Category of categories and anafunctors.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
1)Category of sets is a (1,0)-category, isn't it?
2)Anafunctors are the factorization of class of functors by equivalence
relation(isomorphism) on its values, aren't they?
3)Which kind of category small categories and anafunctors forms? ((2,1)-category?) Let it be $Cat_ana$.
4)May I say that $Set$ is "anaisomorphic" to $Set^op$ (in $Cat_ana)$? ( I can not, because of different truthness of proposition "all morphisms to the initial object are isomorphisms". Anafunctors are not related to this statement.)
Is this theory well-developed? What is worth to read about it?
category-theory
asked Sep 1 '16 at 18:31
First Last
878
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
1)Category of sets is a (1,0)-category, isn't it?
2)Anafunctors are the factorization of class of functors by equivalence
relation(isomorphism) on its values, aren't they?
3)Which kind of category small categories and anafunctors forms? ((2,1)-category?) Let it be $Cat_ana$.
4)May I say that $Set$ is "anaisomorphic" to $Set^op$ (in $Cat_ana)$? ( I can not, because of different truthness of proposition "all morphisms to the initial object are isomorphisms". Anafunctors are not related to this statement.)
Is this theory well-developed? What is worth to read about it?
category-theory
asked Sep 1 '16 at 18:31
First Last
878
To see 'all possible values' of a functor $mathcal Atomathcal B$ (such as a limit functor) at once, we can also use its induced profunctor $mathcal A^optimesmathcal BtomathcalSet$ with its cograph category which disjointly contain $mathcal A$ and $mathcal B$ and 'heteromorphisms' between their objects. Then, the original assignment is given by reflection to $mathcal B$, so that all target objects are equally presented this way.
– Berci
Sep 4 '16 at 23:10
@Berci, I am trying to understand what you want to say and which question you answer. Limit functor sends functors of type A->B, where A,B-categories to objects of B, am I right? It sends natural transformations to morphisms between limits in B, am I right? (I didn't understand the rest. I also edited my post by adding answer to 4th question, is it ok?)
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:13
Every functor induces two profunctors. (Which are "cocontrabifunctor" and "contracobifunctor" :-) )
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:39
I didn't aim to answer your question, only wanted to reason about why - if not - the theory of anafunctors is not very well developed. Actually, you can choose either profunctor of any given functor. What I meant by cograph is written here: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/…. In the cograph category, the image of an object appears as a [co-]reflection of the object, and if we take all [co-]reflection arrows, we get sth very similar to a saturated anafunctor.
– Berci
Sep 5 '16 at 21:59
1
A $(1,0)$-category is just a groupoid, isn't it? (Which sets aren't).
– neth
Sep 6 '16 at 23:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
1)Category of sets is a (1,0)-category, isn't it?
2)Anafunctors are the factorization of class of functors by equivalence
relation(isomorphism) on its values, aren't they?
3)Which kind of category small categories and anafunctors forms? ((2,1)-category?) Let it be $Cat_ana$.
4)May I say that $Set$ is "anaisomorphic" to $Set^op$ (in $Cat_ana)$? ( I can not, because of different truthness of proposition "all morphisms to the initial object are isomorphisms". Anafunctors are not related to this statement.)
Is this theory well-developed? What is worth to read about it?
category-theory
asked Sep 1 '16 at 18:31
First Last
878
1)Category of sets is a (1,0)-category, isn't it?
2)Anafunctors are the factorization of class of functors by equivalence
relation(isomorphism) on its values, aren't they?
3)Which kind of category small categories and anafunctors forms? ((2,1)-category?) Let it be $Cat_ana$.
4)May I say that $Set$ is "anaisomorphic" to $Set^op$ (in $Cat_ana)$? ( I can not, because of different truthness of proposition "all morphisms to the initial object are isomorphisms". Anafunctors are not related to this statement.)
