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 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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeJun 26th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexThe category of strict ω-categories admits two biclosed monoidal products, namely the lax tensor product and the cartesian product. I have encountered a few instances of cartesian products 'mixed in' with lax tensor products. The first thing that we might ask is whether or not they 'associate' with one another, namely, we might ask if $X\otimes (Y \times Z)\cong (X\otimes Y) \times Z$ The identity functor on ω-Cat is an (op?)lax monoidal functor from the lax tensor product monoidal structure to the cartesian monoidal structure when we equip it with the natural transformation $\mu_{X,Y}:X\otimes Y \to X\times Y$ induced by projecting the tensor product onto each factor. However, this transformation doesn't appear to have a well-behaved action in the following sense: Let's assume that the tensor product is strictly associative, which we can assume by one of the coherence theorems. Then $\mu_{X\otimes Y,Z}$ does not appear to be equal to $X\otimes \mu_{Y,Z}$. The reason why this is the case is just another Eckmann-Hilton sort of argument, namely because this would imply that $X\otimes Y = X\otimes (\ast \times Y) = (X\otimes \ast)\times Y = X\times Y$, which is something we know to be false. Even though we can't say something this strong, is it possible to say _something_ about how these products behave when they appear together?

   The category of strict ω-categories admits two biclosed monoidal products, namely the lax tensor product and the cartesian product. I have encountered a few instances of cartesian products ’mixed in’ with lax tensor products.

   The first thing that we might ask is whether or not they ’associate’ with one another, namely, we might ask if

   $X\otimes (Y \times Z)\cong (X\otimes Y) \times Z$

   The identity functor on ω-Cat is an (op?)lax monoidal functor from the lax tensor product monoidal structure to the cartesian monoidal structure when we equip it with the natural transformation $\mu_{X,Y}:X\otimes Y \to X\times Y$ induced by projecting the tensor product onto each factor. However, this transformation doesn’t appear to have a well-behaved action in the following sense:

   Let’s assume that the tensor product is strictly associative, which we can assume by one of the coherence theorems. Then $\mu_{X\otimes Y,Z}$ does not appear to be equal to $X\otimes \mu_{Y,Z}$. The reason why this is the case is just another Eckmann-Hilton sort of argument, namely because this would imply that

   $X\otimes Y = X\otimes (\ast \times Y) = (X\otimes \ast)\times Y = X\times Y$, which is something we know to be false.

   Even though we can’t say something this strong, is it possible to say something about how these products behave when they appear together?