# 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

## Site Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

• 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

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

• 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 $F_2$ there. Is that what you meant?

• CommentRowNumber11.
• CommentAuthorGuest
• CommentTimeMar 1st 2020

@David_Corfield yes, and also the same diagram is now going $\mathcal{G}_1 \rightarrow \mathcal{G}_2$ but it think it should be $\mathcal{G}_1 \rightarrow \mathcal{G}_4$. 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 $(F_2 \cdot \eta \cdot F_1)(x) \;\coloneqq\; F_2(\eta(F_1(x))) \,.$

$\eta$ 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 $\eta$ should act on $\mathcal{G}_3$. But writing $\eta(F_1(x))$ means it is acting on $\mathcal{G}_2$

• CommentRowNumber13.
• CommentAuthorMarc
• CommentTimeMar 2nd 2020

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

• CommentRowNumber14.
• CommentAuthorMarc
• CommentTimeMar 2nd 2020

found the right ’-combination for superscript.

• 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 $\eta$ is acting on $F_1(x)\in\mathcal{G}_2$ while i think that $\eta$ can only act on elements of $\mathcal{G}_3$

giorgio s

• CommentRowNumber16.
• CommentAuthorMarc
• CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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 $\eta(y)$ as a morphism)

giorgio s

• CommentRowNumber18.
• CommentAuthorziggurism
• CommentTimeMar 4th 2020

typo

2. Mentions codiscrete groupoids.

Yuning Feng

• CommentRowNumber20.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeApr 28th 2021

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

• CommentRowNumber21.
• CommentAuthorUrs
• CommentTimeAug 29th 2021

• CommentRowNumber22.
• CommentAuthorTim_Porter
• CommentTimeOct 29th 2021

Typos

• CommentRowNumber23.
• CommentAuthorGuest
• CommentTimeAug 24th 2022

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

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 $\Gamma$ has one vertex $x$ and one loop $u:x \to x$. The free groupoid on $\Gamma$ 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 $\Gamma$; it is the point. As a groupoid, it is not the same as the free groupoid on $\Gamma$, although it is the same as the free setoid on the free groupoid on $\Gamma$. 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 $\Gamma$ and the point, which as a graph does not have $u$.) =–

Anonymous

• 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.