From: John Baez <john.c.baez@gmail.com>
To: categories <categories@mta.ca>
Subject: RE : bilax monoidal functors
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 20:27:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1OAsS6-0001ay-ER@mailserv.mta.ca> (raw)
André Joyal wrote:
I am using the following terminology for
> higher braided monoidal (higher) categories:
>
> Monoidal< braided < 2-braided <.......<symmetric
>
> A (n+1)-braided n-category is symmetric
> according to your stabilisation hypothesis.
>
> Is this a good terminology?
>
I use "k-tuply monoidal" to mean what you'd call "(k-1)-braided". This
seems preferable to me, not because it sounds nicer - it doesn't - but
because it starts counting at a somewhat more natural place. I believe that
counting monoidal structures is more natural than counting braidings.
For example, a doubly monoidal n-category, one with two compatible monoidal
structures, is a braided monoidal n-category. I believe this is a theorem
proved by you and Ross when n = 1. This way of thinking clarifies the
relation between braided monoidal categories and double loop spaces.
Various numbers become more complicated when one counts braidings rather
than monoidal structures:
An n-tuply monoidal k-category is (conjecturally) a special sort of
(n+k)-category... while an n-braided category is a special sort of
(n+k+1)-category.
Similarly: n-dimensional surfaces in (n+k)-dimensional space are n-morphisms
in a k-tuply monoidal n-category... but they are n-morphisms in an
(k-1)-braided n-category.
And so on.
On the other hand, if it's braidings that you really want to count, rather
than monoidal structures, your terminology is perfect.
By the way: I don't remember anyone on this mailing list ever asking if
their own terminology is good. I only remember them complaining about other
people's terminology. I applaud your departure from this unpleasant
tradition!
Best,
jb
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
next reply other threads:[~2010-05-08 3:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-08 3:27 John Baez [this message]
2010-05-09 10:38 ` autonomous terminology: WAS: " Dusko Pavlovic
2010-05-09 22:41 ` Colin McLarty
2010-05-10 12:09 ` posina
2010-05-10 17:40 ` Jeff Egger
2010-05-09 16:26 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Andre Joyal
2010-05-10 14:58 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Eduardo J. Dubuc
2010-05-10 19:28 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Jeff Egger
2010-05-13 17:17 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Michael Shulman
2010-05-14 14:43 ` terminology (was: bilax_monoidal_functors) Peter Selinger
2010-05-15 19:52 ` terminology Toby Bartels
2010-05-15 1:05 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Andre Joyal
[not found] ` <20100514144324.D83A35C275@chase.mathstat.dal.ca>
2010-05-15 4:41 ` terminology (was: bilax_monoidal_functors) Michael Shulman
2010-05-10 10:28 ` bilax monoidal functors Urs Schreiber
2010-05-11 3:17 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Andre Joyal
[not found] ` <4BE81F26.4020903@dm.uba.ar>
2010-05-10 18:16 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= John Baez
2010-05-11 1:04 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Michael Shulman
2010-05-12 20:02 ` calculus, homotopy theory and more Andre Joyal
[not found] ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F57F6@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
[not found] ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F57F8@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2010-05-13 6:56 ` calculus, homotopy theory and more (corrected) Michael Batanin
[not found] ` <B3C24EA955FF0C4EA14658997CD3E25E370F57FE@CAHIER.gst.uqam.ca>
2010-05-13 22:59 ` Michael Batanin
[not found] ` <4BEC846B.5050000@ics.mq.edu.au>
2010-05-14 2:53 ` Andre Joyal
2010-05-11 8:28 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Michael Batanin
2010-05-12 3:02 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Toby Bartels
2010-05-13 23:09 ` bilax_monoidal_functors?= Michael Batanin
2010-05-15 16:05 ` terminology Joyal, André
[not found] ` <4BEC8698.3090408@ics.mq.edu.au>
2010-05-14 18:41 ` bilax_monoidal_functors? Toby Bartels
2010-05-15 16:54 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Jeff Egger
2010-05-14 14:34 ` bilax_monoidal_functors Michael Shulman
2010-05-15 4:44 bilax_monoidal_functors Michael Shulman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E1OAsS6-0001ay-ER@mailserv.mta.ca \
--to=john.c.baez@gmail.com \
--cc=categories@mta.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).