Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexNew entry [[representable fibered category]].

   New entry representable fibered category.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • (edited Apr 27th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have added the remark that under the Grothendieck construction this does correspond to a representable functor.

   I have added the remark that under the Grothendieck construction this does correspond to a representable functor.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat about representable *pseudo*functors into Cat ?

   What about representable pseudofunctors into Cat ?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • (edited Apr 27th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat do you mean by "What about"? I could say: as long as $B$ is a 1-category, every representable functor is necessarily (equivalent to) an ordinary functor.

   What do you mean by “What about”?

   I could say: as long as $B$ is a 1-category, every representable functor is necessarily (equivalent to) an ordinary functor.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • (edited Apr 27th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexThe notion of Grothendieck fibration is not stable under equivalence. Thus the notion of representable Grothendieck fibration is taken only up to *isomorphism* in the definition which I used (taken from Kock), not up to equivalence. The Yoneda lemma in strict 2-categories is also more precise (gives: iso or categories) than for bicategories (gives: equiv of categories). We can also work with internal categories or alike where not all fibrations will be split. Still the representability in both senses may make sense. In any case there seem to be some cases in between, so I was wondering what was the precise statement without various simplifications from axiom of choice and of changing the original definition of Grothendieck. So by *what about* I meant not wondering about which version is actually claimed, what is answered to large extent in 4. Also there are similarities with the notion of [[small fibration]], where there is sort of categorification of the representability...

   The notion of Grothendieck fibration is not stable under equivalence. Thus the notion of representable Grothendieck fibration is taken only up to isomorphism in the definition which I used (taken from Kock), not up to equivalence.

   The Yoneda lemma in strict 2-categories is also more precise (gives: iso or categories) than for bicategories (gives: equiv of categories). We can also work with internal categories or alike where not all fibrations will be split. Still the representability in both senses may make sense.

   In any case there seem to be some cases in between, so I was wondering what was the precise statement without various simplifications from axiom of choice and of changing the original definition of Grothendieck. So by what about I meant not wondering about which version is actually claimed, what is answered to large extent in 4.

   Also there are similarities with the notion of small fibration, where there is sort of categorification of the representability…

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 27th 2011
   • (edited Apr 27th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> which version is actually claimed, I am not meaning to make a deep claim here. Just take the standard definition of the fibered category $\int F \to B$ associated to a functor $F = B(-,X)$ by the standard Grothendieck construction: * an object over $b \in B$ is an element of $F(b) = B(b,X)$, so is a morphism $f : b \to X$; * a morphism over $h : b_1 \to b_2 $ is two elements $f_1 \in F(b_1)$ and $f_2 \in F(b_2)$ and a morphism $h^* b_2 \to b_1$. For the case $F = B(-,X)$ the morphism has to be an identity and the conditon says that $$ \array{ b_1 &&\stackrel{h}{\to}&& b_2 \\ & {}_{\mathllap{f_1}}\searrow && \swarrow_{\mathrlap{f_2}} \\ && X } $$ commutes.

   which version is actually claimed,

   I am not meaning to make a deep claim here. Just take the standard definition of the fibered category $\int F \to B$ associated to a functor $F = B(-,X)$ by the standard Grothendieck construction:

   • an object over $b \in B$ is an element of $F(b) = B(b,X)$, so is a morphism $f : b \to X$;

   • a morphism over $h : b_1 \to b_2$ is two elements $f_1 \in F(b_1)$ and $f_2 \in F(b_2)$ and a morphism $h^* b_2 \to b_1$. For the case $F = B(-,X)$ the morphism has to be an identity and the conditon says that

     $$\array{ b_1 &&\stackrel{h}{\to}&& b_2 \\ & {}_{\mathllap{f_1}}\searrow && \swarrow_{\mathrlap{f_2}} \\ && X }$$

     commutes.