Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

Site Tag Cloud

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).

nLab > Latest Changes: closed monoidal category

Bottom of Page

1 to 30 of 30

- CommentRowNumber1.
- CommentAuthorMike Shulman
- CommentTimeOct 12th 2012
- PermaLink
Author: Mike Shulman
Format: MarkdownItexadded to [[closed monoidal category]] a proof that the pointwise tensor product on a functor category with complete codomain is closed.

added to closed monoidal category a proof that the pointwise tensor product on a functor category with complete codomain is closed.
- CommentRowNumber2.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeMar 27th 2014
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexDiscussion elsewhere suggested that readers found the bi-closed aspect at _[[closed monoidal category]]_ not clear enough, or not highlighted properly to be recognizable. Therefore I have now edited slightly, trying to make the point clearer. Also added a few more hyperlinks to the existing text. And added pointers to Lambek's original articles to the References-section, together with a pointer to the history of the subject over at _[[linear type theory]]_.

Discussion elsewhere suggested that readers found the bi-closed aspect at closed monoidal category not clear enough, or not highlighted properly to be recognizable.

Therefore I have now edited slightly, trying to make the point clearer. Also added a few more hyperlinks to the existing text.

And added pointers to Lambek’s original articles to the References-section, together with a pointer to the history of the subject over at linear type theory.
- CommentRowNumber3.
- CommentAuthorColin Tan
- CommentTimeJan 5th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Colin Tan
Format: MarkdownItexAs a symmetric closed monoidal category, a cartesian closed category $(C, \times, 1)$ has the properties that (1) the unit $1$ is the terminal object and (2) the tensor product $\times$ distributes over finite coproducts. Is there a name for symmetric closed monoidal categories that satisfy properties (1) and (2)?

As a symmetric closed monoidal category, a cartesian closed category $(C, \times, 1)$ has the properties that (1) the unit $1$ is the terminal object and (2) the tensor product $\times$ distributes over finite coproducts.

Is there a name for symmetric closed monoidal categories that satisfy properties (1) and (2)?
- CommentRowNumber4.
- CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
- CommentTimeJan 5th 2016
- (edited Jan 5th 2016)
- PermaLink
Author: Todd_Trimble
Format: MarkdownItex(2) is redundant since in a symmetric monoidal *closed* category, it is automatic that the tensor product distributes over all colimits. As for (1): is it true that I've heard "affine monoidal"? (Terminology based on the example of [[affine spaces]] = vector spaces but forgetting the origin.) I'll have to check later. **Edit:** Oh, the nLab calls it a [[semicartesian monoidal category]], so you could call your thing a semicartesian closed category I guess.

(2) is redundant since in a symmetric monoidal closed category, it is automatic that the tensor product distributes over all colimits.

As for (1): is it true that I’ve heard “affine monoidal”? (Terminology based on the example of affine spaces = vector spaces but forgetting the origin.) I’ll have to check later.

Edit: Oh, the nLab calls it a semicartesian monoidal category, so you could call your thing a semicartesian closed category I guess.
- CommentRowNumber5.
- CommentAuthorColin Tan
- CommentTimeJan 6th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Colin Tan
Format: MarkdownItexThanks Todd, that was helpful. I added to [[semicartesian monoidal category]] the motivating example $([0,\infty], \ge, + , 0)$ of the extended real numbers.

Thanks Todd, that was helpful. I added to semicartesian monoidal category the motivating example $([0,\infty], \ge, + , 0)$ of the extended real numbers.
- CommentRowNumber6.
- CommentAuthorColin Tan
- CommentTimeJan 6th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Colin Tan
Format: TextIn a semicartesian monoidal category, is it automatic that the tensor product is symmetric?
In a semicartesian monoidal category, is it automatic that the tensor product is symmetric?
- CommentRowNumber7.
- CommentAuthorMike Shulman
- CommentTimeJan 6th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Mike Shulman
Format: MarkdownItexSurely not.

