Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics 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 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 homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory kan 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 natural nforum nlab nonassociative 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 string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topological topology topos topos-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorAlec Rhea
    • CommentTimeFeb 25th 2019

    Added actual definition for pseudofunctor and modified notions, moved discussion from idea section to new discussion section at bottom of page.

    diff, v13, current

  1. Looks like a good start, thanks! Nice diagrams!

    I reworded from saying that a 2-functor is a functor to saying that it is a categorification of the notion of a functor, since functor focuses on the 1-categorical case. I also added some more whitespace between the last two xymatrix diagrams.

    diff, v14, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorAlec Rhea
    • CommentTimeFeb 26th 2019
    • (edited Feb 26th 2019)

    Fixed a labelling error in a diagram. (also thank you Richard!)

    diff, v15, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorHurkyl
    • CommentTimeMay 10th 2019
    • (edited May 10th 2019)

    There is a notational inconsistency in the 2-functor page: sometimes, γ f,g\gamma_{f,g} is a natural transformation P(gf)P(g)P(f)P(g \circ f) \to P(g) \circ P(f), and other times it is P(g)P(f)P(gf)P(g) \circ P(f) \to P(g \circ f).

    The latter seems correct, as it is the version depicted in the coherence diagrams, and matches the definition at pseudofunctor, but I’m not sure what else on the site depends on this definitional choice.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 11th 2019

    Please fix it.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 6th 2020

    Fix mistake in the direction of the coherence cells for lax functors, as pointed out at https://mathoverflow.net/q/375699/49.

    Also removed the term “associator” for the composition constraint, which doesn’t seem appropriate to me.

    diff, v18, current

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 6th 2020

    It seems risky and redundant for this page and pseudofunctor to both contain explicit definitions of pseudofunctor. How about removing it from this page entirely and just pointing to pseudofunctor?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeNov 6th 2020

    FWIW, the coherence diagrams on this page look nicer, but are only correct for strict 2-categories since they don’t include the associators or unitors. Also, the coherence axioms/diagrams for the unit constraint on this page still have it in the wrong direction; I didn’t fix them yet.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorAlec Rhea
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2020

    Edited to point out that the current pseudofunctor definition only works for pseudofunctors between strict 22-categories, since the diagrams present are implicitly assuming that 11-cell composition commutes on the nose. Will edit in the near future to add definition for pseudofunctor between bicategories.

    Also edited to clarify naturality conditions on ’functor associators/unitors’.

    diff, v19, current

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorAlec Rhea
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2020

    Made data/diagrams consistent in direction throughout definition section.

    diff, v20, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorAlec Rhea
    • CommentTimeDec 7th 2020

    Fixed direction of functor unitor diagrams, and realized why it makes more sense to have the functor associator point in the other direction. Everything should be consistent for now at least.

    diff, v20, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2021

    have added (here) statement of the characterization of equivalences of 2-categories as the essentially surjective and fully faithful 2-functors.

    Before recording this, I made a search through the literature listed at 2-category for both the words “fully faithful” as well as “full and faithful” and found no hits for a definition.

    So I have added now pointer to

    who make the definition explicit in their Def. 7.0.1 and state the characterization of 2-equivalences as Thm 7.4.1. These authors don’t quite say “fully faithful” for “equivalence on all hom-categories”, but close.

    diff, v21, current

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)