Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus 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 homology 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 monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory object 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 string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2010
    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2010

    Is there any call for a factorization into a triple of systems, as in the stuff, structure, property story?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2010

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen that situation formalized, but it would be worth doing. I can think of at least one other example.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2010

    The other example being the combination of (hyperconnected, localic) and (surjection, inclusion) factorizations for topoi, which are very similar to the (eso+full, faithful) and (eso, fully faithful) factorizations for categories.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2010
    • (edited May 19th 2010)

    In a recent email exchange with Andre Joyal he pointed out to me the factorisation systems

    (epimorphisms of toposes, sub-toposes)

    (connected morphisms of toposes, totally disconnected localic morphisms)

    (1-connected morphisms of toposes, Galois morphisms)

    Are these examples of factorisation systems in a 2-category (I mean interestingly so)? I believe the third system has only be looked at in the special case of morphisms ESetE \to Set. Marta Bunge I think has done the second, and the first one is ’old’.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2010

    Mike @3: Does any notion of orthogonality exist for triple factorisations? Would that matter to their potential interest? Maybe what I’d really like to know is the whole point of factorisation systems.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2010
    • (edited May 19th 2010)

    DavidR #5, the first one is definitely a factorization system, aka (surjections, inclusions). I’m not sure about the others, but it seems quite possible. I know there’s an “almost” factorization system on toposes which consists of (connected+locally-connected morphisms, local homeomorphisms) but according to the Elephant the factorizations only exist for morphisms that are already known to be locally connected. Perhaps the second one you mention above is a version of this generalized to non-locally-connected morphisms.

    @DavidC #6: Both examples of triple factorizations are “actually” just two pairs of ordinary “double” factorizations related in a certain way, so they have two resulting kinds of orthogonality.

    The Whole Point of Factorization Systems would probably be a good topic for a blog post one day… (-: I’ll see if I can think of some good examples.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2010

    The Whole Point of Factorization Systems would probably be a good topic for a blog post one day

    Yes. Or also for an Idea-section in the relevant nLab entry. It is one of these concepts whose impact is in maybe surprising contrast to the simplicity of their definition. I am not sure if I understand The Whole Point of factorization systems. I think I understand some points of them.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2010
    • (edited May 19th 2010)

    @2: David, when I hear the word 2-categorical factorization system my first association is to split it into 3 as in the Postnikov tower for 2-types. As I was discussing before this could play a role in a possible discussion of model 2-categories which would model (,2)(\infty,2)-categories. I am very interested in this idea which may be a blunder despite its intuitive plausibility.

    @7: Urs, in joyalslab, there is a beautiful, original and extensive treatment of factorization systems and weak factorization systems.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2010
    • (edited May 19th 2010)

    in joyalslab, there is a beautiful, original and extensive treatment of factorization systems and weak factorization systems.

    That reminds me: we need to start putting links to Joyal’s CatLab into the relevant nLab enties.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2010

    @9: Zoran, so instead of the 3 classes for a model category forming weak factorisation systems (C,FW) (C, F \cap W) and (CW,F)(C \cap W, F) , there might be 5 classes with various combinations of intersections making weak factorisation triple systems? Or something like that.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2010

    @David #11

    or 4 classes? Weak equivalences WW + three other classes (A,B,C)(A,B,C), the intersection of WW with each of the others in turn to form (AW,B,C)(A\cap W,B,C) etc. to get the three classes needed to form a three-way factorisation?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 10th 2011

    added to factorization system in a 2-category a reference (there are probably more canonical ones, though) and a remark that the system [essentially srujective + full] / [faithful] on Grpd is a special case of the n-connected/n-truncated factorization system. I’ll now add more details to that latter entry.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeJan 4th 2021

    Wouldn’t this article be better called “factorization system for a 2-category” or “factorization system on a 2-category”? Usually “in” is used to describe internalisations of Cat-concepts in some other 2-category (e.g. monad in a 2-category). “on” refers to the 2-dimensional generalisation (e.g. 2-monad on a 2-category). I would expect “factorization system in a 2-category” to refer to a notion of factorisation for objects in the 2-category, not 1-cells of the 2-category itself.

  1. [Administrative note: merged #14, which was in a new thread, into an old thread, and re-named the old thread so that it is correctly detected as the discussion thread for the nLab page of the same name.]

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 6th 2021

    “factorization system on a 2-category” is already a redirect, and “for” could certainly also be. I don’t really care what the page itself is named; I don’t think there’s much danger of confusion since for the internal notion I would tend to say instead “factorization system on an object of a 2-category”.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)