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.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeNov 27th 2013
   • (edited Nov 27th 2013)
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexI had some thoughts last month or two about the small nonassociative categories, that is the category over an associative operad (in Set). I know that some people around looked at formal category theory in various framework (especially Mike). Are there any frameworks for nontrivial nonassociative category theory in the sense that a composition of natural transformation is defined and that some weak form of Yoneda lemma is true. I know of some special cases by imitation of some ideas of quasigroup theory; I can defined certain related associative categories (left, right, middle kernel), then certain story about translations in the quasigroup with multiple objects case and dreaming of certain crossed products to combine the two, as well as using some things about [[isotopy (algebra)]] in this context. But maybe something can be said from the point of view of formal category theory ? There are nontrivial motivations to the story, e.g. from nonassociative Lie theory which is quite a large subject, starting with the classical work of Mal'cev on analytic loops through the recent work of Sabinin et al. on [[Sabinin algebra]]s...

   I had some thoughts last month or two about the small nonassociative categories, that is the category over an associative operad (in Set). I know that some people around looked at formal category theory in various framework (especially Mike). Are there any frameworks for nontrivial nonassociative category theory in the sense that a composition of natural transformation is defined and that some weak form of Yoneda lemma is true. I know of some special cases by imitation of some ideas of quasigroup theory; I can defined certain related associative categories (left, right, middle kernel), then certain story about translations in the quasigroup with multiple objects case and dreaming of certain crossed products to combine the two, as well as using some things about isotopy (algebra) in this context. But maybe something can be said from the point of view of formal category theory ? There are nontrivial motivations to the story, e.g. from nonassociative Lie theory which is quite a large subject, starting with the classical work of Mal’cev on analytic loops through the recent work of Sabinin et al. on Sabinin algebras…

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
   • CommentTimeNov 29th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: jim_stasheff
   Format: TextGiven the resurgance of interest in non-associative things in e.g. double field theory, it would help to havw some links to the kind of nonassociaitvity you have in mind e.g. non-assoc Lie means?

   Given the resurgance of interest in non-associative things in e.g. double field theory, it would help to havw some links to the kind of nonassociaitvity you have in mind e.g. non-assoc Lie means?
3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeNov 29th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexUsual category is a monoid with several objects, nonassociative category is a unital magma with several objects. In motivating examples, one usually deals with [[quasigroup]]s and loops in the sense of algebra. Mal'cev had Lie theory for a class of analytic loops and there are many modern extensions of that theory.

   Usual category is a monoid with several objects, nonassociative category is a unital magma with several objects. In motivating examples, one usually deals with quasigroups and loops in the sense of algebra. Mal’cev had Lie theory for a class of analytic loops and there are many modern extensions of that theory.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
   • CommentTimeNov 30th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: jim_stasheff
   Format: TextThanks - invoking a unital magma says no relations assumed except the unit But the rest of the comment indicates lots of potential special types

   Thanks - invoking a unital magma says no relations assumed except the unit
   But the rest of the comment indicates lots of potential special types