Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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 string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2017

    I thought it was ridiculous that Span redirected to (infinity,n)-category of correspondences, so I made a stubby page for it instead.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2017

    Thanks. Added pointer to this page from the Examples-section at 2-category.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2017

    Good. I think there is a lot more cross-linking that could be done here, and a lot more that could be added, but I don’t have time right now.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2018
    • (edited Jun 28th 2018)

    Just saw this interesting paper on the arxiv that gives a universal property for the bicategory of polynomials: https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.10477v1 . The intro goes over a universal property from Hermida (“Representable Multicategories”) that really struck me as being about proarrow equipments so I thought I’d ask here.

    It says that a pseudofunctor out of Span(E) (as a bicategory) is the same thing as a “Beck pseudofunctor” out of E, which is a pseudofunctor out of E where every morphism has a right adjoint and satisfies a Beck-Chevalley condition. But it seems to me like we could slightly strengthen this result and make it more natural by noting that Span(E) is naturally an equipment (assume E has pullbacks) and in any map of equipments F:CDF : C \to D a vertical morphism of CC gets sent to a vertical morphism in DD and thus an adjoint pair of horizontal morphisms in DD. Then the very natural (if you like equipments) theorem would be that any pseudofunctor DblSpan(E)CDblSpan(E) \to C of equipments is equivalent to a functor EVert(C)E \to Vert(C) where Vert(C)Vert(C) is the vertical category of CC where DblSpanDblSpan is the double category of spans rather than the bicategory.

    Then we recover the original theorem by noting that the double category of adjunctions is a right adjoint, i.e., the maximal way to give a bicategory vertical arrows: a functor CAdj(D)C \to Adj(D) of equipments is the same as a pseudofunctor of bicategories Hor(C)DHor(C) \to D, where HorHor is the horizontal bicategory of CC. So to sum it up it looks like we can decompose the functor Span:CatPbkBicatSpan : CatPbk \to Bicat into two left adjoints:

    (DblSpanVert):CatPbkEquip(DblSpan \dashv Vert) : CatPbk \to Equip (HorAdj):EquipBicat(Hor \dashv Adj) : Equip \to Bicat

    so a pseudofunctor Span(E)DSpan(E) \to D is the same as Hor(DblSpan(E))DHor(DblSpan(E)) \to D is the same as a functor EVert(Adj(D))E \to Vert(Adj(D)) which is the same as a Beck pseudofunctor.

    So that seems very nice to me: Span is the minimal way to give a category horizontal arrows and Adj is the maximal way to give a bicategory vertical arrows. If that’s all true is there some way to make formulate Walker’s result about polynomials in terms of triple categories? Out of my depth there because I don’t actually know anything about triple categories but the formulation he uses involves a triple adjunction so maybe!

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2018

    You seem to have dropped the crucial Beck-Chevalley condition?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2018
    • (edited Jun 28th 2018)

    You’re right, but it looks like dropping the Beck-Chevalley condition is exactly what leads to a certain generalization of the theorem that uses normal oplax functors rather than pseudofunctors [1], which sounds even more like equipment stuff to me. I’ll come back to this later because I am currently using it to procrastinate before a deadline :)

    [1] Dawson, Pare and Pronk, Universal Properties of Spans

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2018

    Note that a sequel to that DDP paper, The span construction, uses double categories explicitly.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeJun 28th 2018

    Ah perfect, that’s exactly what I was looking for: they go all the way and define Span to be an “oplax normal double category with all companions and conjoints” which might be also named a co-virtual equipment.

    So you get that Span gives you a co-virtual equipment and that it is the free co-virtual equipment wrt the forgetful functor that takes the vertical category and it is representable iff the original category has pullbacks.

    Would be very cool if polynomials turn out to be some kind of free virtualized triple category that’s representable when the category is locally cartesian closed.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)