Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 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 multicategories 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 science set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)