Is this theory well-developed? What is worth to read about it?
category-theory
asked Sep 1 '16 at 18:31
First Last
878
edited Sep 5 '16 at 17:49
asked Sep 1 '16 at 18:31
First Last
878
asked Sep 1 '16 at 18:31
First Last
878
asked Sep 1 '16 at 18:31
First Last
878
878
To see 'all possible values' of a functor $mathcal Atomathcal B$ (such as a limit functor) at once, we can also use its induced profunctor $mathcal A^optimesmathcal BtomathcalSet$ with its cograph category which disjointly contain $mathcal A$ and $mathcal B$ and 'heteromorphisms' between their objects. Then, the original assignment is given by reflection to $mathcal B$, so that all target objects are equally presented this way.
– Berci
Sep 4 '16 at 23:10
@Berci, I am trying to understand what you want to say and which question you answer. Limit functor sends functors of type A->B, where A,B-categories to objects of B, am I right? It sends natural transformations to morphisms between limits in B, am I right? (I didn't understand the rest. I also edited my post by adding answer to 4th question, is it ok?)
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:13
Every functor induces two profunctors. (Which are "cocontrabifunctor" and "contracobifunctor" :-) )
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:39
I didn't aim to answer your question, only wanted to reason about why - if not - the theory of anafunctors is not very well developed. Actually, you can choose either profunctor of any given functor. What I meant by cograph is written here: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/…. In the cograph category, the image of an object appears as a [co-]reflection of the object, and if we take all [co-]reflection arrows, we get sth very similar to a saturated anafunctor.
– Berci
Sep 5 '16 at 21:59
1
A $(1,0)$-category is just a groupoid, isn't it? (Which sets aren't).
– neth
Sep 6 '16 at 23:54
add a comment |Â
To see 'all possible values' of a functor $mathcal Atomathcal B$ (such as a limit functor) at once, we can also use its induced profunctor $mathcal A^optimesmathcal BtomathcalSet$ with its cograph category which disjointly contain $mathcal A$ and $mathcal B$ and 'heteromorphisms' between their objects. Then, the original assignment is given by reflection to $mathcal B$, so that all target objects are equally presented this way.
– Berci
Sep 4 '16 at 23:10
@Berci, I am trying to understand what you want to say and which question you answer. Limit functor sends functors of type A->B, where A,B-categories to objects of B, am I right? It sends natural transformations to morphisms between limits in B, am I right? (I didn't understand the rest. I also edited my post by adding answer to 4th question, is it ok?)
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:13
Every functor induces two profunctors. (Which are "cocontrabifunctor" and "contracobifunctor" :-) )
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:39
I didn't aim to answer your question, only wanted to reason about why - if not - the theory of anafunctors is not very well developed. Actually, you can choose either profunctor of any given functor. What I meant by cograph is written here: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/…. In the cograph category, the image of an object appears as a [co-]reflection of the object, and if we take all [co-]reflection arrows, we get sth very similar to a saturated anafunctor.
– Berci
Sep 5 '16 at 21:59
1
A $(1,0)$-category is just a groupoid, isn't it? (Which sets aren't).
– neth
Sep 6 '16 at 23:54
To see 'all possible values' of a functor $mathcal Atomathcal B$ (such as a limit functor) at once, we can also use its induced profunctor $mathcal A^optimesmathcal BtomathcalSet$ with its cograph category which disjointly contain $mathcal A$ and $mathcal B$ and 'heteromorphisms' between their objects. Then, the original assignment is given by reflection to $mathcal B$, so that all target objects are equally presented this way.
– Berci
Sep 4 '16 at 23:10
To see 'all possible values' of a functor $mathcal Atomathcal B$ (such as a limit functor) at once, we can also use its induced profunctor $mathcal A^optimesmathcal BtomathcalSet$ with its cograph category which disjointly contain $mathcal A$ and $mathcal B$ and 'heteromorphisms' between their objects. Then, the original assignment is given by reflection to $mathcal B$, so that all target objects are equally presented this way.
– Berci
Sep 4 '16 at 23:10
@Berci, I am trying to understand what you want to say and which question you answer. Limit functor sends functors of type A->B, where A,B-categories to objects of B, am I right? It sends natural transformations to morphisms between limits in B, am I right? (I didn't understand the rest. I also edited my post by adding answer to 4th question, is it ok?)
