categories - Category Theory list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Baez <baez@math.ucr.edu>
To: categories <categories@mta.ca>
Subject: Re: Makkai's suggestion
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:34:46 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1Oqalx-0004nQ-2J@mlist.mta.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimDqh1tCxooE_Kca_SHPxN3sqC80d08zQcZ1Cx+@mail.gmail.com>

David wrote:

> http://ncatlab.org/johnbaez/show/Towards+Higher+Categories
>
> Thank you for the reference. But I don't know where to start.


Start by reading the above book together with Cheng and Lauda's "Higher
categories: an illustrated guidebook":

http://www.cheng.staff.shef.ac.uk/guidebook/

and Leinster's "A Survey of Definitions of n-Category":

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0107188

Then try Lurie's "Higher Topos Theory":

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0608040

They're all free online!

Expect to spend a decade on this stuff.  Or, wait two decades for people to
polish it up, and then spend half a decade learning the basics and half a
decade learning what people have done in the next two decades.  That may be
more efficient.

Is there a definitive definition of omega-categories somewhere in the
> literature or is it still unknown?


There are *several* definitions that are almost surely "right" and likely to
be studied for many years hence.  There is no particular reason to expect
that one definition will be best for all applications - but there's a lot of
reason to expect that all the "right" definitions will be shown to be
equivalent (in a rather subtle sense).


> Can it be stated in elementary terms (I mean in terms of object, arrows,
> ... without references to simplicial sets or topology) ?
>

You should learn to love simplicial sets - they're way too important to
avoid!

If for some reason you're allergic to simplicial sets, you might like
Batanin's definition of omega-categories.   But then you need to like
operads.  You could state it without operads, but then it becomes quite
long.

The book by Cheng and Lauda takes various definitions and makes them less
scary by illustrating how they work with lots of pictures.


> In the definition of a bicategory, one could replace the coherence
> axioms by the statement that all diagrams built from the canonical
> ismorphisms commute. Can it be generalized to n=3, ... , omega.
>

You could say that's the basic idea behind Batanin's definition.

Best,
jb


[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]


  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-08-31  4:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-08-29  5:26 David Leduc
2010-08-30  4:53 ` John Baez
2010-08-31  1:01   ` David Leduc
     [not found] ` <AANLkTimDqh1tCxooE_Kca_SHPxN3sqC80d08zQcZ1Cx+@mail.gmail.com>
2010-08-31  4:34   ` John Baez [this message]
2010-09-01 21:42     ` Greg Meredith
     [not found] ` <AANLkTinMcT+eTMb03vo2a7f4ud-xtv-E8_gvXy=VPhXF@mail.gmail.com>
2010-09-06 17:08   ` Greg Meredith
2010-09-03  4:04 John Baez
2010-09-04 17:16 ` Ronnie Brown

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=E1Oqalx-0004nQ-2J@mlist.mta.ca \
    --to=baez@math.ucr.edu \
    --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).