Tricategorical coherenceLax Functors and Equivalence of Bicategories?Effects of “weak” vs. “strict” categories in Eckmann-Hilton argumentsCan equivalences be strictified to isomorphisms?Simple-minded coherence of tricategoriesAbout the definition of lax.functor between tricategoriesIs the theory of weak $n$-categories a cofibrant replacement of the theory of strict ones?Are strict $infty$-categories localized at weak equivalences a full subcategory of weak $infty$-categories?Weak complicial sets: Are the morphisms too strict?Is there an “injective version” of the Bergner model structure?Coherence theorem for tetracategories, weak $n$-categories
Tricategorical coherence
Lax Functors and Equivalence of Bicategories?Effects of “weak” vs. “strict” categories in Eckmann-Hilton argumentsCan equivalences be strictified to isomorphisms?Simple-minded coherence of tricategoriesAbout the definition of lax.functor between tricategoriesIs the theory of weak $n$-categories a cofibrant replacement of the theory of strict ones?Are strict $infty$-categories localized at weak equivalences a full subcategory of weak $infty$-categories?Weak complicial sets: Are the morphisms too strict?Is there an “injective version” of the Bergner model structure?Coherence theorem for tetracategories, weak $n$-categories
$begingroup$
Why does coherence begin to matter at the tricategorical level?
It is well known that every weak $2$-category is equivalent to a strict $2$-category, with the equivalence essentially given by (unless I'm mistaken) the $2$-Yoneda embedding for an arbitrary $2$-category into its strict $2$-category of $2$-presheaves into $mathfrakCat$ -- this means we can effectively ignore the coherence diagrams for associativity and unitarity in $2$-categories and work with strict ones where composition is associative on the nose and units vanish under composition.
This is not so for $3$-categories; Gordon, Power and Street proved that all weak $3$-categories are equivalent to Gray categories, where associativity and unitarity still hold on the nose, but we have an additional coherence notion in play called 'interchange' for $2$-morphisms which introduces fundamental differences between $3$-categories with strict interchange and weak interchange laws.
Intuitively speaking, why does this type of coherence 'matter' more than the associative and unital coherence that appears at the $2$-categorical level?
The notions of '$n$-equivalence' become more varied as we move into higher $n$ as I understand it, so perhaps the 'correct' notion of $3$-equivalence is sensitive to interchange in some way that $2$-equivalence isn't sensitive to associativity for $1$-cells?
I am currently working through the linked Gordon-Power-Street paper on coherence for tricategories and suspect the answer is buried in their proof of the tricategorical coherence theorem, but I thought someone here might already be familiar with it and able to help a newcomer -- any assistance is appreciated.
ct.category-theory higher-category-theory
asked Jul 8 at 6:03
Alec RheaAlec Rhea
1,6111 gold badge12 silver badges23 bronze badges
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why does coherence begin to matter at the tricategorical level?
It is well known that every weak $2$-category is equivalent to a strict $2$-category, with the equivalence essentially given by (unless I'm mistaken) the $2$-Yoneda embedding for an arbitrary $2$-category into its strict $2$-category of $2$-presheaves into $mathfrakCat$ -- this means we can effectively ignore the coherence diagrams for associativity and unitarity in $2$-categories and work with strict ones where composition is associative on the nose and units vanish under composition.
This is not so for $3$-categories; Gordon, Power and Street proved that all weak $3$-categories are equivalent to Gray categories, where associativity and unitarity still hold on the nose, but we have an additional coherence notion in play called 'interchange' for $2$-morphisms which introduces fundamental differences between $3$-categories with strict interchange and weak interchange laws.
Intuitively speaking, why does this type of coherence 'matter' more than the associative and unital coherence that appears at the $2$-categorical level?
The notions of '$n$-equivalence' become more varied as we move into higher $n$ as I understand it, so perhaps the 'correct' notion of $3$-equivalence is sensitive to interchange in some way that $2$-equivalence isn't sensitive to associativity for $1$-cells?
I am currently working through the linked Gordon-Power-Street paper on coherence for tricategories and suspect the answer is buried in their proof of the tricategorical coherence theorem, but I thought someone here might already be familiar with it and able to help a newcomer -- any assistance is appreciated.
ct.category-theory higher-category-theory
asked Jul 8 at 6:03
Alec RheaAlec Rhea
1,6111 gold badge12 silver badges23 bronze badges
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You may want to look at Nick Gurski's fully algebraic treatment of coherence in tricategories ``Coherence in three-dimensional category theory''.
$endgroup$
– Peter May
Jul 8 at 14:37
$begingroup$
@PeterMayThat looks very relevant, muchas gracias.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 14:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why does coherence begin to matter at the tricategorical level?
It is well known that every weak $2$-category is equivalent to a strict $2$-category, with the equivalence essentially given by (unless I'm mistaken) the $2$-Yoneda embedding for an arbitrary $2$-category into its strict $2$-category of $2$-presheaves into $mathfrakCat$ -- this means we can effectively ignore the coherence diagrams for associativity and unitarity in $2$-categories and work with strict ones where composition is associative on the nose and units vanish under composition.
