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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: Markdowncreated [[category of operators]]

   created category of operators

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeDec 10th 2009
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: Markdownfixed (by removing) the nonsensical clause that Mike pointed out in a query box (i had been thinking of something else)

   fixed (by removing) the nonsensical clause that Mike pointed out in a query box (i had been thinking of something else)

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorJon Beardsley
   • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Jon Beardsley
   Format: MarkdownItexHey guys, regarding this page, you point out that the category of operators construction is left 2-adjoint to the endomorphism operad (underlying multicategory) construction. This seems to be shown in theorem 7.2 of Hermida's paper "Representable Multicategories." However, the category of operators is clearly NOT the free monoidal category on a multicategory (right?) It is the free semi-cartesian monoidal category on the free semi-cartesian multicategory of that multicategory. But shouldn't the "underlying multicategory" functor from monoidal categories to multicategories be adjoint to the free monoidal category functor? Or am I not understanding something? Note, this is not pointing out an error in the page, but pointing out an error in my thinking. Just wondering if anyone can help.

   Hey guys, regarding this page, you point out that the category of operators construction is left 2-adjoint to the endomorphism operad (underlying multicategory) construction. This seems to be shown in theorem 7.2 of Hermida’s paper “Representable Multicategories.” However, the category of operators is clearly NOT the free monoidal category on a multicategory (right?) It is the free semi-cartesian monoidal category on the free semi-cartesian multicategory of that multicategory. But shouldn’t the “underlying multicategory” functor from monoidal categories to multicategories be adjoint to the free monoidal category functor? Or am I not understanding something?

   Note, this is not pointing out an error in the page, but pointing out an error in my thinking. Just wondering if anyone can help.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexBy composing adjunctions, the free semi-cartesian monoidal category on the free semi-cartesian multicategory of a multicategory is left adjoint to the underlying multicategory of the underlying semi-cartesian multicategory of a semi-cartesian monoidal category. The latter is equivalently the underlying multicategory of (the underlying monoidal category of) a semi-cartesian monoidal category. Apparently the underlying multicategory of a monoidal category is sometimes (mis)called the "endomorphism operad", so in that sense the category of operators is left adjoint to it, but only when the "underlying multicategory" functor has as its domain the category of *semi-cartesian* monoidal categories. This ought to be clarified on our pages. I have not checked what Hermida wrote, but I strongly suspect that he was talking not about the category of operators but about the [[prop]] generated by a multicategory, which doesn't incorporate semicartesianness.

   By composing adjunctions, the free semi-cartesian monoidal category on the free semi-cartesian multicategory of a multicategory is left adjoint to the underlying multicategory of the underlying semi-cartesian multicategory of a semi-cartesian monoidal category. The latter is equivalently the underlying multicategory of (the underlying monoidal category of) a semi-cartesian monoidal category. Apparently the underlying multicategory of a monoidal category is sometimes (mis)called the “endomorphism operad”, so in that sense the category of operators is left adjoint to it, but only when the “underlying multicategory” functor has as its domain the category of semi-cartesian monoidal categories. This ought to be clarified on our pages. I have not checked what Hermida wrote, but I strongly suspect that he was talking not about the category of operators but about the prop generated by a multicategory, which doesn’t incorporate semicartesianness.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorJon Beardsley
   • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Jon Beardsley
   Format: MarkdownItexOk, great, this makes a lot of sense. I was also thinking that maybe Hermida was talking about the PROP rather than the category of operators, in which case an edit should be made on [[category of operators]]. Hermida's presentation of monoidal categories (as category objects in monoids) was a little opaque to me, so I wasn't totally sure whether it was the PROP of the COO.

   Ok, great, this makes a lot of sense. I was also thinking that maybe Hermida was talking about the PROP rather than the category of operators, in which case an edit should be made on category of operators. Hermida’s presentation of monoidal categories (as category objects in monoids) was a little opaque to me, so I wasn’t totally sure whether it was the PROP of the COO.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI made an edit.

   I made an edit.