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 definitions 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 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 nforum 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.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexHas anyone seen this notion in print? The idea is to capture examples of bicategories like $CoSpan$, $CoRel$, etc. Here is how one might define cocartesian bicategories, by adapting the development in [[cartesian bicategory]]. Following Carboni and Walters, a left adjoint in a bicategory is called a *map*. Pseudofunctors between bicategories are called *homomorphisms*. By "transformation", I mean what Bénabou calls an "oplax transformation" and what Johnstone calls a "lax transformation". A transformation is *strong* if its structural 2-cells are invertible. A transformation $\theta: F \to G$ between homomorphisms $\mathbf{B} \to \mathbf{C}$ is *map-valued* if $\theta b: F b \to G b$ is a map in $\mathbf{C}$ for every object $b$ of $\mathbf{B}$. A *cocartesian bicategory* is a bicategory $\mathbf{B}$ equipped with * Homomorphisms $\oplus: \mathbf{B} \times \mathbf{B} \to \mathbf{B}, E: \mathbf{1} \to \mathbf{B}$ where $\mathbf{1}$ is the terminal bicategory, * Map-valued transformations * $\nabla: \oplus \Delta \to 1_\mathbf{B}$, * $\iota: 1_{\mathbf{B} \times \mathbf{B}} \to \Delta \oplus$, * $\eta: E ! \to 1_\mathbf{B}$, where $\Delta: \mathbf{B} \to \mathbf{B} \times \mathbf{B}$ is the diagonal homomorphism and $!: \mathbf{B} \to \mathbf{1}$ is the unique homomorphism, * Invertible modifications $$\array{ \oplus & \overset{\oplus \iota}{\to} & \oplus \Delta \oplus & & & & \Delta & \overset{\iota \Delta}{\to} & \Delta \oplus \Delta & & & & E & \overset{E \cdot 1_\mathbf{1}}{\to} & E ! E\\ \mathllap{1_{\oplus}} \downarrow & \overset{s}{\Rightarrow} & \downarrow \mathrlap{\nabla \oplus} & & & & \mathllap{1_{\Delta}} \downarrow & \overset{t}{\Leftarrow} & \downarrow \mathrlap{\Delta \nabla} & & & & \mathllap{1_{E}} \downarrow & \overset{u}{\Rightarrow} & \downarrow \mathrlap{\eta E}\\ \oplus & \underset{1_{\oplus}}{\to} & \oplus & & & & \Delta & \underset{1_{\Delta}}{\to} & \Delta & & & & I & \underset{1_E}{\to} & E }$$ satisfying appropriate triangulator ("swallowtail") coherence conditions. As ever, there is a lemma that states that if $\theta$ is a transformation and $f$ is a map, then the structural 2-cell $\theta \cdot f$ is an isomorphism. Then, the data above restrict to the bicategory $Map(\mathbf{B})$ whose 1-cells are maps in $\mathbf{B}$, so that $\nabla, \iota, \eta$ restrict to strong transformations and $\oplus$ becomes a left biadjoint to $\Delta$, i.e., a 2-coproduct, and $E$ becomes 2-initial ($E$ is for "empty"). The development then proceeds much as it does on the [[cartesian bicategory]] page. Unless I am pretty confused, this notion does not seem to be a simple "co" dual of the notion of cartesian bicategory. For example, these are not co-map valued transformations, and the transformations are still Johnstone-lax, but we *are* changing directions on the transformations appropriately to get *co*diagonals and *co*projections when we restrict to $Map(\mathbf{B})$ (which will be $Set$ in the examples $CoSpan$ and $CoRel$).

   Has anyone seen this notion in print? The idea is to capture examples of bicategories like , , etc.

   Here is how one might define cocartesian bicategories, by adapting the development in cartesian bicategory. Following Carboni and Walters, a left adjoint in a bicategory is called a map. Pseudofunctors between bicategories are called homomorphisms. By “transformation”, I mean what Bénabou calls an “oplax transformation” and what Johnstone calls a “lax transformation”. A transformation is strong if its structural 2-cells are invertible. A transformation between homomorphisms is map-valued if is a map in for every object of .

   A cocartesian bicategory is a bicategory equipped with

   • Homomorphisms where is the terminal bicategory,

   • Map-valued transformations

     • ,
     • ,
     • ,

     where is the diagonal homomorphism and is the unique homomorphism,

   • Invertible modifications

     satisfying appropriate triangulator (“swallowtail”) coherence conditions.

   As ever, there is a lemma that states that if is a transformation and is a map, then the structural 2-cell is an isomorphism. Then, the data above restrict to the bicategory whose 1-cells are maps in , so that restrict to strong transformations and becomes a left biadjoint to , i.e., a 2-coproduct, and becomes 2-initial ( is for “empty”). The development then proceeds much as it does on the cartesian bicategory page.

   Unless I am pretty confused, this notion does not seem to be a simple “co” dual of the notion of cartesian bicategory. For example, these are not co-map valued transformations, and the transformations are still Johnstone-lax, but we are changing directions on the transformations appropriately to get codiagonals and coprojections when we restrict to (which will be in the examples and ).

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIs it a "co-op" dual?

   Is it a “co-op” dual?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 1st 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexErgh. Maybe it's that simple and I was blind. So I guess the notion of map is co-op self-dual, as is the notion of transformation? It wouldn't be the first time I've had an [Emily Litella](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Litella) moment. :-)

   Ergh. Maybe it’s that simple and I was blind. So I guess the notion of map is co-op self-dual, as is the notion of transformation?

   It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve had an Emily Litella moment. :-)

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeDec 2nd 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI haven't checked your definition thoroughly, but I believe that handedness of adjoints and laxity are both co-op self-dual.

   I haven’t checked your definition thoroughly, but I believe that handedness of adjoints and laxity are both co-op self-dual.