Not signed in (Sign In)

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 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2010

    added to groupoid a section on the description in terms of 2-coskeletal Kan complexes.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 13th 2015
    • (edited Aug 13th 2015)

    Chenchang Zhu kindly writes in to say that she is giving a course on (higher) groupoids and is planning to use relevant nLab pages as course material, and hence panning to edit them further, as need be.

    Right now she has added to groupoid the explicit definition.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2017

    I have given groupoid a (fairly comprehensive) Idea section: here

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2017

    I have added statement and proof of the relation between equivalence of groupoids and weak homotopy equivalence, in a new section Properties – Equivalences of groupoids.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2017
    • (edited Jul 11th 2017)

    I have added to groupoid a section “Categories of groupoids” (here) which spells out horizontal composition of homotopies/natural transformations.

    Then I used this to spell out the proof that, assuming AC, groupoid representations are euqivalently tuples of group representations (here).

    This I also copied over to the entry groupoid representation.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2017

    Further expanded the Examples-section: 2-functoriality of fundamental groupoid (here) and more on group deloopings (here).

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2018

    Minor change in wording

    diff, v59, current

  1. Avoid floating first figure to display better on a mobile.

    diff, v66, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2020
    i think there is something wrong with the second diagram of this section groupoids#HmotopiesWithMorphismsHorizontaComposition but i can't figure out what it should be

    giorgio s
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeFeb 28th 2020

    I’ve removed the prime off the lower F 2F_2 there. Is that what you meant?

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2020

    @David_Corfield yes, and also the same diagram is now going 𝒢 1𝒢 2\mathcal{G}_1 \rightarrow \mathcal{G}_2 but it think it should be 𝒢 1𝒢 4\mathcal{G}_1 \rightarrow \mathcal{G}_4. I suppose this is just a typo but, since i wasn’t completely sure, i did not correct it myself

    giorgio s

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMar 1st 2020

    @David_Corfield regarding the same lemma (here), i don’t understand the line (F 2ηF 1)(x)F 2(η(F 1(x))). (F_2 \cdot \eta \cdot F_1)(x) \;\coloneqq\; F_2(\eta(F_1(x))) \,.

    η\eta is said to be a homotopy. Homotopies between groupoids are defined some paragraphs before this lemma, and they can act only on the codomain of the functors they transform, therefore η\eta should act on 𝒢 3\mathcal{G}_3. But writing η(F 1(x))\eta(F_1(x)) means it is acting on 𝒢 2\mathcal{G}_2

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMarc
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2020

    fixed typo in component of natural map, adjusted ’ superscript in first diagram for horizontal composition and and changed F 2F_2 to F 3F_3.

    diff, v70, current

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorMarc
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2020

    found the right ’-combination for superscript.

    diff, v70, current

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2020

    @Marc, i am sorry if i am missing something but your correction (that was also necessary) still doesn’t change the fact that η\eta is acting on F 1(x)𝒢 2F_1(x)\in\mathcal{G}_2 while i think that η\eta can only act on elements of 𝒢 3\mathcal{G}_3

    giorgio s

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorMarc
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020

    @giorgio: o.k. let’s dissect the statement of Lemma 2.7 step by step:

    (1) F 2F_2 and F 2 F^{'}_2 are functors from 𝒢 2\mathcal{G}_2 to 𝒢 3\mathcal{G}_3.

    (2) So the natural map η:F 2 F 2\eta : F^{'}_2 \to F_2 should assign to every object y𝒢 2y \in \mathcal{G}_2 a morphism η(y)𝒢 3(F 2 (y),F 2(y))\eta(y) \in \mathcal{G}_3(F^{'}_2(y),F_2(y)).

    (3) Precomposing with F 1F_1 gives for every object x𝒢 1x \in \mathcal{G}_1 first the object F(x)𝒢 2F(x) \in \mathcal{G}_2 and then (with y=F 1(x)y = F_1(x) in (2)) a morphism η(F 1(x))𝒢 3(F 2 (F 1(x)),F 2(F 1(x)))\eta(F_1(x)) \in \mathcal{G}_3(F^{'}_2(F_1(x)),F_2(F_1(x))).

    (4) Applying F 3F_3 to η(F 1(x))\eta(F_1(x)) from (3) then gives a morphism F 3(η(F 1(x)))𝒢 4(F 3(F 2 (F 1(x))),F 3(F 2(F 1(x))))F_3(\eta(F_1(x))) \in \mathcal{G}_4(F_3(F^{'}_2(F_1(x))),F_3(F_2(F_1(x)))).