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:13
@Berci, I am trying to understand what you want to say and which question you answer. Limit functor sends functors of type A->B, where A,B-categories to objects of B, am I right? It sends natural transformations to morphisms between limits in B, am I right? (I didn't understand the rest. I also edited my post by adding answer to 4th question, is it ok?)
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:13
Every functor induces two profunctors. (Which are "cocontrabifunctor" and "contracobifunctor" :-) )
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:39
Every functor induces two profunctors. (Which are "cocontrabifunctor" and "contracobifunctor" :-) )
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:39
I didn't aim to answer your question, only wanted to reason about why - if not - the theory of anafunctors is not very well developed. Actually, you can choose either profunctor of any given functor. What I meant by cograph is written here: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/…. In the cograph category, the image of an object appears as a [co-]reflection of the object, and if we take all [co-]reflection arrows, we get sth very similar to a saturated anafunctor.
– Berci
Sep 5 '16 at 21:59
I didn't aim to answer your question, only wanted to reason about why - if not - the theory of anafunctors is not very well developed. Actually, you can choose either profunctor of any given functor. What I meant by cograph is written here: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/…. In the cograph category, the image of an object appears as a [co-]reflection of the object, and if we take all [co-]reflection arrows, we get sth very similar to a saturated anafunctor.
– Berci
Sep 5 '16 at 21:59
1
1
A $(1,0)$-category is just a groupoid, isn't it? (Which sets aren't).
– neth
Sep 6 '16 at 23:54
A $(1,0)$-category is just a groupoid, isn't it? (Which sets aren't).
– neth
Sep 6 '16 at 23:54
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
As stated in the comments, $Set$ is not a groupoid (which is what we mean by (1,0)-category) unless we ask it to be.
I'm not sure what this means, but anafunctors are certain spans of functors, $CxleftarrowJ C' xrightarrowF D$, and every functor $G$ gives rise to a canonical functor $Cxleftarrowid C xrightarrowG D$. The functor $J$ is surjective on objects and fully faithful, and the set of objects $c'$ of $C'$ in the preimage of a given object $x$ of $C$ give rise to a set of objects $F(c')$ in $D$, all of which are isomorphic, and which Makkai calls the possible values of $F$ at $c$ (think of the limit of a diagram for instance: it is not unique, but all such limits are isomorphic, and any of them will do).
Small categories, anafunctors and transformations form a bicategory (not strict!), which is not a (2,1)-category, unless we throw away all the non-invertible 2-arrows. If you take small groupoids, anafunctors and transformations, then it is a (non-strict) (2,1)-category, purely because all natural transformations involving groupoids are invertible.
Even ignoring the size distinctions (which are not important, but you have been specifying small categories until now), $Set$ is not equivalent to $Set^op$ in the bicategory of categories, anafunctors and transformations, as (for instance) $Set$ is a(n elementary) topos and $Set^op$ is not, and the property of being a topos is invariant under equivalence (even in the anafunctor setting).
One place to read about anafunctors in a slightly more general setting is in my paper Internal categories, anafunctors and localisations, but the construction goes back to Makkai's paper Avoiding the axiom of choice in general category theory, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 108 issue 2 (1996) pp 109-173, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4049(95)00029-1, in the case of ordinary categories and to Toby Bartel's thesis Higher Gauge Theory I: 2-Bundles https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0410328, for internal categories. There are more references at the nLab page on anafunctors.
answered Aug 17 at 3:53
David Roberts
1,180726
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
As stated in the comments, $Set$ is not a groupoid (which is what we mean by (1,0)-category) unless we ask it to be.
I'm not sure what this means, but anafunctors are certain spans of functors, $CxleftarrowJ C' xrightarrowF D$, and every functor $G$ gives rise to a canonical functor $Cxleftarrowid C xrightarrowG D$. The functor $J$ is surjective on objects and fully faithful, and the set of objects $c'$ of $C'$ in the preimage of a given object $x$ of $C$ give rise to a set of objects $F(c')$ in $D$, all of which are isomorphic, and which Makkai calls the possible values of $F$ at $c$ (think of the limit of a diagram for instance: it is not unique, but all such limits are isomorphic, and any of them will do).
