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.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMay 9th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI did not classify this under latest changes as I expect some discussion after some questions I will ask later this week in this thread, related to thread. Before that let me archive an old query from [[center]] here: [[Mike Shulman]]: It seems to me that the monoid of endofunctions of a set would be the decategorification of $[C,C]$, not $[C,C](Id_C,Id_C)$. The center of a set should be the endotransformations _of_ the identity endofunction (of which there is only one, the identity). Moreover, since the center of a category is a commutative monoid, and the center of a bicategory is a braided monoidal category (horizontally categorifying the center of a monoidal category), the center construction acts like a knights-move on the periodic table; thus it makes sense that the center of a set should be a symmetric monoidal $(-1)$-category, i.e. "True." >_Toby_: I didn\'t look closely enough at your centre of a category then! What you say here contradicts what you wrote below ---that the centre of a $k$-tuply monoidal $n$-category is a $(k+1)$-tuply monoidal $n$-category, which is my understanding--- and contradicts what [[John Baez]] writes in Section 1.1 (page 5) of [HDA1](http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bm2cat.ps). >[[Mike Shulman]]: I expanded it a lot; let me know if this is any better. It's even more confusing than I realized at first. >_Toby_: I understand it, but it still doesn\'t actually include the centre of a set (or more generally of an $n$-category) that I learnt about from HDA1. Now, maybe that\'s not a very useful concept ... except that it fits in so well with the centre of a $k$-tuply monoidal $n$-category for $k \gt 0$! How many of these $k + 1$ different centres that a $k$-tuply monoidal $n$-category has are used? >[[Mike Shulman]]: Hmm, that appears to be a different notion of center than the one I was used to. (I didn't make this one up, but I don't remember where I learned it; has anyone else seen it?) Perhaps that one is better; it also has the advantage that it gives automatically that the center of a $k$-tuply monoidal $n$-category is $(k+1)$-tuply monoidal. >_Toby_: I\'ll try to get John\'s attention. >[[Mike Shulman]]: The HDA1 definition also leaves me wondering: why make only that particular choice of what level to stop at? Is there anything interesting to say about other choices? >_Toby_: H\'m, John is 'too busy' until September 22. (’_‘)

   I did not classify this under latest changes as I expect some discussion after some questions I will ask later this week in this thread, related to thread.

   Before that let me archive an old query from center here:

   Mike Shulman: It seems to me that the monoid of endofunctions of a set would be the decategorification of , not . The center of a set should be the endotransformations of the identity endofunction (of which there is only one, the identity). Moreover, since the center of a category is a commutative monoid, and the center of a bicategory is a braided monoidal category (horizontally categorifying the center of a monoidal category), the center construction acts like a knights-move on the periodic table; thus it makes sense that the center of a set should be a symmetric monoidal -category, i.e. “True.”

   Toby: I didn't look closely enough at your centre of a category then! What you say here contradicts what you wrote below —that the centre of a -tuply monoidal -category is a -tuply monoidal -category, which is my understanding— and contradicts what John Baez writes in Section 1.1 (page 5) of HDA1.

   Mike Shulman: I expanded it a lot; let me know if this is any better. It’s even more confusing than I realized at first.

   Toby: I understand it, but it still doesn't actually include the centre of a set (or more generally of an -category) that I learnt about from HDA1. Now, maybe that's not a very useful concept … except that it fits in so well with the centre of a -tuply monoidal -category for ! How many of these different centres that a -tuply monoidal -category has are used?

   Mike Shulman: Hmm, that appears to be a different notion of center than the one I was used to. (I didn’t make this one up, but I don’t remember where I learned it; has anyone else seen it?) Perhaps that one is better; it also has the advantage that it gives automatically that the center of a -tuply monoidal -category is -tuply monoidal.

   Toby: I'll try to get John's attention.

   Mike Shulman: The HDA1 definition also leaves me wondering: why make only that particular choice of what level to stop at? Is there anything interesting to say about other choices?

   Toby: H'm, John is ’too busy’ until September 22. (’_‘)

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeMay 9th 2011
   • (edited May 11th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexOK, first question. There is also sometimes used another notion of a center of an object $X$ in an arbitrary monoidal category $C$. It is by the definition simply the hom-set $C(1,X)$. In important cases, one can consider the right derived functor of $X\mapsto C(1,X)$ which corresponds to Hochschild cohomology. Now, an object $X$ is said to be *central* if the center in this sense, $C(1,X)$, has the special property that for every object $Y$ and for every pair $f,g: X\to Y$ such that $f\neq g$ there is $c\in C(1,X)$ such that $f\circ c \neq g\circ c$. If $C$ is the category of $R$-bimodules and $R$ commutative, then we get that the subcategory $ZC$ of central objects is the subcategory of central bimodules. There are many other special cases. I do not see how this corresponds to the treatment in [[center]].

   OK, first question.

   There is also sometimes used another notion of a center of an object in an arbitrary monoidal category . It is by the definition simply the hom-set . In important cases, one can consider the right derived functor of which corresponds to Hochschild cohomology. Now, an object is said to be central if the center in this sense, , has the special property that for every object and for every pair such that there is such that . If is the category of -bimodules and commutative, then we get that the subcategory of central objects is the subcategory of central bimodules. There are many other special cases. I do not see how this corresponds to the treatment in center.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIt could be that this is just "yet another" notion of center which should be added to the page [[center]] alongside the existing ones. I suspect that the center of a monoidal n-category may be related to its center, in your sense, in the ((n+1)-)category of monoidal n-categories, but that's just a guess.

   It could be that this is just “yet another” notion of center which should be added to the page center alongside the existing ones. I suspect that the center of a monoidal n-category may be related to its center, in your sense, in the ((n+1)-)category of monoidal n-categories, but that’s just a guess.