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 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeNov 6th 2009

    I requested some more details at strict 2-category. It would be nice to have something describing how objects are categories, morphisms are ??? satisfying ???, 2-morphisms are ??? satisfying ???.

    I'm sure all the details could be unwrapped from the simple statement "a strict 2-category is a Cat-category", but then I need to learn what an enriched category is first and then I need to see how that works in the case of Cat-enriched category. Soon, I feel overwhelmed. A strict 2-category is probably not THAT hard to understand explicitly.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 6th 2009

    It looks like Finn Lawler is writing this for you, Eric; if he doesn't finish it, then I will. (But you're right, it's not that hard, so I'm sure he will.) In the meantime, try Wikipedia, whose 2-categories are strict by default.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
    • CommentTimeNov 6th 2009

    Yup: just a short bit spelling out some of the definitions. I've dashed this off at home without references, so there may be some mistakes.

    By the way, on

    ... how objects are categories...

    they're not, in general. In the 2-category Cat they are, but arbitrary 2-categories, like their 1-cousins, are not required to have any particular structure on their objects.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeNov 6th 2009

    Ack! Bigons! I do not like bigons! :D

    Is there a definition of 2-category that does not rely on bigons?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 6th 2009

    What have you got against bigons? The 2-cells in a 2-category (strict or weak) are bigons; that's basically the definition of a 2-category. If you want some other shape of cell, then you've got something other than a 2-category.

    It's true that some definitions of n-category use cells of other shapes. However, once you have a composition operation that applies to all 1-cells, then a cell of any other shape can be regarded as a bigon by just composing up its source and target. So bigons are the most concise way to describe the structure, and the essential aspect of it, although it is sometimes convenient to also include cells of other shapes in order to describe the composition operations cleanly.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeNov 6th 2009

    OK, I think that I've filled in all of the details.

    And yes, Eric, the usual notion strict 2-category is an inherently globular (bigonal) concept; you can call it a globular strict 2-category if you want to make that precise, but it's the usual default.

    There are, however, also simplicial and cubical strict 2-categories, and the weak notion of bicategory (while usually also defined globularly) is indifferent to the shapes used. Urs has considered these matters, mostly for omega-categories, at geometric shapes for higher categories.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2009

    I asked a question related to this shape issue at strict 2-category.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2009

    I added a corresponding sentence below the query box.

    Generally, I'd say the answer to "Should we make xyz more explicit?" is always "Yes!"

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorEric
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2009

    Thanks! I asked another question :)

    strict 2-category

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2009
    • (edited Nov 16th 2009)

    Okay, I have replied again.

    I tried to reply in such a way that you can remove the query box if you feel the question has been answered and we are left with proper entry text.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2010

    I have now put in details at bicategory to match the details at strict 2-category. I’m not sure that it was worth it, but there it is.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2010

    I have now put in details at bicategory to match the details at strict 2-category. I’m not sure that it was worth it, but there it is.

    Thanks, Toby. I think it’s worth it. The nLab has or had some curious gaps when it came to the basic definitions of what the central object of interest here is supposed to be. I am glad seeing these eventually being filled.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2010

    Curoously enough, I was just yesterday thinking how a category theory resource as nlab has so little explicit standard detail in bicategory entry. Minerva was listening!

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2016

    I added some more to strict 2-category: some details on the relation to sesquicategory, a bit of history, and some references.

    As spurred by the MO discussion here.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 15th 2016

    Thank you! I might have gotten around to it too, but I’m glad you did.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorPeter Heinig
    • CommentTimeJul 18th 2017

    added to strict 2-category two technical terms and a reference.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 28th 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v33, current

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 29th 2021

    added pointer to:

    diff, v35, current

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2021

    What’s a good reference, if any, to point a general audience to for strict (2,1)-categories, hence GrpdGrpd-enriched categories?

    All intro/textbook references I have scanned so far speak only of strict 2-categories/CatCat-enriched categories; while research-level articles that implicitly deal with GrpdGrpd-enriched categories don’t make the concept explicit.