Small categories, anafunctors and transformations form a bicategory (not strict!), which is not a (2,1)-category, unless we throw away all the non-invertible 2-arrows. If you take small groupoids, anafunctors and transformations, then it is a (non-strict) (2,1)-category, purely because all natural transformations involving groupoids are invertible.
Even ignoring the size distinctions (which are not important, but you have been specifying small categories until now), $Set$ is not equivalent to $Set^op$ in the bicategory of categories, anafunctors and transformations, as (for instance) $Set$ is a(n elementary) topos and $Set^op$ is not, and the property of being a topos is invariant under equivalence (even in the anafunctor setting).
One place to read about anafunctors in a slightly more general setting is in my paper Internal categories, anafunctors and localisations, but the construction goes back to Makkai's paper Avoiding the axiom of choice in general category theory, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 108 issue 2 (1996) pp 109-173, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4049(95)00029-1, in the case of ordinary categories and to Toby Bartel's thesis Higher Gauge Theory I: 2-Bundles https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0410328, for internal categories. There are more references at the nLab page on anafunctors.
answered Aug 17 at 3:53
David Roberts
1,180726
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As stated in the comments, $Set$ is not a groupoid (which is what we mean by (1,0)-category) unless we ask it to be.
I'm not sure what this means, but anafunctors are certain spans of functors, $CxleftarrowJ C' xrightarrowF D$, and every functor $G$ gives rise to a canonical functor $Cxleftarrowid C xrightarrowG D$. The functor $J$ is surjective on objects and fully faithful, and the set of objects $c'$ of $C'$ in the preimage of a given object $x$ of $C$ give rise to a set of objects $F(c')$ in $D$, all of which are isomorphic, and which Makkai calls the possible values of $F$ at $c$ (think of the limit of a diagram for instance: it is not unique, but all such limits are isomorphic, and any of them will do).
Small categories, anafunctors and transformations form a bicategory (not strict!), which is not a (2,1)-category, unless we throw away all the non-invertible 2-arrows. If you take small groupoids, anafunctors and transformations, then it is a (non-strict) (2,1)-category, purely because all natural transformations involving groupoids are invertible.
Even ignoring the size distinctions (which are not important, but you have been specifying small categories until now), $Set$ is not equivalent to $Set^op$ in the bicategory of categories, anafunctors and transformations, as (for instance) $Set$ is a(n elementary) topos and $Set^op$ is not, and the property of being a topos is invariant under equivalence (even in the anafunctor setting).
One place to read about anafunctors in a slightly more general setting is in my paper Internal categories, anafunctors and localisations, but the construction goes back to Makkai's paper Avoiding the axiom of choice in general category theory, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 108 issue 2 (1996) pp 109-173, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4049(95)00029-1, in the case of ordinary categories and to Toby Bartel's thesis Higher Gauge Theory I: 2-Bundles https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0410328, for internal categories. There are more references at the nLab page on anafunctors.
answered Aug 17 at 3:53
David Roberts
1,180726
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
As stated in the comments, $Set$ is not a groupoid (which is what we mean by (1,0)-category) unless we ask it to be.
I'm not sure what this means, but anafunctors are certain spans of functors, $CxleftarrowJ C' xrightarrowF D$, and every functor $G$ gives rise to a canonical functor $Cxleftarrowid C xrightarrowG D$. The functor $J$ is surjective on objects and fully faithful, and the set of objects $c'$ of $C'$ in the preimage of a given object $x$ of $C$ give rise to a set of objects $F(c')$ in $D$, all of which are isomorphic, and which Makkai calls the possible values of $F$ at $c$ (think of the limit of a diagram for instance: it is not unique, but all such limits are isomorphic, and any of them will do).
Small categories, anafunctors and transformations form a bicategory (not strict!), which is not a (2,1)-category, unless we throw away all the non-invertible 2-arrows. If you take small groupoids, anafunctors and transformations, then it is a (non-strict) (2,1)-category, purely because all natural transformations involving groupoids are invertible.
Even ignoring the size distinctions (which are not important, but you have been specifying small categories until now), $Set$ is not equivalent to $Set^op$ in the bicategory of categories, anafunctors and transformations, as (for instance) $Set$ is a(n elementary) topos and $Set^op$ is not, and the property of being a topos is invariant under equivalence (even in the anafunctor setting).
