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.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJul 10th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexHow should one complete the analogy >hyperdoctrine : topos :: *** : $(\infty, 1)$-topos ? From [[hyperdoctrine]] >The notion of a hyperdoctrine is essentially an axiomatization of the collection of slices of a locally cartesian closed category (or something similar) So what is >essentially an axiomatization of the collection of slices of a locally cartesian closed $(\infty, 1)$-category (or something similar)? Presumably syntactically we need a base category of contexts, then fibred above the possible expressions in the variables of the context types.

   How should one complete the analogy

   hyperdoctrine : topos :: *** : $(\infty, 1)$-topos ?

   From hyperdoctrine

   The notion of a hyperdoctrine is essentially an axiomatization of the collection of slices of a locally cartesian closed category (or something similar)

   So what is

   essentially an axiomatization of the collection of slices of a locally cartesian closed $(\infty, 1)$-category (or something similar)?

   Presumably syntactically we need a base category of contexts, then fibred above the possible expressions in the variables of the context types.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 10th 2013
   • (edited Jul 10th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThere are clearly more canonically expert people here than me, but let me say something anyway: I'd think this is pretty obvious: a hyperdoctrine -- contrary to what the name might suggest -- is a rather simplistic concept: a functor to a 2-category such that each morphism in the image has left and right adjoint. Add extra conditions as need be, but this is the basic idea. And this has the evident homotopy-theoretic refinement: an $(\infty,2)$-functor to an $(\infty,2)$-category landing in morphisms that have left and right $\infty$-adjoint. And as in the 1-categorical case, the self-indexing of any locally cartesian closed $(\infty,1)$-category is an example.

   There are clearly more canonically expert people here than me, but let me say something anyway:

   I’d think this is pretty obvious: a hyperdoctrine – contrary to what the name might suggest – is a rather simplistic concept: a functor to a 2-category such that each morphism in the image has left and right adjoint. Add extra conditions as need be, but this is the basic idea.

   And this has the evident homotopy-theoretic refinement: an $(\infty,2)$-functor to an $(\infty,2)$-category landing in morphisms that have left and right $\infty$-adjoint.

   And as in the 1-categorical case, the self-indexing of any locally cartesian closed $(\infty,1)$-category is an example.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 10th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat Urs said.

   What Urs said.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJul 10th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks. Great. I was wondering about this in a talk by [Yoshihiro Maruyama](http://researchmap.jp/ymaruyama/?lang=english) on [Monad-Relativized Hyperdoctrines](http://researchmap.jp/mug46aqn5-28320/). So maybe there could be a parallel route to the one to [[modal hyperdoctrines]] to one to modal homotopy type theory. But I must dash.

   Thanks. Great. I was wondering about this in a talk by Yoshihiro Maruyama on Monad-Relativized Hyperdoctrines. So maybe there could be a parallel route to the one to modal hyperdoctrines to one to modal homotopy type theory.

   But I must dash.