Surely not.
- CommentRowNumber8.
- CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
- CommentTimeJan 6th 2016
- (edited Jan 6th 2016)
- PermaLink
Author: Todd_Trimble
Format: MarkdownItexThe usual examples do have a symmetric monoidal product though. It made me pause to wonder whether the nLab definition is the standard one. **Edit:** I'll retract my previous sentence; I'll bet it's quite standard. In fact for any monoidal category $M$, the slice $M/I$ over the unit is semicartesian, and that should be a universal example. I added some words to that effect (which should be checked for accuracy).

The usual examples do have a symmetric monoidal product though. It made me pause to wonder whether the nLab definition is the standard one.

Edit: I’ll retract my previous sentence; I’ll bet it’s quite standard. In fact for any monoidal category $M$ , the slice $M/I$ over the unit is semicartesian, and that should be a universal example. I added some words to that effect (which should be checked for accuracy).
- CommentRowNumber9.
- CommentAuthorMike Shulman
- CommentTimeJan 7th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Mike Shulman
Format: MarkdownItexI kind of doubt that the notion of semicartesian monoidal category is commonly enough used for anything to be "standard". But the observation about slices is nice!

I kind of doubt that the notion of semicartesian monoidal category is commonly enough used for anything to be “standard”. But the observation about slices is nice!
- CommentRowNumber10.
- CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
- CommentTimeJan 7th 2016
- (edited Jan 7th 2016)
- PermaLink
Author: Todd_Trimble
Format: MarkdownItexThanks! Something I found a little amusing yesterday was to consider the specific case $Vect/k$ where $k$ is the ground field for $Vect$. Both $Vect$ and $Aff$ (affine spaces over $k$, including the empty one) embed fully in this category (the latter as a *monoidal* subcategory). For $Vect$ the embedding is $V \mapsto (V, 0: V \to k)$. The embedding of $Aff$ takes a little more time to spell out. It's $A \mapsto (1 \sqcup A, \pi)$ where $\sqcup$ is the coproduct in affine spaces (akin to a simplicial join), $1$ is the terminal affine space, and $\pi$ is the composite of $1 \sqcup !: 1 \sqcup A \to 1 \sqcup 1$ with a natural identification $\mu: 1 \sqcup 1 \cong k$. Both $1 \sqcup !$ and $\mu$ which are morphisms of $Aff$ may be regarded as morphisms of $1 \downarrow Aff \simeq Vect$ (pointed affine spaces are vector spaces) if we let the first inclusion $i_0: 1 \to 1 \sqcup 1$ be the pointing of $1 \sqcup 1$ and $0: 1 \to k$ the pointing of $k$ and define $\mu$ by $\mu \circ i_0 = 0$, $\mu \circ i_1 = 1$ (the element $1 \in k$). (So $\mu$ is like two ends of a meter stick used to set up coordinates on the line $k$.) "Most" objects $(V, f: V \to k)$ of $Vect/k$ are "inhabited" in the sense that the projection to the terminal is regular epic; this means $f: V \to k$ is epic. For such objects, a morphism $(V, f) \to (W, g)$ determines and is uniquely determined by the affine map $f^{-1}(1) \to g^{-1}(1)$ between the fibers over $1 \in k$, and thus we identify the full subcategory of inhabited objects of $Vect/k$ with the category of inhabited affine spaces.

Thanks! Something I found a little amusing yesterday was to consider the specific case $Vect/k$ where $k$ is the ground field for $Vect$ . Both $Vect$ and $Aff$ (affine spaces over $k$ , including the empty one) embed fully in this category (the latter as a monoidal subcategory). For $Vect$ the embedding is $V \mapsto (V, 0: V \to k)$ .

The embedding of $Aff$ takes a little more time to spell out. It’s $A \mapsto (1 \sqcup A, \pi)$ where $\sqcup$ is the coproduct in affine spaces (akin to a simplicial join), $1$ is the terminal affine space, and $\pi$ is the composite of $1 \sqcup !: 1 \sqcup A \to 1 \sqcup 1$ with a natural identification $\mu: 1 \sqcup 1 \cong k$ . Both $1 \sqcup !$ and $\mu$ which are morphisms of $Aff$ may be regarded as morphisms of $1 \downarrow Aff \simeq Vect$ (pointed affine spaces are vector spaces) if we let the first inclusion $i_0: 1 \to 1 \sqcup 1$ be the pointing of $1 \sqcup 1$ and $0: 1 \to k$ the pointing of $k$ and define $\mu$ by $\mu \circ i_0 = 0$ , $\mu \circ i_1 = 1$ (the element $1 \in k$ ). (So $\mu$ is like two ends of a meter stick used to set up coordinates on the line $k$ .)

