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.
   • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
   • CommentTimeAug 24th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: nLab edit announcer
   Format: MarkdownItexPage created, but author did not leave any comments. Anonymous <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/categories+with+the+same+collection+of+objects/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/categories+with+the+same+collection+of+objects">current</a>

   Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

   Anonymous

   v1, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 24th 2022
   • (edited Aug 24th 2022)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexA more canonical choice of topic for a page in this direction would be something like **category with specified type of objects**. Then the current entry title could sensibly be relegated to a paragraph on equivalences between such structures. Notice that for the case of groupoids and sheaves of such -- i.e. in the context of stacks -- such a notion is standard: one speaks of a stack equipped with an *[[atlas]]*, namely with an effective epimorphism from some 0-truncated object (see also <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/groupoid+objects+in+an+%28%E2%88%9E%2C1%29-topos+are+effective#InterpretationInTermsOfInfinityStacksWithAtlases">here</a>). An isomorphism of stacks-equipped-with-atlases is then what you call a functor bijective on objects. Since stacks are commonly understood in the generality of stacks of categories -- *[[2-sheaves]]* --, it would not be much of a stretch to say that choosing a specified type of objects for a category is to choose an *atlas* for it, which would serve to make clear that this is a natural structure to consider even outside the topic of foundations. So one might rename this page here to **category with an atlas**. In any case, this notion could neatly be defined as choosing an essentially surjective functor from a set to the category. Categories equipped with such structure would form the comma-2-category of Sets eso over categories, and that definition would -- it seems to me -- at once take care of most of the headache here and in the other entries that you (?) are currently working on.

   A more canonical choice of topic for a page in this direction would be something like category with specified type of objects. Then the current entry title could sensibly be relegated to a paragraph on equivalences between such structures.

   Notice that for the case of groupoids and sheaves of such – i.e. in the context of stacks – such a notion is standard: one speaks of a stack equipped with an atlas, namely with an effective epimorphism from some 0-truncated object (see also here).

   An isomorphism of stacks-equipped-with-atlases is then what you call a functor bijective on objects.

   Since stacks are commonly understood in the generality of stacks of categories – 2-sheaves –, it would not be much of a stretch to say that choosing a specified type of objects for a category is to choose an atlas for it, which would serve to make clear that this is a natural structure to consider even outside the topic of foundations. So one might rename this page here to category with an atlas.

   In any case, this notion could neatly be defined as choosing an essentially surjective functor from a set to the category. Categories equipped with such structure would form the comma-2-category of Sets eso over categories, and that definition would – it seems to me – at once take care of most of the headache here and in the other entries that you (?) are currently working on.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorGuest
   • CommentTimeAug 24th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Guest
   Format: MarkdownItexThe actual motivation for creating this particular article is for defining structures like [[Freyd categories]], in a manner which do not violate the [[principle of equality]], where the definitions on the [[Freyd category]] article make explicit reference to categories which have the same objects, as well as other structures like [[Freyd multicategories]] and [[dagger categories]] which use an [[identity-on-objects functor]], which also made explicit reference to categories which have the same objects. Do the definitions of, i.e. a dagger category, result in a definition which doesn't violate the principle of equivalence, if we say that i.e. a dagger category is a category with an atlas $C$ with an equivalence of atlases between $C$ and its opposite category with an atlas $C^\op$, such that etc...?

   The actual motivation for creating this particular article is for defining structures like Freyd categories, in a manner which do not violate the principle of equality, where the definitions on the Freyd category article make explicit reference to categories which have the same objects, as well as other structures like Freyd multicategories and dagger categories which use an identity-on-objects functor, which also made explicit reference to categories which have the same objects.

   Do the definitions of, i.e. a dagger category, result in a definition which doesn’t violate the principle of equivalence, if we say that i.e. a dagger category is a category with an atlas $C$ with an equivalence of atlases between $C$ and its opposite category with an atlas $C^\op$, such that etc…?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorGuest
   • CommentTimeAug 24th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Guest
   Format: MarkdownItexGiven an index set $A$, definition 2.4 indexed by $A$ is just a $Set^A$-[[enriched category]], where $A$ is interpreted as a [[discrete category]]. Definition 2.3 is just a $(Set \times Set)$-enriched category, and a $(Set \times Set)$-enriched category with an [[identity-on-objects functor]] is just a $Set^I$-[[enriched category]], where $I$ is the [[interval category]].

