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.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJul 1st 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexMade a start at this page. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/inverse+EI+%28%E2%88%9E%2C1%29-category/1">v1</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/inverse+EI+%28%E2%88%9E%2C1%29-category">current</a>

   Made a start at this page.

   v1, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJul 1st 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexConcerning direct/inverse categories we let [[direct category]] take the lead, with a small note about the opposite concept. Is there a reason for preferring to phrase things here in terms of the inverse side? The example I've included is the opposite of an orbit category. Clark Barwise [wrote](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/7301/parametrized-higher-category-theory-and-higher-algebra/?Focus=65113#Comment_65113) >The bases in which we're most interested — and have the most to say — are atomic orbital ∞-categories that admit a conservative functor to a poset (so that they are 'EI ∞-categories'). Examples include: the orbit category of a group, the category of finite sets and surjective maps, any ∞-groupoid, the cyclonic orbit category, and the total ∞-category of any G-space. The page should also speak of [exit-path ∞-categories](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/poset-stratified+space#exit_path_categories) of stratified spaces. But then are statifications always well-founded?

   Concerning direct/inverse categories we let direct category take the lead, with a small note about the opposite concept. Is there a reason for preferring to phrase things here in terms of the inverse side? The example I’ve included is the opposite of an orbit category.

   Clark Barwise wrote

   The bases in which we’re most interested — and have the most to say — are atomic orbital ∞-categories that admit a conservative functor to a poset (so that they are ’EI ∞-categories’). Examples include: the orbit category of a group, the category of finite sets and surjective maps, any ∞-groupoid, the cyclonic orbit category, and the total ∞-category of any G-space.

   The page should also speak of exit-path ∞-categories of stratified spaces. But then are statifications always well-founded?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 1st 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI prefer to talk about covariant diagrams on an inverse category than contravariant diagrams on a direct category, since I don't have to be constantly reversing arrows in my head: the arrows in the inverse category go the same direction as the morphisms that they induce in a diagram. This is the same reason I prefer to define a derivator as a functor $Cat^{op}\to CAT$ rather than $Cat^{coop}\to CAT$, with the represented ones being $Hom(-,C)$ rather than $Hom((-)^{op},C)$. I guess you could say I prefer to avoid "duality redexes". (-:O But other people seem to have different preferences.

   I prefer to talk about covariant diagrams on an inverse category than contravariant diagrams on a direct category, since I don’t have to be constantly reversing arrows in my head: the arrows in the inverse category go the same direction as the morphisms that they induce in a diagram. This is the same reason I prefer to define a derivator as a functor $Cat^{op}\to CAT$ rather than $Cat^{coop}\to CAT$, with the represented ones being $Hom(-,C)$ rather than $Hom((-)^{op},C)$. I guess you could say I prefer to avoid “duality redexes”. (-:O But other people seem to have different preferences.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 2nd 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexadded missing redirects and hyperlinks (for instance: of course we have an entry for _[[well-founded relation]]_) <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/inverse+EI+%28%E2%88%9E%2C1%29-category/5">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/inverse+EI+%28%E2%88%9E%2C1%29-category/5">v5</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/inverse+EI+%28%E2%88%9E%2C1%29-category">current</a>

   added missing redirects and hyperlinks (for instance: of course we have an entry for well-founded relation)

   diff, v5, current

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexPresumably Mike's [Univalence for inverse EI diagrams](https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02410) relates somehow to the modal dependent type theory towards the end of his [HoTTEST talk](http://uwo.ca/math/faculty/kapulkin/seminars/hottest.html) with its inverse categories of mode contexts. For example, can we see the truncation modalities as arising from the building up by stages of the first article?

   Presumably Mike’s Univalence for inverse EI diagrams relates somehow to the modal dependent type theory towards the end of his HoTTEST talk with its inverse categories of mode contexts.

   For example, can we see the truncation modalities as arising from the building up by stages of the first article?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexPerhaps I'd need to know more about this hoped for coherence theorem: >its [HoTT's] most “direct” notion of model is actually a kind of structured 1-category (a comprehension category, category with families, etc.); a coherence theorem then (hopefully) relates these to the intended (∞,1)-categorical models. ([What is an n-theory?](https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2018/04/what_is_an_ntheory.html))

   Perhaps I’d need to know more about this hoped for coherence theorem:

   its [HoTT’s] most “direct” notion of model is actually a kind of structured 1-category (a comprehension category, category with families, etc.); a coherence theorem then (hopefully) relates these to the intended (∞,1)-categorical models. (What is an n-theory?)

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 3rd 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI've been thinking on and off about some such relationship, but haven't nailed down anything in particular yet. The uses of inverse categories are different: in the first case, type theory is modeled in the category of diagrams on one fixed inverse (EI) category, while in the second case, diagrams on varying inverse categories are used to describe the contexts in *one* model of (modal) type theory. My feeling is that a sort of modal type theory that "mixes" the mode theory with the object theory should be able to include "diagrams" as a sort of basic judgmental objects, and that this might be helpful in talking about semisimplicial types etc., but I haven't managed to make it quite come out yet.

   I’ve been thinking on and off about some such relationship, but haven’t nailed down anything in particular yet. The uses of inverse categories are different: in the first case, type theory is modeled in the category of diagrams on one fixed inverse (EI) category, while in the second case, diagrams on varying inverse categories are used to describe the contexts in one model of (modal) type theory. My feeling is that a sort of modal type theory that “mixes” the mode theory with the object theory should be able to include “diagrams” as a sort of basic judgmental objects, and that this might be helpful in talking about semisimplicial types etc., but I haven’t managed to make it quite come out yet.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJul 4th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItex>in the first case, type theory is modeled in the category of diagrams on one fixed inverse (EI) category Does anything interesting happen by taking a (2-)category of inverse EI-categories to generate a varying collection of type theories?

   in the first case, type theory is modeled in the category of diagrams on one fixed inverse (EI) category

   Does anything interesting happen by taking a (2-)category of inverse EI-categories to generate a varying collection of type theories?

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJul 5th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexProbably yes, I think that's basically what I was talking about in #7.

   Probably yes, I think that’s basically what I was talking about in #7.