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.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeOct 22nd 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexCopying old query box here from [[pseudofunctor]] (having incorporated its content into the entry): [[Tim]]: in specifying a pseudo functor $F$ you have to decide whether the isomorphism goes from $F(g f)$ to $F(g) F(f)$ or in the other direction. Of course they are equivalent as each will be inverse to the other. You might say that one is lax and pseudo the other op-lax and pseudo. When specifying the Grothendieck construction for such a functor, which is to be preferred? Both are about equally represented in the literature that I have seen which gets confusing. (In other words, I'm confused!) _Toby_: As you suggest, the two versions are equivalent, so in a way it doesn\'t make a difference. But it might be nice to settle a convention in case we need it. [[Tim]]: I have been using (for the Menagerie) the idea that there are pseudofunctors presented in two equivalent flavours lax pseudofunctor and oplax ones. [[Mike Shulman|Mike]]: Well, the natural comparison maps that you get in a [[Grothendieck fibration]] go in the "lax" direction $F(g) F(f) \to F(g f)$, since they are induced by the universal property of cartesian arrows. In particular, if you have a functor with "weakly cartesian" liftings that don't compose, then it is a lax functor. Not a very strong argument, but if we just want _some_ convention it might be a reason to pick lax. I think that making too big a deal out of the difference would be misleading, though.

   Copying old query box here from pseudofunctor (having incorporated its content into the entry):

   Tim: in specifying a pseudo functor $F$ you have to decide whether the isomorphism goes from $F(g f)$ to $F(g) F(f)$ or in the other direction. Of course they are equivalent as each will be inverse to the other. You might say that one is lax and pseudo the other op-lax and pseudo. When specifying the Grothendieck construction for such a functor, which is to be preferred?

   Both are about equally represented in the literature that I have seen which gets confusing. (In other words, I’m confused!)

   Toby: As you suggest, the two versions are equivalent, so in a way it doesn't make a difference. But it might be nice to settle a convention in case we need it.

   Tim: I have been using (for the Menagerie) the idea that there are pseudofunctors presented in two equivalent flavours lax pseudofunctor and oplax ones.

   Mike: Well, the natural comparison maps that you get in a Grothendieck fibration go in the “lax” direction $F(g) F(f) \to F(g f)$, since they are induced by the universal property of cartesian arrows. In particular, if you have a functor with “weakly cartesian” liftings that don’t compose, then it is a lax functor. Not a very strong argument, but if we just want some convention it might be a reason to pick lax. I think that making too big a deal out of the difference would be misleading, though.