    So I think indices are the correct ones.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020

    @Marc you are right, thank you for the clarification (i wasn’t thinking of η(y)\eta(y) as a morphism)

    giorgio s

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorziggurism
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2020


    diff, v71, current

  2. Mentions codiscrete groupoids.

    Yuning Feng

    diff, v76, current

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 28th 2021

    changed all “delooping groupoid” in the page to “delooping groupoid” and will give this its own little page now.

    diff, v77, current

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 29th 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v81, current

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeOct 29th 2021


    diff, v83, current

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeAug 24th 2022

    A groupoid is a category CC with a contravariant endofunctor () 1:C opC(-)^{-1}:C^\op \to C which is the identity-on-objects and which satisfies ff 1=1 Bf \circ f^{-1} = 1_B and f 1f=1 Af^{-1} \circ f = 1_A for all morphisms f:Hom(A,B)f:Hom(A, B).

  3. removing query box

    +– {: .query} Mike: It’s not clear to me that the notion of “free equivalence relation” doesn’t make sense. Can’t I talk about a left adjoint to the forgetful functor from equivalence relations to, say, directed graphs? Maybe sets-equipped-with-a-binary-relation would be more appropriate, but either one works fine.

    Ronnie: Are you sure this forgetful functor equivalence relations to directed graphs has a left adjoint? Suppose the directed graph Γ\Gamma has one vertex xx and one loop u:xxu:x \to x. The free groupoid on Γ\Gamma is the group of integers, which as a groupoid is not an equivalence relation.

    Toby: But there is still a free setoid (set equipped with an equivalence relation) on Γ\Gamma; it is the point. As a groupoid, it is not the same as the free groupoid on Γ\Gamma, although it is the same as the free setoid on the free groupoid on Γ\Gamma. If there's an advantage to working with groupoids, perhaps it's that the free groupoid functor preserves distinctions that the free setoid functor forgets? (In this case, a distinction preserved or forgotten is that between Γ\Gamma and the point, which as a graph does not have uu.) =–


    diff, v86, current

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeSep 22nd 2022

    I suspect that Toby Bartels might be the original culprit on the nlab behind the use of “setoid” to mean a “set with an equivalence relation”, with other editors later following him in that step.

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2023

    added another historical reference

    and grouped the early writings of Higgins with this.

    Incidentally, Higgins attributes the study (if not the definition) of groupoids to

    which recently we have been trying in vain to get hold of, elsewhere.

    diff, v92, current

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2023

    Re #25: no, as was explained at setoid, the term traces to Martin Hoffman’s 1995 PhD thesis, and is widely used I believe. (’Culprit’ is not a nice word, IMO.)

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2023

    as was explained

    This needs attention. What happened was that the entry setoid had no references or other justification for its terminology, when an anonymous editor came in here with a major rewrite. In reaction I tried tried to dig out the original references I could find. But I am not an expert on the (thorny) history of notions of construcive mathematics and nobody who is has touched the entry since.

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2023

    Oh, I see. I’m not expert either, but I’m glad you dug that out.

    The article setoid has some good stuff in it, but it doesn’t look easy to read in its current state. I’ll try to make some time to look it over and see if I can make any improvements.

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2023

    The main point that should be highlighted up front is who says that setoids are pseudo-equivalence relations and why and how that squares with Bishop’s writings which suggest, I think, that it should actually be equivalence relations. But I guess we should have this discussion in the other thread…

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2023

    Just to wrap this up:

    At setoid I have now compiled a list of references (here) for who says what about the definition of setoids.

    If people got into a habit of citing where they draw their ideas from, this would be easier, but a pretty clear picture emerges:

    Originally, starting with Martin Hofmann’s original definition’in 1995, people took setoids to be equivalence relations, and all of the StacksPropject, Wikipedia and haskell.hackage still think that this is the accepted definition. Also, one can argue that this is what Bishop actually had in mind, back in the 1960s.

    However, starting around 2012, apparently, people started dropping the prop-truncation axiom on the relation and hence consiered setoids to be pseudo-equivalence relation. On the one hand this may feel more natural in type theory, on the other hand it’s the version of the definition that makes the category of setoids be an exact completion, and that last fact seems to have been drawing more attention, lately.