    Not that there is any subtlety in restricting the CatCat-enrichment to the GrpdGrpd-enrichment, but the lay person will still appreciate this being made explicit. If nothing else, it saves them from swallowing the usual weasel clauses on size issues.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 30th 2021

    ah, this here is not too bad:

    • P. H. H. Fantham, E. J. Moore, Groupoid Enriched Categories and Homotopy Theory, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 35 3 (1983) 385-416 (doi:10.4153/CJM-1983-022-8)

    diff, v36, current

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorDELETED_USER_2018
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2021
    • (edited Apr 11th 2023)

    [deleted]

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2021
    • (edited Sep 1st 2021)

    The references that Théo gives are good. The terminology ‘track category’ is current in the work of Hans Baues and his collaborators, including some of Hans’ books.

    BTW there is also:

    2-Groupoid Enrichments in Homotopy Theory and Algebra, K.H.Kamps, and T.Porter K-Theory v. 25, n. 4 (April, 2002): 373-409., ;-)

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2021

    Thanks. I remember seeing the “track”-terminology from when I was looking at those references doing Toda-brackets as pasting diagrams in homotopy 2-categories (here).

    So I have added a pointer at strict (2,1)-category to a book by Baues (here) for this alternative terminology. Unfortunately, besides introducing alternative terminology, that book does not pause a moment to recall what a Grpd-enriched category actually is. Same for followups that I have seen so far.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2021

    Hans Baues’ books often go in quite deeply quite quickly!

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2021

    Most references are like this. That’s why I am asking (#19) for those that are not.

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2022

    Added link to Catégories double et catégories structurées.

    diff, v37, current

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2022

    In revision 25, Todd Trimble added the phrase “Ehresmann, who in fact defined double categories, and 2-categories as a special case”. Can anyone give an explicit reference for the fact that Ehresmann defined 2-categories? 2-categories are a special case of double categories, but this does not imply that Ehresmann identified them explicitly, and I cannot find a reference in Ehresmann’s paper.

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v38, current

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    Re #27: I don’t know where I got that specific statement from, but Wikipedia does report that Ehresmann defined 2-categories in 1965 (apparently not in 1963 when he introduced double categories), as an example of an enriched category. I’ll add the reference in a moment.

    • CommentRowNumber30.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    Corrections inserted per nForum comments above.

    diff, v39, current

    • CommentRowNumber31.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    For the attribution to Ehresmann we ought to add a concrete pointer to the page number and/or the definition number.

    (Once I tried to find the definition of “internal category” in the similarly titled “Catégories structurées”, which many people cite as the origin of the concept, and I got away with the impression that it’s not really there.)

    Now, I haven’t found the book “Catégories et structures” online yet, but there is this:

    • Charles Ehresmann, Catégories et structures : extraits, Séminaire Ehresmann. Topologie et géométrie différentielle 6 (1964) 1-31 [eudml:112200]

    If the definition of strict 2-category is in there, then let’s say on which page exactly. If not, and if we can’t give any page number, then we should maybe add a cautionary remark that the attribution is not verifiable.

    • CommentRowNumber32.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    I spent some time looking for the definition of a 2-category in Ehresmann’s work previously, and could not find it. However, I did not (and still do not) have access to the book “Catégories structurées”, so it may be defined there. I agree that it would be good to confirm this.

    • CommentRowNumber33.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    I have the impression, just reading the introduction of “Catégories structurées”, that what Ehresmann calls “catégories \mathcal{H}-structurées” are what we would call in English an “internal categories in \mathcal{H}”. Is that a wrong impression?

    (I admit that I have trouble reading Ehresmann quickly, probably mostly because my French is weak, but also because of the style in which he writes.)

    • CommentRowNumber34.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    I came to suspect that nobody had the patience to penetrate what Ehresmann writes, so that some concepts got attributed to him just due to exhaustion of the readers.