“Most” objects $(V, f: V \to k)$ of $Vect/k$ are “inhabited” in the sense that the projection to the terminal is regular epic; this means $f: V \to k$ is epic. For such objects, a morphism $(V, f) \to (W, g)$ determines and is uniquely determined by the affine map $f^{-1}(1) \to g^{-1}(1)$ between the fibers over $1 \in k$ , and thus we identify the full subcategory of inhabited objects of $Vect/k$ with the category of inhabited affine spaces.
- CommentRowNumber11.
- CommentAuthorOscar_Cunningham
- CommentTimeJan 7th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Oscar_Cunningham
Format: MarkdownItexBy the way, Coecke and Lal call semicartesian monoidal categories _causal categories_.

By the way, Coecke and Lal call semicartesian monoidal categories causal categories.
- CommentRowNumber12.
- CommentAuthorMike Shulman
- CommentTimeJan 8th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Mike Shulman
Format: MarkdownItex@Todd: Cute. And the objects that aren't inhabited are exactly those in the image of $Vect$, right? So $Vect\cup Aff$ is all of $Vect/k$, and $Vect\cap Aff$ is $0\to k$, the zero vector space and the empty affine space. There are no maps from an inhabited affine space to a vector space, and there is only the zero map from a vector space to an affine space, so the two are almost disjoint.

@Todd: Cute. And the objects that aren’t inhabited are exactly those in the image of $Vect$ , right? So $Vect\cup Aff$ is all of $Vect/k$ , and $Vect\cap Aff$ is $0\to k$ , the zero vector space and the empty affine space. There are no maps from an inhabited affine space to a vector space, and there is only the zero map from a vector space to an affine space, so the two are almost disjoint.
- CommentRowNumber13.
- CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
- CommentTimeJan 8th 2016
- (edited Jan 8th 2016)
- PermaLink
Author: Todd_Trimble
Format: MarkdownItexYes, they are almost disjoint, except that you do have maps $\phi: (V, 0) \to (W, g)$ from a "vector space" to an "affine space" whenever $\phi \circ g = 0$. I think what we have in fact is $Vect/k$ realized as a [[collage]] of vector spaces with inhabited affine spaces (I'll denote that category by $Aff_+$). It's the collage induced by the bimodule $B: Vect^{op} \times Aff_+ \to Set$ where $B(V, A) = Vect(V, T(A))$; here $T$ is the functor which takes an affine space $A$ to its vector space of translations $T(A)$, which we can also express as the composite $$Aff_+ \to Vect/k \stackrel{\ker}{\to} Vect/0 \simeq Vect$$ where $\ker$ is of course the pullback along $0 \to k$. I guess you'd just call that (some version of) the [[cograph of a functor|cograph]] of $T$.

Yes, they are almost disjoint, except that you do have maps $\phi: (V, 0) \to (W, g)$ from a “vector space” to an “affine space” whenever $\phi \circ g = 0$ .

I think what we have in fact is $Vect/k$ realized as a collage of vector spaces with inhabited affine spaces (I’ll denote that category by $Aff_+$ ). It’s the collage induced by the bimodule $B: Vect^{op} \times Aff_+ \to Set$ where $B(V, A) = Vect(V, T(A))$ ; here $T$ is the functor which takes an affine space $A$ to its vector space of translations $T(A)$ , which we can also express as the composite
$Aff_+ \to Vect/k \stackrel{\ker}{\to} Vect/0 \simeq Vect$
where $\ker$ is of course the pullback along $0 \to k$ . I guess you’d just call that (some version of) the cograph of $T$ .
- CommentRowNumber14.
- CommentAuthorMike Shulman
- CommentTimeJan 10th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Mike Shulman
Format: MarkdownItexAh, I see. Cute! I wonder if one might regard this as another argument against admitting the empty affine space.