One place to read about anafunctors in a slightly more general setting is in my paper Internal categories, anafunctors and localisations, but the construction goes back to Makkai's paper Avoiding the axiom of choice in general category theory, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 108 issue 2 (1996) pp 109-173, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4049(95)00029-1, in the case of ordinary categories and to Toby Bartel's thesis Higher Gauge Theory I: 2-Bundles https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0410328, for internal categories. There are more references at the nLab page on anafunctors.
answered Aug 17 at 3:53
David Roberts
1,180726
As stated in the comments, $Set$ is not a groupoid (which is what we mean by (1,0)-category) unless we ask it to be.
I'm not sure what this means, but anafunctors are certain spans of functors, $CxleftarrowJ C' xrightarrowF D$, and every functor $G$ gives rise to a canonical functor $Cxleftarrowid C xrightarrowG D$. The functor $J$ is surjective on objects and fully faithful, and the set of objects $c'$ of $C'$ in the preimage of a given object $x$ of $C$ give rise to a set of objects $F(c')$ in $D$, all of which are isomorphic, and which Makkai calls the possible values of $F$ at $c$ (think of the limit of a diagram for instance: it is not unique, but all such limits are isomorphic, and any of them will do).
Small categories, anafunctors and transformations form a bicategory (not strict!), which is not a (2,1)-category, unless we throw away all the non-invertible 2-arrows. If you take small groupoids, anafunctors and transformations, then it is a (non-strict) (2,1)-category, purely because all natural transformations involving groupoids are invertible.
Even ignoring the size distinctions (which are not important, but you have been specifying small categories until now), $Set$ is not equivalent to $Set^op$ in the bicategory of categories, anafunctors and transformations, as (for instance) $Set$ is a(n elementary) topos and $Set^op$ is not, and the property of being a topos is invariant under equivalence (even in the anafunctor setting).
One place to read about anafunctors in a slightly more general setting is in my paper Internal categories, anafunctors and localisations, but the construction goes back to Makkai's paper Avoiding the axiom of choice in general category theory, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 108 issue 2 (1996) pp 109-173, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4049(95)00029-1, in the case of ordinary categories and to Toby Bartel's thesis Higher Gauge Theory I: 2-Bundles https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0410328, for internal categories. There are more references at the nLab page on anafunctors.
answered Aug 17 at 3:53
David Roberts
1,180726
answered Aug 17 at 3:53
David Roberts
1,180726
answered Aug 17 at 3:53
David Roberts
1,180726
answered Aug 17 at 3:53
David Roberts
1,180726
1,180726
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1911267%2fcategory-of-categories-and-anafunctors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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
To see 'all possible values' of a functor $mathcal Atomathcal B$ (such as a limit functor) at once, we can also use its induced profunctor $mathcal A^optimesmathcal BtomathcalSet$ with its cograph category which disjointly contain $mathcal A$ and $mathcal B$ and 'heteromorphisms' between their objects. Then, the original assignment is given by reflection to $mathcal B$, so that all target objects are equally presented this way.
– Berci
Sep 4 '16 at 23:10
@Berci, I am trying to understand what you want to say and which question you answer. Limit functor sends functors of type A->B, where A,B-categories to objects of B, am I right? It sends natural transformations to morphisms between limits in B, am I right? (I didn't understand the rest. I also edited my post by adding answer to 4th question, is it ok?)
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:13
Every functor induces two profunctors. (Which are "cocontrabifunctor" and "contracobifunctor" :-) )
– First Last
Sep 5 '16 at 18:39
I didn't aim to answer your question, only wanted to reason about why - if not - the theory of anafunctors is not very well developed. Actually, you can choose either profunctor of any given functor. What I meant by cograph is written here: ncatlab.org/nlab/show/…. In the cograph category, the image of an object appears as a [co-]reflection of the object, and if we take all [co-]reflection arrows, we get sth very similar to a saturated anafunctor.
– Berci
Sep 5 '16 at 21:59
1
A $(1,0)$-category is just a groupoid, isn't it? (Which sets aren't).
– neth
Sep 6 '16 at 23:54