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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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 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.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexOur seminar here at UCSD this quarter is about the Morrison-Walker "blob complex" and the corresponding notion of "disc-like" n-category. I have been trying to understand why (or whether) the latter definition should be regarded as "fully coherent". The brief discussion at the end of the paper constructs the constraint isomorphisms, but doesn't verify the coherence axioms. So far, haven't been able to see how to deduce the unit coherence axiom (the "triangle equation") for bicategories from the disc-like 2-category axioms, but it could just be that I don't understand the latter very well! Has anyone around here thought about this?

   Our seminar here at UCSD this quarter is about the Morrison-Walker “blob complex” and the corresponding notion of “disc-like” n-category. I have been trying to understand why (or whether) the latter definition should be regarded as “fully coherent”. The brief discussion at the end of the paper constructs the constraint isomorphisms, but doesn’t verify the coherence axioms. So far, haven’t been able to see how to deduce the unit coherence axiom (the “triangle equation”) for bicategories from the disc-like 2-category axioms, but it could just be that I don’t understand the latter very well! Has anyone around here thought about this?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • (edited Apr 27th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI haven't thought about this. I had tried to dig a bit deeper into this last semester, when we made some notes at [[blob n-category]], but then I was being distracted by too many other things. So you are looking for the coherence law $$ \array{ (g I) f &&\stackrel{a}{\to}&& g (I f) \\ & {}_{\mathllap{r \cdot id}}\searrow && \swarrow_{\mathrlap{id \cdot l}} \\ && g f } $$ for composable 1-morphisms $g$, $f$, I suppose? Isn't there an evident homeomophism of 2-balls that exhibits this? (I don't know, I haven't really sat down and worked through this.)

   I haven’t thought about this. I had tried to dig a bit deeper into this last semester, when we made some notes at blob n-category, but then I was being distracted by too many other things.

   So you are looking for the coherence law

   $$\array{ (g I) f &&\stackrel{a}{\to}&& g (I f) \\ & {}_{\mathllap{r \cdot id}}\searrow && \swarrow_{\mathrlap{id \cdot l}} \\ && g f }$$

   for composable 1-morphisms $g$, $f$, I suppose? Isn’t there an evident homeomophism of 2-balls that exhibits this? (I don’t know, I haven’t really sat down and worked through this.)

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThe homeomorphism of 2-balls isn't evident to me. What trips me up is that the unit isomorphisms $r$ and $l$ are obtained by "product maps" corresponding to "pinched products", and then one of them has to be glued with the associator. But there is only one axiom relating product morphisms to gluing, and it doesn't seem to apply: it requires that two pinched product maps be glued together to produce a third one, and I haven't been able (yet) to express this gluing in that form.

   The homeomorphism of 2-balls isn’t evident to me. What trips me up is that the unit isomorphisms $r$ and $l$ are obtained by “product maps” corresponding to “pinched products”, and then one of them has to be glued with the associator. But there is only one axiom relating product morphisms to gluing, and it doesn’t seem to apply: it requires that two pinched product maps be glued together to produce a third one, and I haven’t been able (yet) to express this gluing in that form.