Ah, I see. Cute!

I wonder if one might regard this as another argument against admitting the empty affine space.
- CommentRowNumber15.
- CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
- CommentTimeJan 10th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: DavidRoberts
Format: MarkdownItexIf you think of an affine space as a (locally trivial) principal V-bundle over a point, then it should be inhabited (maybe this point has been made already elsewhere).

If you think of an affine space as a (locally trivial) principal V-bundle over a point, then it should be inhabited (maybe this point has been made already elsewhere).
- CommentRowNumber16.
- CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
- CommentTimeJan 10th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Todd_Trimble
Format: MarkdownItex@Mike: I was wondering the same thing. @David: It may not have been said in exactly those terms, but similar points have been made elsewhere (e.g., an affine space is the same as a torsor of its space of translations). And that kind of point has some validity and force, surely, but not enough (for me, anyway) to override the opposing feeling that affine spaces over a field should form a variety, should form a complete/cocomplete category, etc., and that we teach our students that the solution space to Ax = b may be empty, etc. etc. This might be another instance of the nice object / nice category dichotomy. (Speaking only for myself, I'm not very comfortable at present with the nLab's leaning toward the "nice object" side of the debate in [[affine space]].) In the end whichever notion of affine space we choose probably comes down to context and expediency, but I'd be happier to see the *category* of inhabited affine spaces arise organically from satisfying categorical considerations. Along lines vaguely analogous to Tom Leinster's Café post on how he came to love the [nerve construction](https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/01/mark_weber_on_nerves_of_catego.html), which among other things lays out organic categorical reasons for choosing the simplex category over the augmented simplex category. There is a vague sense within the current thread (which I suppose should go elsewhere than "closed monoidal category") that the structure of the slice construction $Vect/k$, which arises by applying the coreflection of monoidal categories into semicartesian monoidal categories to $(Vect, \otimes)$, might provide a clue to this, maybe via this observation about $Vect/k$ also being a collage construction.

@Mike: I was wondering the same thing.

@David: It may not have been said in exactly those terms, but similar points have been made elsewhere (e.g., an affine space is the same as a torsor of its space of translations). And that kind of point has some validity and force, surely, but not enough (for me, anyway) to override the opposing feeling that affine spaces over a field should form a variety, should form a complete/cocomplete category, etc., and that we teach our students that the solution space to Ax = b may be empty, etc. etc. This might be another instance of the nice object / nice category dichotomy. (Speaking only for myself, I’m not very comfortable at present with the nLab’s leaning toward the “nice object” side of the debate in affine space.)

In the end whichever notion of affine space we choose probably comes down to context and expediency, but I’d be happier to see the category of inhabited affine spaces arise organically from satisfying categorical considerations. Along lines vaguely analogous to Tom Leinster’s Café post on how he came to love the nerve construction, which among other things lays out organic categorical reasons for choosing the simplex category over the augmented simplex category. There is a vague sense within the current thread (which I suppose should go elsewhere than “closed monoidal category”) that the structure of the slice construction $Vect/k$ , which arises by applying the coreflection of monoidal categories into semicartesian monoidal categories to $(Vect, \otimes)$ , might provide a clue to this, maybe via this observation about $Vect/k$ also being a collage construction.
- CommentRowNumber17.
- CommentAuthorMike Shulman
- CommentTimeJan 11th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Mike Shulman
Format: MarkdownItexLet's continue at [affine space](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/1245/affine-space/?Focus=55700#Comment_55700).

