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 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 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 nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics planar 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

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
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2010

    promted by demand from my Basic-Course-On-Category-Theory-Students I expanded the entry 2-category:

    • mentioned more relations to other concepts in the Idea-section;

    • added an Examples-section with a bunch of (classes of) examples;

    • added a list of references. Please add more if you can think of more!

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2010

    What is the purpose of the bullet list containing category, 2-category, etc. at the top of the article? It looks weird to me there – shouldn’t a page called “2-category” start with the contents of itself? Those seem more like they would go in a “related pages” section at the bottom of the page.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 8th 2010

    Does it look weird?

    Darn, I thought it was a good idea. Will have to remove these, then. I keep having this urge of putting pages into context. For cases where we have sequences of pages that all vary on the same theme, I started to collect their titles in short lists at the top of the page, kind of as a sort of little menu to choose from.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2010

    I thought that putting pages in context was one of the purposes of the floating contents links on the side.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2010

    @Urs. Perhaps that list could go elsewhere. I did think that it was not helpful where it is.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
    • CommentTimeOct 9th 2010

    Those lists do look a bit strange at the very beginning of the page. They are a good idea, though, I think, and they complement the subject-contents links by grouping pages more by conceptual similarity than by usage.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 10th 2010

    Okay, will start moving these lists elsewhere!

    Finn wrote:

    They are a good idea, though, I think, and they complement the subject-contents links by grouping pages more by conceptual similarity than by usage.

    That had been my feeling, that the floating TOC serves to set the scene, but does not convey the immediate idea “this entry is only one variant of a single concept, the other variants of which are…”. I felt we have a bunch of entries that in principle could be on a single page.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeOct 11th 2010
    • (edited Oct 11th 2010)

    Darn, I thought it was a good idea. Will have to remove these, then. I keep having this urge of putting pages into context.

    I also like to have the main content straight away without scrolling, while side links on the side (like floating contents) or at the bottom of the page along with references (related entries). Many times I was writing Literature and links or References and other entries or alike section at the bottom. So I think all that idea of adding more links ios always good but not at the beginning of the entry.

    "this entry is only one variant of a single concept, the other variants of which are..."

    There are so many variant of this statement of different flavour, like related concepts, synonyms, closely related concepts, other formalisms for the same idea etc. each of these is a different flavour. If one is putting just a list with some default meaning of the list one does not know which variant of list of variants one is giving. So it is difficult to colaborate on creating such lists. Sometimes a single top page title like algebraic theories above PRO may be worthy, but one can have several groups of titles with common intersection, and each group is defined by a different principle. So I do not see a way for one size to fit all. So maybe it would be better to have explicit explanation of a compact linear list at the bottom with references.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeOct 14th 2010

    I don’t like these either and keep meaning to ask about them. Or rather, I like them very much! Just not where they are.

    Since they’re so short, maybe you can put them on the side above the other lists of contents, but without the funky code to make it disappear?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
    • CommentTimeFeb 17th 2020

    Added a reference to the recent monograph by Johnson&Yau.

    diff, v39, current

  1. Linked to category 2Cat.

    diff, v42, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2021

    added pointer to:

    (which is a textbook on 2-category theory in itself)

    diff, v47, current

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2022

    Added reference to term “hypercategory”.

    diff, v50, current

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeOct 20th 2022

    An anonymous editor added the term “monoidal monoidoidoid” to the page without leaving a comment. I do not think this terminology is helpful to have on the page, both because the terminology does not appear anywhere, and because it is ambiguous: it relies on the term being parsed as “(monoidal monoidoid)oid” rather than “monoidal (monoidoidoid)”, which is not the natural reading. It does not help the nLab’s reputation for obscurity when people add terms like this jokingly.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 21st 2022

    Absolutely. It could be worthwhile to add a remark explaining how such terms could come about, but just dropping them like this is no good. I have deleted it.

    diff, v51, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeDec 9th 2022

    Added link to opposite 2-category.

    diff, v52, current

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime14 hours ago
    • (edited 14 hours ago)

    I have added (here) original references on the notion of strict 2-categories (following discussion there)

    and also added pointer to:

    diff, v56, current

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTime13 hours ago

    Aren’t we jumping the gun just a little by asserting that the notion of 2-category is due to Benabou, not Ehresmann? The “seems to be” doesn’t ameliorate that.