    But I’d be happy to be proven wrong about this.

    If there is a recognizable definition in “Catégories structurées”, I’d like to add the explicit pointer (best a scan of the respective paragraph) to the list of historical references that I once tried to collect at internalization and at internal category. On the other hand, for internal categories (and internalization in general) the transparent definition by Grothendieck – which already is our modern definition – anyways predates “Catégories structurées” by a couple of years – these concepts are Grothendieck’s not Ehresmann’s.

    On the other hand, if we do not find the definitions in Ehresmann’s work then we should not perpetuate the suggestion that he stated them.

    • CommentRowNumber35.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2023
    • (edited Jun 1st 2023)

    So for the time being I have moved “Catégories et structures” out of the list of “original articles” and instead added this remark:

    (Wikipedia asserts that the definition of strict 2-categories is also due to Charles Ehresmann’s Catégories et structures (Dunod, Paris, 1965), but so far we have been unable to identify it there.)

    Of course, the same comment applies to the claim that the notion is due to Godement’s “Topologie algébrique et theorie des faisceaux”. I haven’t seen that article either. There are reviews of it by Whitehead (doi:10.2307/3608544), by Simms (doi:10.1017/S0013091500021799) and by Buchsbaum (here) and neither mention an occurrence of 2-categories.

    [edit: I see that no 2-categories are meant to be in Godement’s article, just a formulation of “five rules of functorial calculus” in the appendix. Since Godement won’t have written the English words “five rules of functorial calculus”, what is the exact French phrase he did use?]

    diff, v41, current

    • CommentRowNumber36.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2023

    I think the only assertion is that Godement had formulated his “five rules of functorial calculus”, and the notion of 2-category abstracts his rules in axiomatic form.

    I still have tabs open for finding the relevant material in Ehresmann, but I haven’t looked much into it since May 20. I’d bet money you won’t find him using the term “2-category”, so I think what’s going on with other authors like Street, Wikipedia, many others, is that the essential idea is to be found in his work using different words, to the effect of “CatCat-structured categories” and the like, and that some license allowing for that fact is due.

    • CommentRowNumber37.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2023

    Yes, but we should not propel rumours.

    It also worries me that everyone claims Godement formulated “five rules of functorial calculus” without ever mentioning the actual French phrase that Godement must have used instead. Best would be to get hold of the article and make a scan.

    • CommentRowNumber38.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2023
    • (edited Jun 1st 2023)

    I understand. So one source that alleges Godement’s five rules is the opening paragraph of Eilenberg-Kelly, A Generalization of the Functorial Calculus, where they direct the reader to the appendice. I place a fair amount of confidence in the scholarship of Eilenberg and Kelly, but yes, it would be nice to lay eyes on it.

    I think maybe the Godement work is a book, not an article? Anyway, it (Theorie des Faisceaux) might not be the same as Topologie algébrique et theorie des faisceaux. The former is dated 1958, whereas that webpage may be for a 1997 edition of something, and who knows what may be different between the two.

    • CommentRowNumber39.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2023
    • (edited Jun 1st 2023)

    Ah, found it here, page 281 (“cinq règles de calcul fonctoriel”). I’d make a scan, but I don’t know how to do that easily.

    • CommentRowNumber40.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2023

    Great, thanks! I have accordingly adjusted the wording here.

    diff, v42, current

    • CommentRowNumber41.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 1st 2023
    • (edited Jun 1st 2023)

    Taking down some notes here. I refer to his Collected Works, in particular the first article given in Volume III.1 here, cited as C.R.A.S. tome 256 (Séance du 4 février 1963), p. 1198-1201. Here Ehresmann gives a clear definition of double category (CATÉGORIES DOUBLES), with the same meaning we give for double category. Here is my free translation:


    By a double category we mean a class 𝒞\mathcal{C} equipped with two laws of composition, denoted \cdot and \perp, satisfying the following conditions:

    1. (𝒞,)(\mathcal{C}, \cdot) is a category, denoted 𝒞 \mathcal{C}^{\cdot}; the right and left identities of f𝒞 f \in \mathcal{C}^{\cdot} will be denoted α(f)\alpha(f) and β(f)\beta(f) respectively, the class of identities, 𝒞 0 \mathcal{C}_0^\cdot;

    2. (𝒞,)(\mathcal{C}, \perp) is a category, denoted 𝒞 \mathcal{C}^\perp; the identities of f𝒞 f \in \mathcal{C}^\perp will be denoted α (f)\alpha^\perp(f) and β (f)\beta^\perp(f), the class of identities, 𝒞 0 \mathcal{C}_0^\perp;

    3. The maps α\alpha and β\beta (resp. α \alpha^\perp and β \beta^\perp) are functors from 𝒞 \mathcal{C}^\perp to 𝒞 \mathcal{C}^\perp (resp. from 𝒞 \mathcal{C}^\cdot to 𝒞 \mathcal{C}^\cdot);

    4. Interchange axiom: if the composites khk \cdot h, gfg \cdot f, kgk \perp g and hfh \perp f are defined, then one has

      (kh)(gf)=(kg)(hf).(k \cdot h) \perp (g \cdot f) = (k \perp g) \cdot (h \perp f).

    It’s clear that he’s using a “morphisms-only” (i.e., one-sorted) definition of category, so that his 𝒞\mathcal{C} should be thought of as the class of 2-cells, but with that in mind, it should be understandable. I’m still trying to get hold of his 1965 book.

    People reading this comment might be amused by Linton’s scathing review of this book in the American Mathematical Monthly, doi:10.2307/2314770. I do see a caution, “2-categories appear under the name double category”. Hmm… now I really want to see it!

    • CommentRowNumber42.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023

    I see that we had listed “Catégories double et catégories structurées” at double category with pointer to its copy at gallica. In order to make it more easily readable I have extracted out of the “collected works”-file a small pdf with just this article, and referenced it here

    diff, v43, current

    • CommentRowNumber43.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023

    I have touched the wording of the very first couple of paragraphs (here) trying to make it flow better and be more informative.

    diff, v43, current

    • CommentRowNumber44.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023
    • (edited Jun 2nd 2023)

    Finally, I have added hyperlinked to a bunch of terms, such as 1-morphism, 2-morphism, horizontal composition, vertical composition, whiskering and interchange law. Also cross-linked with enriched groupoid.

    • CommentRowNumber45.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023
    • (edited Jun 2nd 2023)

    For what it’s worth, when I attempted to find the introduction of 2-categories before, the earliest reference I found was in Bénabou’s 1965 Catégories relatives (see Example 5), where he cites his “forthcoming” thesis Algèbre élémentaire dans les catégories, and tells the reader to see also Ehresmann’s Catégories structurées (though he doesn’t explicitly say 2-categories appear there, so he may simply be referencing the work for the similar definition of double categories). Bénabou’s thesis was eventually completed as Structures algebriques dans les categories, where the term “2-catégorie” does appear.

    Perhaps it would be worth asking Andrée Ehresmann directly, as she would surely know whether Charles Ehresmann ever defined 2-categories explicitly? It would be nice to find a copy of Catégories et structures also, though.

    It does seem plausible to me that it was actually Bénabou who introduced 2-categories.

    • CommentRowNumber46.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023

    Thanks, that’s useful. I have added the pointer here.

    diff, v44, current

    • CommentRowNumber47.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023
    • (edited Jun 2nd 2023)
  1. added a section about there being multiple notions of strict 2-categories in dependent type theory

    Theresa

    diff, v45, current

    • CommentRowNumber49.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023

    added pointer to

    (thanks to varkor here)

    diff, v46, current

    • CommentRowNumber50.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 13th 2023

    Fixed a wrong attribution to Ehresmann, which had remained uncorrected in the History section.

    diff, v49, current