Let’s continue at affine space.
- CommentRowNumber18.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeJun 15th 2016
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexI have added the statement that in a closed monoidal category the tensor/hom adjunction isos always internalize. ([here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category#TensorHomIsoInternalizes))

I have added the statement that in a closed monoidal category the tensor/hom adjunction isos always internalize. (here)
- CommentRowNumber19.
- CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
- CommentTimeMay 30th 2018
- PermaLink
Author: DavidRoberts
Format: MarkdownItexAdded lctvs with the inductive tensor product as an example <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/closed+monoidal+category/37">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/closed+monoidal+category/37">v37</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category">current</a>

Added lctvs with the inductive tensor product as an example

diff, v37, current
- CommentRowNumber20.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeDec 20th 2018
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexadded pointer to Borceux. Does Borceux ever mention compact closure? Or else, what would be a good textbook reference for compact closed categories? <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/closed+monoidal+category/38">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/closed+monoidal+category/38">v38</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category">current</a>

added pointer to Borceux.

Does Borceux ever mention compact closure? Or else, what would be a good textbook reference for compact closed categories?

diff, v38, current
- CommentRowNumber21.
- CommentAuthorSeth Chaiken
- CommentTimeMar 30th 2023
- (edited Mar 30th 2023)
- PermaLink
Author: Seth Chaiken
Format: MarkdownItexShould we distinguish the definition we give as a defining a right closed monoidal category? The Wikipedia article [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_monoidal_category]] mentions the left version under the first definition.

Should we distinguish the definition we give as a defining a right closed monoidal category?
The Wikipedia article //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_monoidal_category (https) mentions the left version under the first definition.
- CommentRowNumber22.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeMar 30th 2023
- (edited Mar 30th 2023)
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexWhat you suggest does not quite type-check, and I think the statement in the entry was correct. But I have now edited the pragraph a little to harmonize the variable names, which may make it easier to spot what the left- and the right adjoints are doing: *** ...such that for each [[object]] $Y \,\in\, \mathcal{C}$ 1. the [[functor]] $$ (-) \otimes Y \;\colon\; C \longrightarrow C $$ of forming the [[tensor product]] with $Y$, 1. has a [[right adjoint]] [[functor]] $$ [Y,-] \;\colon\; C \longrightarrow C $$ forming the [[internal-hom]] out of $Y$ in that for all [[triples]] of [[objects]] $X,\, Y,\, Z $ there is a [[natural isomorphism|natural]] [hom-isomorphism](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/adjoint+functor#InTermsOfHomIsomorphism) of the following form: $$ Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(X \otimes Y,\, Z) \;\simeq\; Hom_{\mathcal{C}}\big(X, [Y,Z] \big) $$ *** <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/closed+monoidal+category/47">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/closed+monoidal+category/47">v47</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category">current</a>
What you suggest does not quite type-check, and I think the statement in the entry was correct. But I have now edited the pragraph a little to harmonize the variable names, which may make it easier to spot what the left- and the right adjoints are doing:

…such that for each object $Y \,\in\, \mathcal{C}$
1. the functor
  $(-) \otimes Y \;\colon\; C \longrightarrow C$
  of forming the tensor product with $Y$ ,
2. has a right adjoint functor
  $[Y,-] \;\colon\; C \longrightarrow C$
  forming the internal-hom out of $Y$
in that for all triples of objects $X,\, Y,\, Z$ there is a natural hom-isomorphism of the following form:
Hom 𝒞(X⊗Y,Z)≃Hom 𝒞(X,[Y,Z]) Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(X \otimes Y,\, Z) \;\simeq\; Hom_{\mathcal{C}}\big(X, [Y,Z] \big)

diff, v47, current
- CommentRowNumber23.
- CommentAuthorSeth Chaiken
- CommentTimeMar 30th 2023
- PermaLink
Author: Seth Chaiken
Format: MarkdownItexThanks for the improvement! I'm glad to help. I fixed a easy typo in your edit \maspto to \mapsto.

Thanks for the improvement! I’m glad to help. I fixed a easy typo in your edit \maspto to \mapsto.
- CommentRowNumber24.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeMar 30th 2023
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexOkay, good. Thanks for fixing the typo. (Incidentally, that entry *[[closed monoidal category]]* deserves the attention of an energetic editor: So far it does not do much beyond re-stating the definition of internal homs, three times in a row :-/)

Okay, good. Thanks for fixing the typo.