   Given an index set $A$, definition 2.4 indexed by $A$ is just a $Set^A$-enriched category, where $A$ is interpreted as a discrete category. Definition 2.3 is just a $(Set \times Set)$-enriched category, and a $(Set \times Set)$-enriched category with an identity-on-objects functor is just a $Set^I$-enriched category, where $I$ is the interval category.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 29th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI'm not convinced that this article is necessary. Are there any situations in which one cares about "two categories with the same collection of objects" other than where there is an [[identity on objects functor]] between them? If not, can't we just do all the relevant discussion on the latter page?

   I’m not convinced that this article is necessary. Are there any situations in which one cares about “two categories with the same collection of objects” other than where there is an identity on objects functor between them? If not, can’t we just do all the relevant discussion on the latter page?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 30th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItex> Do the definitions of, i.e. a dagger category, result in a definition which doesn't violate the principle of equivalence, if we say that i.e. a dagger category is a category with an atlas $C$ with an equivalence of atlases between $C$ and its opposite category with an atlas $C^\op$, such that etc...? I think you're misunderstanding what Urs is proposing. I think he means defining something like "Given a set/type $C$, a **category with atlas $C$** consists of a family of sets $Hom : C\times C\to Set$ together with ...". In proof-assistant language, we take the ordinary definition of category and make the set of objects a *parameter* rather than a *field*. Once we have this definition, we can define, given two categories $A,B$ with atlas $C$ (this is morally analogous to saying "given two morphisms $f,g$ from $x$ to $y$", hence equivalence-invariant), an "i.o. functor" or "functor with atlas $C$" between them to consist of functions $Hom_A(x,y) \to Hom_B(x,y)$ such that etc. I think I might like this idea. I think Urs has a good point that this would be a nice way to group all the foundational discussion on this subject, providing a unifying context and preventing it from polluting other pages like dagger-categories and Freyd-categories. But I need to think about it a bit more.

   Do the definitions of, i.e. a dagger category, result in a definition which doesn’t violate the principle of equivalence, if we say that i.e. a dagger category is a category with an atlas $C$ with an equivalence of atlases between $C$ and its opposite category with an atlas $C^\op$, such that etc…?

   I think you’re misunderstanding what Urs is proposing. I think he means defining something like “Given a set/type $C$, a category with atlas $C$ consists of a family of sets $Hom : C\times C\to Set$ together with …”. In proof-assistant language, we take the ordinary definition of category and make the set of objects a parameter rather than a field. Once we have this definition, we can define, given two categories $A,B$ with atlas $C$ (this is morally analogous to saying “given two morphisms $f,g$ from $x$ to $y$”, hence equivalence-invariant), an “i.o. functor” or “functor with atlas $C$” between them to consist of functions $Hom_A(x,y) \to Hom_B(x,y)$ such that etc.

   I think I might like this idea. I think Urs has a good point that this would be a nice way to group all the foundational discussion on this subject, providing a unifying context and preventing it from polluting other pages like dagger-categories and Freyd-categories. But I need to think about it a bit more.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorHurkyl
   • CommentTimeAug 30th 2022
   • (edited Aug 30th 2022)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Hurkyl
   Format: MarkdownItexRe #5, there is $C$ and $C^{op}$. I can think of other examples, but we're interested in amalgamating two different kinds of arrows in some fashion, and the situation is usually formulated either as a double category, or as the category presented by the two kinds of arrows (and modulo relations between them). I guess I can also think of Dwyer and Kan's _Simplicial Localizations of Categories_ which works in "$O-Cat$", the category of categories with a fixed set $O$ of objects (and also with simplicial objects in that category). FWIW these are the fibers of the cartesian fibration $Ob : Cat \to Set$ which might suggest how to organize foundations. I feel like defining $O-Cat$ would be the most natural way to formulate the content this page wants to discuss, so I share the sentiment of #2. Also, for some time, I've been rather partial of the description Urs describes in #2 -- a category equipped with an essentially surjective functor from a set -- for connecting the equivalence-respecting viewpoint on what a category is with the traditional version with a well-defined set of objects.

