Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
The entry currently says:
We say an (infinity,1)-category C is concretizable if and only if it admits a (infinity,1)-functor U:C→∞Grpd.
This is an empty request. Every ∞-category admits such a functor. Take for instance any constant ∞-functor C→*→∞Grpd.
If you really don’t want to impose any condition on the ∞-functor to ∞Grpd, then you should speak of the specification of such a functor not as a property but as extra structure.
For instance, you might want to say that “concrete ∞-categories” are the objects of the slice (∞,1)Cat/∞Grpd.
Of course, whether this is the right definition depends on what one wants to do with it. Where are you headed with this?
1 to 3 of 3