* weak double categories?
@ 2005-10-26 20:08 John Baez
2005-10-27 21:55 ` Tom Leinster
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: John Baez @ 2005-10-26 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: categories
Dear Categorists -
If you weaken the notion of 2-category you get the notion of
bicategory. Has anyone tried to correspondingly weaken the
notion of double category, so that a bicategory is a special
sort of "weak double category" in analogy to the ways in which
a 2-category is a special sort of double category? Did anyone
succeed?
Best,
jb
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: weak double categories?
2005-10-26 20:08 weak double categories? John Baez
@ 2005-10-27 21:55 ` Tom Leinster
2005-10-28 9:10 ` Richard Garner
2005-10-28 11:32 ` Marco Grandis
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Leinster @ 2005-10-27 21:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: categories
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 13:08 -0700, John Baez wrote:
> If you weaken the notion of 2-category you get the notion of
> bicategory. Has anyone tried to correspondingly weaken the
> notion of double category, so that a bicategory is a special
> sort of "weak double category" in analogy to the ways in which
> a 2-category is a special sort of double category?
At least three parties have done this:
- Bob Pare and collaborators
- at least one Australian of the Sean Carmody/Dominic Verity/Steve Lack
generation (calling them something like "double bicategories")
- me (section 5.2 of book).
There's the question of whether you weaken in just one direction or in
both. I believe that parties 1 and 3 weaken in just one direction. But
you write
> in analogy to the ways [*plural!*] in which a 2-category is a special
> sort of double category
so I guess you're after weakening in both directions.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: weak double categories?
2005-10-26 20:08 weak double categories? John Baez
2005-10-27 21:55 ` Tom Leinster
@ 2005-10-28 9:10 ` Richard Garner
2005-10-28 11:32 ` Marco Grandis
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Garner @ 2005-10-28 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: categories
--On 26 October 2005 13:08 John Baez wrote:
> If you weaken the notion of 2-category you get the notion of
> bicategory. Has anyone tried to correspondingly weaken the
> notion of double category, so that a bicategory is a special
> sort of "weak double category" in analogy to the ways in which
> a 2-category is a special sort of double category? Did anyone
> succeed?
Yes, this has been done; I believe Dom Verity
is the first person to do this, in his thesis.
Grandis and Paré are the only people to have
developed extensively aspects of their theory ([1]
& [2]). Tom Leinster mentions them in passing (in
[3] for example) -- they are the `representable'
fc-multicategories, standing in the same relation
to them as monoidal categories do to plain
multicategories.
On my website [4] is my thesis "Polycategories"
which contains a fair bit more on weak double
categories, both further aspects of their theory
and some applications; for those of a terser
inclination, the edited highlights can be found in
the two preprints "Double clubs" and
"Polycategories via pseudo-distributive laws" on
the same page.
Richard Garner
-----
[1] Marco Grandis & Robert Paré
Limits in double categories
Cah. Topol. Géom. Différ. Catég. 40 (1999), no. 3, 162--220; MR1716779 (2000i:18007)
[2] Marco Grandis & Robert Paré
Adjoints for double categories
Cah. Topol. Géom. Différ. Catég. 45 (2004), no. 3, 193--240.
[3] Tom Leinster
Higher operads, higher categories
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.CT/0305049
[4] Richard Garner
http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~rhgg2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: weak double categories?
2005-10-26 20:08 weak double categories? John Baez
2005-10-27 21:55 ` Tom Leinster
2005-10-28 9:10 ` Richard Garner
@ 2005-10-28 11:32 ` Marco Grandis
2 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Marco Grandis @ 2005-10-28 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: categories
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1612 bytes --]
The definition of weak (or pseudo) double category is what you would =20
expect, once you know the strict case and the definition of =20
bicategory; think of a "pseudocategory object in Cat". It has =20
probably been in the categorical folklore since quite a while.
You can find it (including the machinery of lax double functors, =20
horizontal and vertical transformations, etc.) in two papers in =20
Cahiers, where part of the general theory of weak double categories =20
has been developed
M. Grandis - R. Pare, Limits in double categories, Cah. Topol. =20
Geom. Diff. Categ. 40 (1999), 162-220,
- -, Adjoints for double categories, Cah. Topol. Geom. Diff. =20
Categ. 45 (2004), 193-240.
Other papers on (weak) double categories, many of them by Bob Pare et =20=
al., are referred to in the articles above.
In book form
Tom Leinster, Higher operads, higher categories, Cambridge Un. =20
Press 2004,
has Section 5.2, devoted to weak double categories.
Best regards
Marco
Marco Grandis
Dipartimento di Matematica
Universit=E0 di Genova
Via Dodecaneso, 35
16146 Genova
Italy
e-mail: grandis@dima.unige.it
tel: +39 010 353 6805
http://www.dima.unige.it/~grandis/
On 26 Oct 2005, at 22:08, John Baez wrote:
> Dear Categorists -
>
> If you weaken the notion of 2-category you get the notion of
> bicategory. Has anyone tried to correspondingly weaken the
> notion of double category, so that a bicategory is a special
> sort of "weak double category" in analogy to the ways in which
> a 2-category is a special sort of double category? Did anyone
> succeed?
>
> Best,
> jb
>
>
>
>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5610 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: weak double categories?
@ 2005-10-28 21:07 John Baez
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: John Baez @ 2005-10-28 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: categories
Dear Categorists -
Thanks for all the helpful replies!
Tom Leinster wrote:
> I guess you're after weakening in both directions.
Yes, I need weakening in both directions for my particular
application (to quantum gravity, in fact). So, I need to
get ahold of Dominic Verity's thesis.
Best,
jb
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: weak double categories?
@ 2005-10-28 0:13 Ross Street
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ross Street @ 2005-10-28 0:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Categories
[Note from moderator: message resent, may have been transmitted
incorrectly.]
Dominic Verity's PhD thesis did that (amongst other things) for some
very good reasons.
---Ross
On 27/10/2005, at 6:08 AM, John Baez wrote:
> If you weaken the notion of 2-category you get the notion of
> bicategory. Has anyone tried to correspondingly weaken the
> notion of double category, so that a bicategory is a special
> sort of "weak double category" in analogy to the ways in which
> a 2-category is a special sort of double category? Did anyone
> succeed?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-10-28 21:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-10-26 20:08 weak double categories? John Baez
2005-10-27 21:55 ` Tom Leinster
2005-10-28 9:10 ` Richard Garner
2005-10-28 11:32 ` Marco Grandis
2005-10-28 0:13 Ross Street
2005-10-28 21:07 John Baez
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).