   Re #5, there is $C$ and $C^{op}$. I can think of other examples, but we’re interested in amalgamating two different kinds of arrows in some fashion, and the situation is usually formulated either as a double category, or as the category presented by the two kinds of arrows (and modulo relations between them).

   I guess I can also think of Dwyer and Kan’s Simplicial Localizations of Categories which works in “$O-Cat$”, the category of categories with a fixed set $O$ of objects (and also with simplicial objects in that category). FWIW these are the fibers of the cartesian fibration $Ob : Cat \to Set$ which might suggest how to organize foundations.

   I feel like defining $O-Cat$ would be the most natural way to formulate the content this page wants to discuss, so I share the sentiment of #2.

   Also, for some time, I’ve been rather partial of the description Urs describes in #2 – a category equipped with an essentially surjective functor from a set – for connecting the equivalence-respecting viewpoint on what a category is with the traditional version with a well-defined set of objects.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeAug 30th 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItex> Also, for some time, I’ve been rather partial of the description Urs describes in #2 – a category equipped with an essentially surjective functor from a set – for connecting the equivalence-respecting viewpoint on what a category is with the traditional version with a well-defined set of objects. I think whether you describe it that way or in some other way is orthogonal to whether you fix the set/type of objects as a parameter or consider it as a data field.

   Also, for some time, I’ve been rather partial of the description Urs describes in #2 – a category equipped with an essentially surjective functor from a set – for connecting the equivalence-respecting viewpoint on what a category is with the traditional version with a well-defined set of objects.

   I think whether you describe it that way or in some other way is orthogonal to whether you fix the set/type of objects as a parameter or consider it as a data field.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorHurkyl
   • CommentTimeSep 1st 2022
   • PermaLink
   Author: Hurkyl
   Format: MarkdownItexThere is already a page [[strict category]]. Isn't that discussing the same idea we're talking about here?

   There is already a page strict category. Isn’t that discussing the same idea we’re talking about here?

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItexNo. 1. A strict category has a set of objects, whereas in intensional type theory a category with atlas might have a higher type of objects. 2. In a strict category, the set of objects is a data field, whereas in a category with atlas the type of objects is a parameter. Maybe we should just create this page and then hopefully it will be clearer.

    No.

    1. A strict category has a set of objects, whereas in intensional type theory a category with atlas might have a higher type of objects.
    2. In a strict category, the set of objects is a data field, whereas in a category with atlas the type of objects is a parameter.

    Maybe we should just create this page and then hopefully it will be clearer.

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
    • CommentTimeSep 2nd 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: nLab edit announcer
    Format: MarkdownItexchanged name because there seems to be consensus on the discussion page for such a name change. Somebody more familiar with the material here should adjust the article accordingly Jennifer Snowdon <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/category+with+an+atlas/3">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/category+with+an+atlas/3">v3</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/category+with+an+atlas">current</a>

    changed name because there seems to be consensus on the discussion page for such a name change.

    Somebody more familiar with the material here should adjust the article accordingly

    Jennifer Snowdon

    diff, v3, current

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 10th 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexJust *a propos*: Adrian Clough kindly pointed out to me that the notion of *category with atlas* in the sense of [#2](#Comment_102255) above (but not under this name) is considered in: * David Ayala, John Francis. *Flagged higher categories* [[arXiv:1801.08973](https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08973)] Namely, their Def. 0.12 for $n = 1$ says that a "flagged $(\infty,1)$-category" is an $(\infty,1)$-category $\mathcal{C}_1$ equipped with a 0-connective $\infty$-functor $$ \mathcal{C}_0 \xrightarrow[ 0 connective ]{} \mathcal{C}_1 $$ out of an $(\infty,0)$-category $\mathcal{C}_0$. Here "0-connective" is equivalent to "essentially surjective" (as one would hope, but as also brought out by Def. 0.9 in the article and finding $c_0$ from the top line of p. 3).