This is not so for $3$-categories; Gordon, Power and Street proved that all weak $3$-categories are equivalent to Gray categories, where associativity and unitarity still hold on the nose, but we have an additional coherence notion in play called 'interchange' for $2$-morphisms which introduces fundamental differences between $3$-categories with strict interchange and weak interchange laws.
Intuitively speaking, why does this type of coherence 'matter' more than the associative and unital coherence that appears at the $2$-categorical level?
The notions of '$n$-equivalence' become more varied as we move into higher $n$ as I understand it, so perhaps the 'correct' notion of $3$-equivalence is sensitive to interchange in some way that $2$-equivalence isn't sensitive to associativity for $1$-cells?
I am currently working through the linked Gordon-Power-Street paper on coherence for tricategories and suspect the answer is buried in their proof of the tricategorical coherence theorem, but I thought someone here might already be familiar with it and able to help a newcomer -- any assistance is appreciated.
ct.category-theory higher-category-theory
asked Jul 8 at 6:03
Alec RheaAlec Rhea
1,6111 gold badge12 silver badges23 bronze badges
$endgroup$
Why does coherence begin to matter at the tricategorical level?
It is well known that every weak $2$-category is equivalent to a strict $2$-category, with the equivalence essentially given by (unless I'm mistaken) the $2$-Yoneda embedding for an arbitrary $2$-category into its strict $2$-category of $2$-presheaves into $mathfrakCat$ -- this means we can effectively ignore the coherence diagrams for associativity and unitarity in $2$-categories and work with strict ones where composition is associative on the nose and units vanish under composition.
This is not so for $3$-categories; Gordon, Power and Street proved that all weak $3$-categories are equivalent to Gray categories, where associativity and unitarity still hold on the nose, but we have an additional coherence notion in play called 'interchange' for $2$-morphisms which introduces fundamental differences between $3$-categories with strict interchange and weak interchange laws.
Intuitively speaking, why does this type of coherence 'matter' more than the associative and unital coherence that appears at the $2$-categorical level?
The notions of '$n$-equivalence' become more varied as we move into higher $n$ as I understand it, so perhaps the 'correct' notion of $3$-equivalence is sensitive to interchange in some way that $2$-equivalence isn't sensitive to associativity for $1$-cells?
I am currently working through the linked Gordon-Power-Street paper on coherence for tricategories and suspect the answer is buried in their proof of the tricategorical coherence theorem, but I thought someone here might already be familiar with it and able to help a newcomer -- any assistance is appreciated.
ct.category-theory higher-category-theory
ct.category-theory higher-category-theory
asked Jul 8 at 6:03
Alec RheaAlec Rhea
1,6111 gold badge12 silver badges23 bronze badges
asked Jul 8 at 6:03
Alec RheaAlec Rhea
1,6111 gold badge12 silver badges23 bronze badges
asked Jul 8 at 6:03
Alec RheaAlec Rhea
1,6111 gold badge12 silver badges23 bronze badges
asked Jul 8 at 6:03
Alec RheaAlec Rhea
1,6111 gold badge12 silver badges23 bronze badges
asked Jul 8 at 6:03
Alec RheaAlec Rhea
1,6111 gold badge12 silver badges23 bronze badges
1,6111 gold badge12 silver badges23 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
You may want to look at Nick Gurski's fully algebraic treatment of coherence in tricategories ``Coherence in three-dimensional category theory''.
$endgroup$
– Peter May
Jul 8 at 14:37
$begingroup$
@PeterMayThat looks very relevant, muchas gracias.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 14:59
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
You may want to look at Nick Gurski's fully algebraic treatment of coherence in tricategories ``Coherence in three-dimensional category theory''.
$endgroup$
– Peter May
Jul 8 at 14:37
$begingroup$
@PeterMayThat looks very relevant, muchas gracias.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 14:59
1
1
$begingroup$
You may want to look at Nick Gurski's fully algebraic treatment of coherence in tricategories ``Coherence in three-dimensional category theory''.
$endgroup$
– Peter May
Jul 8 at 14:37
$begingroup$
You may want to look at Nick Gurski's fully algebraic treatment of coherence in tricategories ``Coherence in three-dimensional category theory''.
$endgroup$
– Peter May
Jul 8 at 14:37
$begingroup$
@PeterMayThat looks very relevant, muchas gracias.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 14:59
$begingroup$
@PeterMayThat looks very relevant, muchas gracias.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 14:59
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The short answer is that what matters is the combination of strict interchange and strict units, because interchange and units are what go into the Eckmann-Hilton argument, and dimension 3 is the first dimension in which you can have weak commutativity (e.g. braided monoidal categories are degenerate tricategories). GPS choose to strictify the units and therefore not the interchange, but you can also choose to strictify the interchange and not the units:
André Joyal, Joachim Kock, Weak units and homotopy 3-types, in: Street Festschrift: Categories in algebra, geometry and mathematical physics, Contemp. Math 431 (2007), 257-276, doi:10.1090/conm/431/08277, arXiv:math/0602084.
edited Jul 8 at 7:17
David Roberts
18.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges188 bronze badges
answered Jul 8 at 6:15
Mike ShulmanMike Shulman
39k4 gold badges90 silver badges240 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Much appreciated!
