Not signed in (Sign In)

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 book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma 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 finite 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 k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeNov 30th 2009
    • (edited Nov 30th 2009)
    I created biactegory following my 2006 work and being prompted by overlapping work of a student of Nikshych which appeared on the arXiv today.
  1. Typo

    Ammar Husain

    diff, v4, current

  2. Another typo

    Ammar Husain

    diff, v4, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2022

    I don’t want to touch this entry “biactegory”, but in case anyone cares I’d suggest to:

    • fix and streamline the language in the first two paragraphs.

    • add some minimum of formatting.

    • add the missing hyperlink to bimodule category.

    Is there more than one reference using the term “biactegory”? If not, it might be better to absorb this one pointer into “bimodule category”.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2022
    • (edited Dec 12th 2022)

    Capucci and Gavranović have some new material in their review https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16351 under the name biactegories as well (see abstract).

    Urs, the subject is the same so I can do the merger under the name bimodule category if you like. However the entry biactegory is from 2010 and bimodule category started in 2014 so I would rather move the newer material into older entry and then rename if you agree ? I think that it is better to hold the page line with longer nnLab history. nnLab is a pioneering platform and the entry history lines should reflect that whenever possible. 2008 when the nnLab started is for the subject higher categories like early history and now is the minstream. For now I will just add Capucci’s reference and then merge this way if you agree.

    The definition of the notion is mentioned (I do not know under which name) also by Yetter, much earlier than my 2006 preprint “Biactegories” and Justin’s thesis work. The fact that they form a tricategory is in Justin’s work and stated as a theorem without proof in my Georg. Math. J. 2009 contribution, but not in 2006 Biactegories preprint (where some steps toward are spelled out). It was too cumbersome (huge amount of checking categorical identities) and Justin’s approach is different but it seems shorter to me to achieve the goal.

    I wrote a recommendation for Justin (based on our correspondence etc. after we learned of each other’s work) when he was applying to some postdoc and later heard that he left math after that, and your link at your new page contribution Justin Greenough makes me happy to see that he is still doing academic work/teaching.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2022
    • (edited Dec 12th 2022)

    Entry bimodule at present does everything in terms of rings that is bilinear version, rather than two-sided action of monoids. In that sense, biactegory is not a categorification (as no linear/additive monoidal categories and additive functors are assumed, in the game). Do we want to have the term bimodule categories linear/additive or not (as Etingof et al use the term) ? If not the entries could be merged otherwise it would be wrong. There is also a term 2-birepresentation category.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2022

    Do we want to have the term bimodule categories linear/additive or not (as Etingof et al use the term) ?

    It seems sensible to me not to differentiate the two, and simply mention that the definition makes sense in an enriched context.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2022
    • (edited Dec 12th 2022)

    I agree. We should emphasize that we do not mean ring/algebra theoretic/linear version of module. I think it is not only enrichment, the additional conditions like exactness are taken by linear people. When I joined in 2004 the actegory terminology it was because there were three big groups of people at the time. One were who were using CC-category meaning CC-action category rather than more standard CC-enriched category what was a turn off. Second was talking actegory (Munich and Australia). The third was talking module but in all their talks and examples they were linear etc. So, only the second group had no problems with conotations.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeDec 12th 2022

    I think it is not only enrichment, the additional conditions like exactness are taken by linear people.

    Ah, I see. Plausibly it is a “pseudobimodule” in a 2-category of additive categories instead.