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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2018

    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

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2018

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

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2018

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

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2018

    Thanks; I think I sorted out my confusion, especially with the help of the example of one category being structured over another, as GrpGrp is structured over SetSet. 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 SetSet-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.)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2018

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

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2018

    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 gf=hg\circ f = h is that there exists some A,B,CA,B,C such that f:ABf:A\to B, g:BCg:B\to C, h:ACh:A\to C, and g A,B,Cf=hg\circ_{A,B,C} f = h. But consider an example like this:

    • objects 0,1,2,0,1,20,1,2,0',1',2'
    • hom(0,1)=hom(0,1)={f}\hom(0,1) = \hom(0',1') = \{f\}, hom(1,2)=hom(1,2)={g}\hom(1,2)=\hom(1',2')=\{g\}, hom(0,2)=hom(0,2)={h,h}\hom(0,2)=\hom(0',2')=\{h,h'\}, no other nonidentity morphisms, all identity morphisms distinct
    • g 0,1,2f=hg\circ_{0,1,2} f = h and g 0,1,2f=hg\circ_{0',1',2'} f = h'.

    Then if we take unions of homsets we have gf=hg\circ f = h and also gf=hg\circ f = h', but then the protocategory composition axiom fails: we have f:01f:0\to 1 and g:12g:1\to 2, but there does not exist a unique kk such that k:02k:0\to 2 and gf=kg \circ f = k.

    I’ve added this to the entry.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2018

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

    diff, v3, current