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 6:59
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f335672%2ftricategorical-coherence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The short answer is that what matters is the combination of strict interchange and strict units, because interchange and units are what go into the Eckmann-Hilton argument, and dimension 3 is the first dimension in which you can have weak commutativity (e.g. braided monoidal categories are degenerate tricategories). GPS choose to strictify the units and therefore not the interchange, but you can also choose to strictify the interchange and not the units:
André Joyal, Joachim Kock, Weak units and homotopy 3-types, in: Street Festschrift: Categories in algebra, geometry and mathematical physics, Contemp. Math 431 (2007), 257-276, doi:10.1090/conm/431/08277, arXiv:math/0602084.
edited Jul 8 at 7:17
David Roberts
18.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges188 bronze badges
answered Jul 8 at 6:15
Mike ShulmanMike Shulman
39k4 gold badges90 silver badges240 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Much appreciated!
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 6:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The short answer is that what matters is the combination of strict interchange and strict units, because interchange and units are what go into the Eckmann-Hilton argument, and dimension 3 is the first dimension in which you can have weak commutativity (e.g. braided monoidal categories are degenerate tricategories). GPS choose to strictify the units and therefore not the interchange, but you can also choose to strictify the interchange and not the units:
André Joyal, Joachim Kock, Weak units and homotopy 3-types, in: Street Festschrift: Categories in algebra, geometry and mathematical physics, Contemp. Math 431 (2007), 257-276, doi:10.1090/conm/431/08277, arXiv:math/0602084.
edited Jul 8 at 7:17
David Roberts
18.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges188 bronze badges
answered Jul 8 at 6:15
Mike ShulmanMike Shulman
39k4 gold badges90 silver badges240 bronze badges
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Much appreciated!
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 6:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The short answer is that what matters is the combination of strict interchange and strict units, because interchange and units are what go into the Eckmann-Hilton argument, and dimension 3 is the first dimension in which you can have weak commutativity (e.g. braided monoidal categories are degenerate tricategories). GPS choose to strictify the units and therefore not the interchange, but you can also choose to strictify the interchange and not the units:
André Joyal, Joachim Kock, Weak units and homotopy 3-types, in: Street Festschrift: Categories in algebra, geometry and mathematical physics, Contemp. Math 431 (2007), 257-276, doi:10.1090/conm/431/08277, arXiv:math/0602084.
edited Jul 8 at 7:17
David Roberts
18.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges188 bronze badges
answered Jul 8 at 6:15
Mike ShulmanMike Shulman
39k4 gold badges90 silver badges240 bronze badges
$endgroup$
The short answer is that what matters is the combination of strict interchange and strict units, because interchange and units are what go into the Eckmann-Hilton argument, and dimension 3 is the first dimension in which you can have weak commutativity (e.g. braided monoidal categories are degenerate tricategories). GPS choose to strictify the units and therefore not the interchange, but you can also choose to strictify the interchange and not the units:
André Joyal, Joachim Kock, Weak units and homotopy 3-types, in: Street Festschrift: Categories in algebra, geometry and mathematical physics, Contemp. Math 431 (2007), 257-276, doi:10.1090/conm/431/08277, arXiv:math/0602084.
edited Jul 8 at 7:17
David Roberts
18.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges188 bronze badges
answered Jul 8 at 6:15
Mike ShulmanMike Shulman
39k4 gold badges90 silver badges240 bronze badges
edited Jul 8 at 7:17
David Roberts
18.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges188 bronze badges
edited Jul 8 at 7:17
David Roberts
18.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges188 bronze badges
edited Jul 8 at 7:17
David Roberts
18.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges188 bronze badges
18.2k4 gold badges64 silver badges188 bronze badges
answered Jul 8 at 6:15
Mike ShulmanMike Shulman
39k4 gold badges90 silver badges240 bronze badges
answered Jul 8 at 6:15
Mike ShulmanMike Shulman
39k4 gold badges90 silver badges240 bronze badges
answered Jul 8 at 6:15
Mike ShulmanMike Shulman
39k4 gold badges90 silver badges240 bronze badges
39k4 gold badges90 silver badges240 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Much appreciated!
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 6:59
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Much appreciated!
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 6:59
$begingroup$
Much appreciated!
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 6:59
$begingroup$
Much appreciated!
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 6:59
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f335672%2ftricategorical-coherence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
You may want to look at Nick Gurski's fully algebraic treatment of coherence in tricategories ``Coherence in three-dimensional category theory''.
$endgroup$
– Peter May
Jul 8 at 14:37
$begingroup$
@PeterMayThat looks very relevant, muchas gracias.
$endgroup$
– Alec Rhea
Jul 8 at 14:59