MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In the second half of the section "Operations with Natural Transformations" of the wikipedia article on natural transformations, they define the operation taking a natural tranformation $\eta:F\to G$ in the functor category $Cat(C,D)$ and functor $H:D\to E$ which produces a new natural transformation $(H\circ F)\to (H\circ G)$ in $Cat(C,E)$ by applying the functor to every coordinate of the original natural transformation. This operation frequently comes up in the definition of an adjunction.

Does this operation have a name? It's not the "Godement multiplication", but might be related to it.

Is there an agreed-upon symbol for this operation, other than juxtaposition?

(Minor rant: I think that using juxtaposition for this operation is a horribly cruel thing to do to people learning category theory. Juxtaposition is already used for composition of morphisms -- and therefore for composition of functors-with-functors and naturaltransformations-with-naturaltransformations, since they too are the morphisms in $Cat$ and functor categories, respectively. Recycling juxtaposition yet again for this (non-associative!) operation on functors and natural transformations is just asking for trouble.)

share|cite|improve this question
This operation is associative. – Toby Bartels Aug 22 '11 at 17:49
@Toby, associativity is generally considered to be a property of binary operations whose arguments are of the same sort, so (ab)*c=a*(bc) is a well-sorted equation. However, in this case, the arguments are of different sorts (one is a functor, one is a natural transformation). What extension of the usual meaning of associativity do you have in mind here? – Adam Aug 22 '11 at 18:53
The definition of associativity I usually use in this case is "you can write a string of symbols without ambiguity". E.g. I might say that vector-space scalar multiplication is associative because if I see abv it doesn't matter whether I interpret that as two scalar multiplications or scalar multiplication by a product. – Ben Millwood May 21 '13 at 9:07
up vote 18 down vote accepted

It's called "whiskering" -- the 1-cells/functors composed on either side of the 2-cell/transformation look like "whiskers". See for example page 14 of this paper. This terminology is pretty widespread in the categorical community.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you so much! Exactly what I was hoping for. – Adam Oct 2 '10 at 4:48

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.