it once as “$\Lambda$ is the category whose objects $[n]$ are circles marked by the sets of $n$ th roots of unity. Maps are degree 1 mappings between circles which send marked points to marked points, and are increasing. This is quite like $\Delta$ but where you are allowed to cycle round the domain before you choose an order-preserving map.”

   It’s good to see how the morphisms are counted.

   So $\Lambda$ is a kind of product between $\Delta$ and the groupoid which is a union of one copy of each finite cyclic group. =–

   ---

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 5th 2021
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexBut what I really wanted to say is: I have cross-linked with *[[chord diagram]]* <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/cyclic+order/15">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/cyclic+order/15">v15</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/cyclic+order">current</a>

   But what I really wanted to say is:

   I have cross-linked with chord diagram

   diff, v15, current

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
   • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2023
   • PermaLink
   Author: nLab edit announcer
   Format: MarkdownItexA definition of a cyclic order could be found in > [[Tim Campion]], [[Jinhe Ye]], *Non-trivial higher homotopy of first-order theories* ([arXiv:2306.12011](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.12011)) Katherine <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/cyclic+order/16">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/cyclic+order/16">v16</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/cyclic+order">current</a>

   A definition of a cyclic order could be found in

   Tim Campion, Jinhe Ye, Non-trivial higher homotopy of first-order theories (arXiv:2306.12011)

   Katherine

   diff, v16, current