Not signed in

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

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 7th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexSomebody asks by email: > double categories are cartesian closed and it seems pretty reasonable that n-fold categories are cartesian closed - would you know of a reference for this? It would be good if there was some result that said categories internal to a suitable category E were cartesian closed. Does anyone easily have a pointer?

   Somebody asks by email:

   double categories are cartesian closed and it seems pretty reasonable that n-fold categories are cartesian closed - would you know of a reference for this? It would be good if there was some result that said categories internal to a suitable category E were cartesian closed.

   Does anyone easily have a pointer?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeNov 7th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItex> Does anyone easily have a pointer? I don't, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to write out a proof for this type of thing. Without having written anything down, I'd guess that if $E$ is finitely complete and cartesian closed, then $Cat(E)$ is also finitely complete and cartesian closed. Then $n$-fold categories would be cartesian closed by induction.

   Does anyone easily have a pointer?

   I don’t, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to write out a proof for this type of thing. Without having written anything down, I’d guess that if $E$ is finitely complete and cartesian closed, then $Cat(E)$ is also finitely complete and cartesian closed. Then $n$-fold categories would be cartesian closed by induction.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeNov 7th 2012
   • (edited Nov 7th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexWell, I may as well have a go at writing down a sketch of a proof of the assertion from my previous comment, that if $E$ is finitely complete and cartesian closed, then $Cat(E)$ is also finitely complete and cartesian closed. First, let $E$ be finitely complete. Then the category of directed graphs $E^{\bullet \stackrel{\to}{\to} \bullet}$ is also finitely complete, and since $Cat(E)$ is monadic over $E^{\bullet \stackrel{\to}{\to} \bullet}$, it follows that $Cat(E)$ is also finitely complete. Now let $E$ be finitely complete and cartesian closed. Then $E^C$ is cartesian closed for any finite category $C$ (by adapting [Mike's proof](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/cartesian+closed+category#exponentials_of_cartesian_closed_categories_30), using only finite ends). This applies in particular to the case where $C$ is a suitable truncation of the simplex category, say where $C$ is opposite to the category of nonempty ordinals up to cardinality 3. Now $Cat(E)$ is a full subcategory of $E^C$, and it should be simple to see directly that it is an exponential ideal of $E^C$; in particular, it's cartesian closed. (When I say "easy to see directly", I mean that we don't need to consider colimits in $Cat(E)$ or its being a reflective subcategory of $E^C$ -- just use the formula for exponentials in $E^C$ to suggest the correct construction of exponentials in $Cat(E)$.) Does this seem reasonable?

   Well, I may as well have a go at writing down a sketch of a proof of the assertion from my previous comment, that if $E$ is finitely complete and cartesian closed, then $Cat(E)$ is also finitely complete and cartesian closed.

   First, let $E$ be finitely complete. Then the category of directed graphs $E^{\bullet \stackrel{\to}{\to} \bullet}$ is also finitely complete, and since $Cat(E)$ is monadic over $E^{\bullet \stackrel{\to}{\to} \bullet}$, it follows that $Cat(E)$ is also finitely complete.

   Now let $E$ be finitely complete and cartesian closed. Then $E^C$ is cartesian closed for any finite category $C$ (by adapting Mike’s proof, using only finite ends). This applies in particular to the case where $C$ is a suitable truncation of the simplex category, say where $C$ is opposite to the category of nonempty ordinals up to cardinality 3. Now $Cat(E)$ is a full subcategory of $E^C$, and it should be simple to see directly that it is an exponential ideal of $E^C$; in particular, it’s cartesian closed. (When I say “easy to see directly”, I mean that we don’t need to consider colimits in $Cat(E)$ or its being a reflective subcategory of $E^C$ – just use the formula for exponentials in $E^C$ to suggest the correct construction of exponentials in $Cat(E)$.)

   Does this seem reasonable?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 7th 2012
   • (edited Nov 7th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks, Todd! I have alerted my correspondent of your messages, thanks. Maybe some of this could be copied to the entry _[n-fold category](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/n-fold+category#CartesianClosure)_.

   Thanks, Todd! I have alerted my correspondent of your messages, thanks.

   Maybe some of this could be copied to the entry n-fold category.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeNov 7th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThe closest thing I can think of to a reference for this is the remark following B2.3.15 in the Elephant. But surely someone, somewhere, must have written it down before...

   The closest thing I can think of to a reference for this is the remark following B2.3.15 in the Elephant. But surely someone, somewhere, must have written it down before…

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeNov 8th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexEhresmann's original proof, which I alluded to on the page [[internal category]], is really quite awful. It's working with generalised sketches, and for some reason either this precludes using the simple machinery from Todd's #3, or Ehresmann just wasn't in that frame of mind.

   Ehresmann’s original proof, which I alluded to on the page internal category, is really quite awful. It’s working with generalised sketches, and for some reason either this precludes using the simple machinery from Todd’s #3, or Ehresmann just wasn’t in that frame of mind.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeNov 8th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexCan you add a pointer, or a page number, or something, to identify the alluded-to proof in Ehresmann's work`?

   Can you add a pointer, or a page number, or something, to identify the alluded-to proof in Ehresmann’s work‘?

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeNov 8th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexCan do.

   Can do.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeNov 12th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexI got around to writing out a proof at [[internal category]]. Please feel free to check for accuracy. I see that someone already had written there > If the ambient category $\mathcal{C}$ is a [[cartesian closed category]], then the category $Cat(\mathcal{C})$ of categories internal to $\mathcal{C}$ is also cartesian closed. I have added in a finite completeness assumption (which is a bit of a no-brainer; at a minimum, existence of pullbacks should be assumed).

   I got around to writing out a proof at internal category. Please feel free to check for accuracy.

   I see that someone already had written there

   If the ambient category $\mathcal{C}$ is a cartesian closed category, then the category $Cat(\mathcal{C})$ of categories internal to $\mathcal{C}$ is also cartesian closed.

   I have added in a finite completeness assumption (which is a bit of a no-brainer; at a minimum, existence of pullbacks should be assumed).

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeNov 12th 2012
    • PermaLink
    Author: DavidRoberts
    Format: MarkdownItexOk, edited to include the references alluded to in #6.

    Ok, edited to include the references alluded to in #6.