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.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 14th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThere seem to be a lot of questions on the Internet recently about disjointness of homsets of categories, so I thought this definition would be worth recording. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/protocategory/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/protocategory">current</a>

   There seem to be a lot of questions on the Internet recently about disjointness of homsets of categories, so I thought this definition would be worth recording.

   v1, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeApr 14th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexSorry for asking a stupid question, but is a protocategory essentially the same thing as a category enriched in $Set$ (which doesn't require disjointness of hom-sets)? If not, can you give a simple example to illustrate the distinction?

   Sorry for asking a stupid question, but is a protocategory essentially the same thing as a category enriched in $Set$ (which doesn’t require disjointness of hom-sets)? If not, can you give a simple example to illustrate the distinction?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 14th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI think that's about right as long as by $Set$ you mean the category of sets in a material set theory. But the definition of protocategory makes sense even in a structural set theory.

   I think that’s about right as long as by $Set$ you mean the category of sets in a material set theory. But the definition of protocategory makes sense even in a structural set theory.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeApr 14th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks; I think I sorted out my confusion, especially with the help of the example of one category being structured over another, as $Grp$ is structured over $Set$. In that type of example, some protomorphisms do not name *any* morphism of the generated category. Whereas in the examples I had in mind of $Set$-enriched categories, we get a protocategory whose protomorphisms are elements of the union of the hom-sets -- but in that type of example every protomorphism names some morphism. (Besides the fact that the operation "taking the union" works a little differently when working over a structural set theory from how it does in a material set theory, as you say -- about all we have available in a structural set theory is taking a disjoint union.)

   Thanks; I think I sorted out my confusion, especially with the help of the example of one category being structured over another, as $Grp$ is structured over $Set$. In that type of example, some protomorphisms do not name any morphism of the generated category. Whereas in the examples I had in mind of $Set$-enriched categories, we get a protocategory whose protomorphisms are elements of the union of the hom-sets – but in that type of example every protomorphism names some morphism. (Besides the fact that the operation “taking the union” works a little differently when working over a structural set theory from how it does in a material set theory, as you say – about all we have available in a structural set theory is taking a disjoint union.)

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorHurkyl
   • CommentTimeApr 15th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Hurkyl
   Format: MarkdownItexTypo fix (g=gf written when h=gf meant) <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/protocategory/2">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/protocategory/2">v2</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/protocategory">current</a>

   Typo fix (g=gf written when h=gf meant)

   diff, v2, current

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 16th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexActually, thinking about it some more, I think it's not necessarily always true that we can make a protocategory by taking unions of hom-sets, because the composition predicate of a protocategory isn't parametrized by objects. So if we take unions of homsets, then the only way available to define $g\circ f = h$ is that there *exists* some $A,B,C$ such that $f:A\to B$, $g:B\to C$, $h:A\to C$, and $g\circ_{A,B,C} f = h$. But consider an example like this: * objects $0,1,2,0',1',2'$ * $\hom(0,1) = \hom(0',1') = \{f\}$, $\hom(1,2)=\hom(1',2')=\{g\}$, $\hom(0,2)=\hom(0',2')=\{h,h'\}$, no other nonidentity morphisms, all identity morphisms distinct * $g\circ_{0,1,2} f = h$ and $g\circ_{0',1',2'} f = h'$. Then if we take unions of homsets we have $g\circ f = h$ and also $g\circ f = h'$, but then the protocategory composition axiom fails: we have $f:0\to 1$ and $g:1\to 2$, but there does not exist a *unique* $k$ such that $k:0\to 2$ and $g \circ f = k$. I've added this to the entry.

   Actually, thinking about it some more, I think it’s not necessarily always true that we can make a protocategory by taking unions of hom-sets, because the composition predicate of a protocategory isn’t parametrized by objects. So if we take unions of homsets, then the only way available to define $g\circ f = h$ is that there exists some $A,B,C$ such that $f:A\to B$, $g:B\to C$, $h:A\to C$, and $g\circ_{A,B,C} f = h$. But consider an example like this:

   • objects $0,1,2,0',1',2'$
   • $\hom(0,1) = \hom(0',1') = \{f\}$, $\hom(1,2)=\hom(1',2')=\{g\}$, $\hom(0,2)=\hom(0',2')=\{h,h'\}$, no other nonidentity morphisms, all identity morphisms distinct
   • $g\circ_{0,1,2} f = h$ and $g\circ_{0',1',2'} f = h'$.

   Then if we take unions of homsets we have $g\circ f = h$ and also $g\circ f = h'$, but then the protocategory composition axiom fails: we have $f:0\to 1$ and $g:1\to 2$, but there does not exist a unique $k$ such that $k:0\to 2$ and $g \circ f = k$.

   I’ve added this to the entry.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 16th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded a further remark hoping to guide the reader to a proper perspective on protocategories. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/protocategory/3">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/protocategory/3">v3</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/protocategory">current</a>

   Added a further remark hoping to guide the reader to a proper perspective on protocategories.

   diff, v3, current