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 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 sheaves 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.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2011

    Let CC be the monoidal category whose underlying category is Set×SetSet \times Set and whose tensor product is (a,b)(c,d)(a×cb×d,a×db×c)(a, b) \otimes (c, d) \coloneqq (a \times c \uplus b \times d, a \times d \uplus b \times c) (the multiplication rule for perplex numbers). Surely there is some name for a category enriched over CC?

    In more elementary terms, a CC-category has both morphisms and antimorphisms, with a composite of such being anti iff oddly many of the originals are anti. Examples: groups, homomorphisms, and antihomomorphisms; (strict) categories, functors, and contravariant functors; etc.

    A CC-category is of course an \mathcal{M}-category, but of a rather special kind.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2011

    A /2\mathbb{Z}/2-graded category?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2011
    • (edited Nov 14th 2011)

    A Tunny category. (I happen to watched a programme recently on Bill Tutte and Tommy Flowers describing the work, in Bletchley Park, of the ’Tunny’ code breakers. (see here))

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2011

    Having never heard of perplex numbers before, I wandered to a nearby wiki and took a look. I don’t understand this description:

    the direct product of 2\mathbb{R}^2 as a ring;

    I expect “the direct product of” to be “the direct product of XX with YY” but that doesn’t fit in here. What am I missing?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeNov 14th 2011
    • (edited Nov 14th 2011)

    You’re right, Andrew, but I expect what was meant was “ 2\mathbb{R}^2 as a direct product ×\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} of rings”.

    Edit: I went ahead and changed it.