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 definitions 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 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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 11th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexstub for [[(infinity,n)-category with duals]]

   stub for (infinity,n)-category with duals

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItexYou defined "has adjoints" twice. It seems to me that the first should have been *for $1$-morphisms* and I changed it accordingly.

   You defined “has adjoints” twice. It seems to me that the first should have been for -morphisms and I changed it accordingly.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeFeb 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexSomething I may have asked before, but we seem to deal with $\infty$-categories with various properties assigned to certain intervals of $n$-morphisms; no property, has duals, is invertible, is trivial. So we may say 'invertible above $n$', or 'trivial above $n + k$ and below $k$ perhaps with duals between. How far do they ever get combined? I see we have [k-tuply monoidal (n,r)-category](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/k-tuply+monoidal+%28n%2Cr%29-category). Do they crop up in nature? How about a k-tuply monoidal (infinity,n)-category with duals?

   Something I may have asked before, but we seem to deal with -categories with various properties assigned to certain intervals of -morphisms; no property, has duals, is invertible, is trivial. So we may say ’invertible above ’, or ’trivial above and below perhaps with duals between. How far do they ever get combined? I see we have k-tuply monoidal (n,r)-category. Do they crop up in nature? How about a k-tuply monoidal (infinity,n)-category with duals?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
   • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: TobyBartels
   Format: MarkdownItex>I see we have [[k-tuply monoidal (n,r)-category]]. Do they crop up in nature? I mostly only wrote that to record the insight that the concept still makes sense when $r = -1$ (giving the concept of $k$-tuply *groupal* $n$-groupoid).

   I see we have k-tuply monoidal (n,r)-category. Do they crop up in nature?

   I mostly only wrote that to record the insight that the concept still makes sense when (giving the concept of -tuply groupal -groupoid).

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 13th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex$k$-tuply monoidal $(n,r)$-categories certainly crop up in nature! How could they not?

   -tuply monoidal -categories certainly crop up in nature! How could they not?