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 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 galois-theory 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory itex 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 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 science 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).
  1. null edit to start discussion page

    Anonymous

    diff, v57, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2022

    similar to the horizontal categorification article, this article also uses query boxes, which is against the recommendation of the “Anything I shouldn’t do?” section of the writing in the nLab article. Should the query boxes be removed?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2022

    Yes! Thanks for the heads-up.

    So I am hereby removing the query box that was sitting in the entry, copying it to here, just for the record:


    +– {: .query} This all looks good, with one complaint: I don't think anyone would consider laxification (passage from sets to posets, groupoids to categories, categories to 22-posets, etc) to be ’categorification’. That is, the term ’directed categorification’ works best for the combination of groupoidal categorification followed by laxification. Do you agree, Mike? —Toby

    Mike Shulman: I actually think those are definitely a type of categorification. I can think of several places where people have explicitly categorified from categories to (1,2)-categories, either with some particular application in mind, or as a waypoint on the way to 2-categories. I can see that the term “directed categorification” might most easily be interpreted to refer to the combination, but I do think “pure directification” is also a form of categorification.

    Toby: I think that examples of ’categorifying’ form categories to 22-posets would help me understand. (Clear examples of ’categorifying’ from (,n)(\infty,n)-categories to (,n+1)(\infty,n+1)-categories would be maximally motivating, if you have them too.)

    Of course, 22-posets can be thought of as special 22-categories, and that may come even more easily than thinking of posets as special categories. But moving from categories to 22-posets or from sets to posets seems like such a different thing. It probably doesn't help that I don't like the term horizontal categorification either; categories may be a common generalisation of groupoids, posets, and monoids, but out of all of those three originals, only moving from posets (or something even simpler such as sets) to categories seems like ’categorification’ to me; only that moves us higher in the hierarchy of nn-categories.

    Mike Shulman: I think moving from (,n)(\infty,n)-categories to (,n+1)(\infty,n+1)-categories is definitely vertical categorification. It’s exactly like moving from nn-categories to (n+1)(n+1)-categories in so many ways. In particular, the collection of all (,n)(\infty,n)-categories is an (,n+1)(\infty,n+1)-category. Or consider the notion of symmetric monoidal (∞,1)-category; I think this is clearly a categorification of the notion of symmetric monoidal ∞-groupoid, i.e. infinite loop space. Not only can a definition of symmetric monoidal (∞,1)-category obtained from a definition of symmetric monoidal ∞-groupoid in a straightforward way, but it also satisfies a version of the microcosm principle: you can define symmetric monoidal objects in any symmetric monoidal (∞,1)-category. The beauty of working in the ∞-context from the start is that you don’t have to invent new coherence isomorphisms when you categorify, but I don’t think that makes it any less categorification.

    For the case of (2,1)-categories, here are a few papers that come to mind: * Power and Kinoshita, “Lax naturality through enrichment” * Carboni and Walters, “Cartesian bicategories I” * or even the discussion of the Burali-Forti paradox in a (2,3)-topos here.

    The point about “horizontal categorification” is, of course, that the intuition of “moving us higher in the hierarchy of nn-categories” is only applicable, basically by definition, to vertical categorification. Horizontal categorification is supposed to be something different. I’d rather not call that “categorification” either, but it is certainly a process of “generalizing something to use categories.” However I do feel, as I’ve said, that “directification” does “move us higher in the hierarchy of nn-categories”—it’s just that that “hierarchy” is not linear! Remember the periodic table of (n,r)-categories.

    Toby: All right, yes, that helps. I'll sleep on it, but there's a good chance that you've convinced me. =–


    diff, v58, current

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)