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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 19th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI just discovered that, all along, the term "quiver representation" was just redirecting to *[[representation]]*. Have started this dedicated page now, with the bare minimum <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/quiver+representation/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/quiver+representation">current</a>

   I just discovered that, all along, the term “quiver representation” was just redirecting to representation. Have started this dedicated page now, with the bare minimum

   v1, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorAli Caglayan
   • CommentTime1 day ago
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ali Caglayan
   Format: MarkdownItexIf a quiver representation is a functor from $FrCat(Q) \to \mathrm{Vect}$ then doesn't this mean it is equivalently a graph map $Q \to \mathrm{Vect}$? I.e. you associate to each node in the quiver a vector space and to each edge a linear map. I couldn't workout what a morphism of quiver representations would be from this point of view however.

   If a quiver representation is a functor from $FrCat(Q) \to \mathrm{Vect}$ then doesn’t this mean it is equivalently a graph map $Q \to \mathrm{Vect}$? I.e. you associate to each node in the quiver a vector space and to each edge a linear map. I couldn’t workout what a morphism of quiver representations would be from this point of view however.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTime1 day ago
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, that's what it means for $FrCat(-)$ to be the free category on a graph. The general mechanism is explained at *[[free functor]]*.

   Yes, that’s what it means for $FrCat(-)$ to be the free category on a graph. The general mechanism is explained at free functor.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorAli Caglayan
   • CommentTime1 day ago
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ali Caglayan
   Format: MarkdownItexRight. So why do representation theorists present quiver representations using the free category if this point of view is simpler? The mechanism explained in the "free functor" article explains the 1-categorical case well, but we are working in a 2-category Cat here. We would need a biadjunction (really a strict 2-adjunction) to transfer morphisms across the view point. It's not immediately obvious to me that the free category is biadjoint to the forgetful functor. I don't think the 1-category of quivers has enough info to get morphisms of quiver representations. I would assume there is some 2-category of quivers to do that, but I have no idea what the 2-cells ought to be.

   Right. So why do representation theorists present quiver representations using the free category if this point of view is simpler?

   The mechanism explained in the “free functor” article explains the 1-categorical case well, but we are working in a 2-category Cat here. We would need a biadjunction (really a strict 2-adjunction) to transfer morphisms across the view point. It’s not immediately obvious to me that the free category is biadjoint to the forgetful functor.

   I don’t think the 1-category of quivers has enough info to get morphisms of quiver representations. I would assume there is some 2-category of quivers to do that, but I have no idea what the 2-cells ought to be.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorAli Caglayan
   • CommentTime1 day ago
   • (edited 1 day ago)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Ali Caglayan
   Format: MarkdownItexAnd just in case it wasn't clear, my point is that there can be multiple morphisms of quiver representations since we are asking for natural transformations not equivalences, but not multiple 2-cells of graph maps. It seems a better 2-category (probably bicategory) of graphs is needed to state this POV correctly.

   And just in case it wasn’t clear, my point is that there can be multiple morphisms of quiver representations since we are asking for natural transformations not equivalences, but not multiple 2-cells of graph maps. It seems a better 2-category (probably bicategory) of graphs is needed to state this POV correctly.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTime16 hours ago
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexNo, it's just the 1-category of categories and functors between them that is used. There is nothing subtle going on here.

   No, it’s just the 1-category of categories and functors between them that is used. There is nothing subtle going on here.