    We’re going to all this trouble to verify assertions with precise literature citations, we might as well be careful here too. Before saying everyone else seems to be wrong, let’s be sure.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTime13 hours ago

    Re. #18: I completely agree.

    I have emailed Andrée Ehresmann regarding the origin of 2-categories and will let you know when I hear back.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime13 hours ago
    • (edited 13 hours ago)

    No worries, I volunteer to immediately change the wording in all entries once you discover a 2-category in Ehresmann’s writing. :-)

    For the moment all evidence points to Ehresmann defining double categories and all other authors implicitly granting that strict 2-categories are a special case.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTime13 hours ago

    Urs, this attitude seems counter to the great scruples you were applying before to the claims of others, where you were demanding proof based on direct evidence, not indirect or circumstantial evidence like you’re citing here. I suggest we wait until we can get our hands on the 1965 book and can have a look ourselves. (I would also accept it from Madame Ehresmann, if she said it was Benabou, but then I would want permission to quote her.)

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime13 hours ago

    No, we may state as a fact what we have seen, but must not state as a fact what merely we cannot rule out.

    (By the latter logic we’d attribute everything to Ehresmann until proof to the contrary, which is not right – though this is how people did proceed in the past, and we should discontinue this malpractice as it is hurting the field.)

    No harm is done. The moment we find writings that Ehresmann is to be credited with the notion of strict 2-categories, I’ll reword all entries immediately.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime12 hours ago

    By the way, this entry here (2-category) did not mention Ehresmann at all in its 14+ years of existence – not until I added in the pointer (rev 56) a couple of hours ago.

    It is only now, after 14+ years of no credit to Ehresmann, that I made it say that the two earliest clear references we know were “both apparently following the definition of double categories due to [Ehresmann]” (rev 56).

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTime7 hours ago

    I received a response from Andrée Ehresmann, who writes:

    He did not introduced himself 2-catégories, which have been introduced soon after both by his student Jean Bénabou as special double categories, and by different other authors as categories ’enriched’ in Cat

    In the book “Catégories et Structures” Charles just mentions both double categories and 2_categories at the end (p. 324) in a historical Note.

    Presumably by “others” she refers to Eilenberg and Kelly, who called 2-categories “hypercategories”. However, since they are familiar with the term “2-category”, despite it not appearing in print before 1965, it seems most likely that their citation is simply incorrect, and the intended reference was indeed the 1965 book Catégories et structures. In any case, it is confirmed that the paper of Bénabou is the first reference for 2-categories, and the concept may be attributed to him.

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTime7 hours ago

    I must amend my previous message: in fact, Maranda independently introduced 2-categories in the same year as Bénabou, in his paper Formal categories on enriched categories, where he called them “categories of the second type”.

    I believe the definition of strict 2-category should thus be jointly attributed to Bénabou and Maranda.

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime6 hours ago
    • (edited 6 hours ago)

    Thanks!! I have added pointer to Maranda: here

    It’s interesting that the two articles introducing strict 2-categories immediately understand them as CatCat-enriched categories and in fact coincide with the two articles that introduce enriched categories in the first place. So the conception of higher and of enriched category theory went hand-in-hand!

    diff, v57, current

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTime6 hours ago

    With that out of the way, maybe we can use the momentum to also boost the referencing for the actual notion of bicategories:

    Currently our entry offers Bénabou 1967 as the only original reference, though that already carries a title suitable for a review (“Introduction to…”).

    Is this all we have before Kelly & Street 1974 write a “Review of…”?

    diff, v57, current

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTime6 hours ago

    Thank you, varkor! Nice to have that settled definitively.