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 comma 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 finite 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 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 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
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2018

    Added indexed cosmoi

    diff, v13, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2018
    • (edited Jun 5th 2018)

    Fixed the anchor for the reference. It needs to be

      * {#Shulman13} [[Mike Shulman]], *Enriched indexed categories*, [TAC](http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/28/21/28-21abs.html) 2013
    

    instead of

      * [[Mike Shulman]], *Enriched indexed categories*, [TAC](http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/28/21/28-21abs.html) 2013 
      {#Shulman13} 
    

    (anchor at the beginning) otherwise the system gets confused.

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2018
    • (edited Jun 5th 2018)

    added pointer to an online version of the relevant first page of Street 74, which seems to be the (only?) source for the statement that Jean Bénabou made “cosmos” a definition

    (all other sources that Google can find cite the nLab for this, if they care to cite anything)

    also added the quote:

    to J. Benabou the word means “bicomplete symmetric monoidal category”, such categories 𝒱\mathcal{V} being rich enough so that the theory of categories enriched in 𝒱\mathcal{V} develops to a large extent just as the theory of ordinary categories.

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 5th 2018

    Re #2, having it at the end works fine for me.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 11th 2021

    The way this entry is written (or was, I have adjusted wording slightly for more clarity) it’s no good as a quick reference for the simple concrete notion of bicompleted symmetric closed categories. I am giving Bénabou cosmos its stand-alone entry now and am redirecting the redirects to there.

    diff, v16, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023

    touched the wording of the Idea-section,

    in particular added hyperlink to base of enrichment

    also touched the section layout

    diff, v22, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023

    Does (Benabou) cosmos encompass the case where VV can be a bicategory?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023

    According to Bénabou’s notion (according to Street), a cosmos is a kind of monoidal category. However, it doesn’t seem particularly helpful to me to list various different concepts known by “cosmos” on this page, as is the current status. Instead, it would appear to be more helpful to me to list the kinds of constructions one might want to consider in enriched category theory, and explain the necessary assumptions to perform these constructions. Then one can easily see what assumptions on VV are useful to capture the concepts one wishes to capture (whether that VV be monoidal, bicategorical or something else).

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023

    Fine with me, but notice that you were objecting to using “cosmos” in this general sense in recent discussion here. As a result of that comment of yours, Todd created a new entry base of enrichment for the purpose of having the entry “cosmos” be more restrictive in meaning.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023

    I do think it’s fine to let this page disambiguate between Benabou cosmos and cosmos in that sense of Street.

    As long as we’re clear on how the term ’cosmos’ occurs in the literature (I’m only aware of the two, and Benabou cosmos to me has only the meaning of bicomplete symmetric monoidal closed category), I don’t mind if there is a section with some general discussion on what assumptions occur where.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2023

    Fine with me, but notice that you were objecting to using “cosmos” in this general sense in recent discussion here.

    I realise what I wrote was a little confusing.

    At the moment, the page treats two distinct, but related, concepts. One is “a cosmos is a good base of enrichment”; the other is “a cosmos is a good place to do category theory”. A cosmos in the first sense induces the equipment V-CatV\text{-}Cat, which is a cosmos in the second sense. However, I think it’s helpful to identify the two meanings as distinct. In my previous post, I had in mind the former meaning. It’s true that perhaps the information I mentioned in my previous post about useful structure on VV could go on base of enrichment instead, but it could also be helpful to view “cosmos” as a concept with an attitude, and give a list of special cases of bases of enrichment that are particularly useful/comment in category theory (the most common being complete and cocomplete symmetric closed monoidal). Alternatively, perhaps making cosmos more clearly a disambiguation page is better (i.e. making it clearer that there are at least two different meanings of “cosmos”), and defer the details of the Bénabou cosmos case to base of enrichment.