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 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 k-theory lie-theory limit 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 subobject 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.
    • CommentAuthorFosco
    • CommentTimeOct 29th 2013

    I have a couple of lines to write about the question I made on MO some times ago. What would you advice me to do?

    1. Create a stub-page here in nlab, pointing to join of categories
    2. Expand the same page adding the “profunctorial” POV
    3. Open another question on MO, linking the original topic and explaining what I would like to prove.
    4. Other?

    Here is what I want to prove: the join of categories can be neatly described to be the cograph of the terminal profunctor, and as such it enjoys a number of properties: it is a bifunctor Cat×CatCatCat\times Cat\to Cat (in fact, to Cat/ICat/I where II is the walking arrow”), and as such it can be characterized as the right adjoint to the functor i *i^* induced by the inclusione II\partial I\subset I (many of you will recognize Joyal’s touch in this definition!). Moreover, any AA\star- has a right adjoint, and the same is true for B-\star B, for categories A,BCatA,B\in Cat.

    Now I would like to prove the same results in the more general setting of the “collage” of categories along a generic profunctor. But I’m rather unsatisfied since in that setting it seems I must specify not only the functor F:CCF\colon C\to C' to induce C WDC WDC\star_W D\to C'\star_{W'}D (notice that WWW\neq W'!), but also a morphism of profunctors WWF W\Rightarrow W'\circ F^\uparrow, where F F^\uparrow is the profunctorC(F,=)C'(F-,=). Not to mention the fact that a priori there’s would be no counterpart for ii.

    Maybe the right thing to do would be adding a paragraph to the existing page join of categories, and then open another thread on MO pointing to that page?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorFosco
    • CommentTimeOct 29th 2013
    • (edited Oct 29th 2013)

    I got it! I pray for the attention of mr. Shulman, as I found out that what I need to formalize the situation is the proarrow equipment (Cat,Dist)(\Cat, \Dist).

    I explained in full detail what I have in mind here.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 29th 2013

    Yes, equipments and double categories are a good way to think about the universal property of the collage of a profunctor. Some references you may be interested in:

    • Ross Street, “Cauchy characterization of enriched categories” TAC reprint
    • Grandis-Pare, “Limits in double categories”
    • Garner-Shulman, “Enriched categories as a free cocompletion”, 2013
    • Recent papers of Susan Niefield

    Sorry I don’t have time to write more.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorFosco
    • CommentTimeOct 30th 2013

    I tried to skim over Wood’s “Abstract proarrows”, but it seems quite hard-to-read; no problem if you are busy, just tell me if according to you my questions are well-suited for some other people. :)

    Many thanks!

    Fosco

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 30th 2013

    I don’t understand, are you asking me another question?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorFosco
    • CommentTimeOct 30th 2013

    In some sense yes. I managed to state in a precise form my questions about the link between (weighted) limits and weighted joins, i.e. collages along profunctors. But I don’t want to bother you! I simply would appreciate an help, since I feel like a beginner, and I am alone here. I was wondering whether there is somebody among the authors you quoted me (Street, Pare’, Grandis, Garner, Niefeld, others?) that I can contact and discuss with.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 30th 2013

    I think that reading the papers I mentioned would help answer your questions, but yes, some of them are difficult to read. You don’t need to feel bad about bothering me; on the contrary, I feel bad that I don’t have the time right now to help more. Maybe someone else here, or at MO, would be able to help; or you could try asking on the categories email list, perhaps.