(Incidentally, that entry closed monoidal category deserves the attention of an energetic editor: So far it does not do much beyond re-stating the definition of internal homs, three times in a row :-/)
- CommentRowNumber25.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeMay 9th 2023
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItextouched wording and formatting of the first few examples ([here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category#Examples)) and added mentioning of the previously missing examples of presheaves, vector spaces, and chain complexes <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/closed+monoidal+category/49">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/closed+monoidal+category/49">v49</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category">current</a>

touched wording and formatting of the first few examples (here)

and added mentioning of the previously missing examples of presheaves, vector spaces, and chain complexes

diff, v49, current
- CommentRowNumber26.
- CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
- CommentTimeJul 10th 2023
- PermaLink
Author: nLab edit announcer
Format: MarkdownItexFix reference to unbound variable. Tuplanolla <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/closed+monoidal+category/50">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/closed+monoidal+category/50">v50</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category">current</a>

Fix reference to unbound variable.

Tuplanolla

diff, v50, current
- CommentRowNumber27.
- CommentAuthorBryceClarke
- CommentTimeOct 26th 2023
- PermaLink
Author: BryceClarke
Format: MarkdownItexAdded the example that Cat has precisely two closed monoidal structures, as shown in: * François Foltz, Christian Lair, and [[G. M. Kelly]], _Algebraic categories with few monoidal biclosed structures or none_, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra **17** 2 (1980), 171-177. ([pdf](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82322397.pdf), <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4049(80)90082-1">doi:10.1016/0022-4049(80)90082-1</a>) <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/closed+monoidal+category/54">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/closed+monoidal+category/54">v54</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category">current</a>
Added the example that Cat has precisely two closed monoidal structures, as shown in:
- François Foltz, Christian Lair, and G. M. Kelly, Algebraic categories with few monoidal biclosed structures or none, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 17 2 (1980), 171-177. (pdf, doi:10.1016/0022-4049(80)90082-1)
diff, v54, current
- CommentRowNumber28.
- CommentAuthorUrs
- CommentTimeNov 15th 2023
- PermaLink
Author: Urs
Format: MarkdownItexdeleting the pointer to * [[François Foltz]], [[Christian Lair]], [[G. M. Kelly]], *Algebraic categories with few monoidal biclosed structures or none*, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra **17** 2 (1980) 171-177 [[pdf](https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82322397.pdf), <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4049(80)90082-1">doi:10.1016/0022-4049(80)90082-1</a>] here and moving it to *[[symmetric closed monoidal category]]* <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/closed+monoidal+category/55">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/closed+monoidal+category/55">v55</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category">current</a>
deleting the pointer to
- François Foltz, Christian Lair, G. M. Kelly, Algebraic categories with few monoidal biclosed structures or none, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 17 2 (1980) 171-177 [pdf, doi:10.1016/0022-4049(80)90082-1]
here and moving it to symmetric closed monoidal category

diff, v55, current
- CommentRowNumber29.
- CommentAuthorncfavier
- CommentTimeMay 17th 2024
- PermaLink
Author: ncfavier
Format: MarkdownItexMentioned the result from MacLane that allows to conclude that the natural isomorphism is natural in three variables from just an adjunction for each object. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/closed+monoidal+category/56">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/closed+monoidal+category/56">v56</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category">current</a>

Mentioned the result from MacLane that allows to conclude that the natural isomorphism is natural in three variables from just an adjunction for each object.

diff, v56, current
- CommentRowNumber30.
- CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
- CommentTimeAug 29th 2024
- PermaLink
Author: nLab edit announcer
Format: MarkdownItexThe page was correct as written (since symmetry is assumed in the section), but I prefer to write the adjoint pair in a way that makes sense even in the case of non-symmetric \otimes. Chase Ford <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/closed+monoidal+category/57">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/closed+monoidal+category/57">v57</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/closed+monoidal+category">current</a>

The page was correct as written (since symmetry is assumed in the section), but I prefer to write the adjoint pair in a way that makes sense even in the case of non-symmetric \otimes.

Chase Ford

diff, v57, current

1 to 30 of 30

nForum

Discussion Feed

Not signed in

Site Tag Cloud

nLab > Latest Changes: closed monoidal category