    Just a propos:

    Adrian Clough kindly pointed out to me that the notion of category with atlas in the sense of #2 above (but not under this name) is considered in:

    • David Ayala, John Francis. Flagged higher categories [arXiv:1801.08973]

    Namely, their Def. 0.12 for $n = 1$ says that a “flagged $(\infty,1)$-category” is an $(\infty,1)$-category $\mathcal{C}_1$ equipped with a 0-connective $\infty$-functor

    $$\mathcal{C}_0 \xrightarrow[ 0 connective ]{} \mathcal{C}_1$$

    out of an $(\infty,0)$-category $\mathcal{C}_0$.

    Here “0-connective” is equivalent to “essentially surjective” (as one would hope, but as also brought out by Def. 0.9 in the article and finding $c_0$ from the top line of p. 3).

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: DavidRoberts
    Format: MarkdownItexI'm afraid now the name reflects the content even less. The page title 'category with an atlas' refers to a single category. And then the idea launches into the concept of a pair of categories having the same collection of objects. A 1-categorical analogue of the definition given in #12 is what I would have expected. Is this discussion thread the result of two other threads being merged? Or some discussion happening here in response to an example on the page that then grew out of propotion, but the discussion went elsewhere? Complaints out the way, is the point of choosing that name is so that one can discuss two different categories with atlas where the domain of the atlas is the same in both cases? The page will need a serious re-think, in particular the intro section, if the current title is meant to be kept.

    I’m afraid now the name reflects the content even less. The page title ’category with an atlas’ refers to a single category. And then the idea launches into the concept of a pair of categories having the same collection of objects.

    A 1-categorical analogue of the definition given in #12 is what I would have expected. Is this discussion thread the result of two other threads being merged? Or some discussion happening here in response to an example on the page that then grew out of propotion, but the discussion went elsewhere?

    Complaints out the way, is the point of choosing that name is so that one can discuss two different categories with atlas where the domain of the atlas is the same in both cases?

    The page will need a serious re-think, in particular the intro section, if the current title is meant to be kept.

14. • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: Guest
    Format: MarkdownItexI think the page is meant to be redone as indicated by Urs Schreiber's comment at 2.

    I think the page is meant to be redone as indicated by Urs Schreiber’s comment at 2.

15. • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: DavidRoberts
    Format: MarkdownItexOK. But then all the content related to [[identity-on-objects functor]] should be removed, and definitely not be the content of the opening section.

    OK. But then all the content related to identity-on-objects functor should be removed, and definitely not be the content of the opening section.

16. • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: nLab edit announcer
    Format: MarkdownItexadding statement at top of the page that this article is currently under major revision. Anonymous <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/category+with+an+atlas/4">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/category+with+an+atlas/4">v4</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/category+with+an+atlas">current</a>

    adding statement at top of the page that this article is currently under major revision.

    Anonymous

    diff, v4, current

17. • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: DavidRoberts
    Format: MarkdownItexImprovement to the leading definition, adding links to other pages. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/category+with+an+atlas/5">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/category+with+an+atlas/5">v5</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/category+with+an+atlas">current</a>

    Improvement to the leading definition, adding links to other pages.

    diff, v5, current

18. • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2022
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexFinally had some time to spare. Have cleared the entry (the previous material, which did not fit with the new title, was all duplicated from *[[identity-on-objects functor]]*, where it may still be found) and then I have written some paragraphs on why to speak of "categories with atlas" and how. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/category+with+an+atlas/7">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/category+with+an+atlas/7">v7</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/category+with+an+atlas">current</a>

    Finally had some time to spare.

    Have cleared the entry (the previous material, which did not fit with the new title, was all duplicated from identity-on-objects functor, where it may still be found) and then I have written some paragraphs on why to speak of “categories with atlas” and how.

    diff, v7, current