2
$\begingroup$

I essentially understand (I think) how this ought to be done. Algebras in a monoidal 2-category $\mathcal{C}$, on the level of 0-cells and 1-cells, should appear as algebras in the 1-category truncation of $\mathcal{C}$. To lift these 1-level algebras we must of course weaken the usual diagrams and then describe (a zoology of possibly 3-dimensional) diagrams required of these weakening factors. How does one determine which diagrams are the "right" ones?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Algebras in what sense, in the sense of "internal 2-monads"? $\endgroup$ Oct 30, 2010 at 16:13

2 Answers 2

0
$\begingroup$

In a category $\mathscr{C}$ by finite limits you can have inside it all algebraic classical structures, for example about “Monoids” there is a category called “Monoid theory” $Mnd$ (see pioneristic works of Lawvrere) and the category of $\mathscr{C}$- monoids is the category of finite limits preserving $F: Mnd\to \mathscr{C}$, the some for groups, exist the "Groups theory" category “Gr” ecc. (for all one-sort theories the support of any algebric thery category is maked from the dual of $\mathbb{N}$ where any $n\in N$ is the sum of $n$-copies of 1, adding other more morphisms).

How generalizing this to a monoidal category $(\mathscr{C}, \otimes , I)$ ?, simply considering for axample “Mnd” with the canonical monidal structure gived by finite products $\times $ and final object $1$ and considering monoidal functors (strict or no) instead. There is a truble, for the Monoidal or Algebras theory the things go well. This generalization as a big obstrucion, but for example for groups there are the first troubles: for the “inverse propriety" axiom we need to use the finality of $1$ but the monoidal identity $I$ isnt a final object (neither exixt a similar monoidal surrogate). I know that Luca Mauri wrote a Thesi about “Algeraic Theory “ in a Monoidal category.

But you ask abot the supplemetary diagrams about coherence of these laxifications of “Monoidal, algebra ecc. “ objects.

A pseudo/lax-monoid (or pseudo/lax-algebras ecc.) in a monoidal category $\mathscr{C}$ (see it as a bicategory, or more genrally as a tricategory i.e. a braided category) is just a pseudo/lax-functors from $Mod$ to $\mathscr{C}$, and you can find (John W. Gray, Formal category theory: adjointness for 2-categories. Gordon, Power, Street. Coherence for tricategories) in supplement to the structural definition of what a pseudo/lax-funtor is (maked it as maps) also the axioms about the coherence thet these pseudo/lax-funtor (these maps) must satisfing, and these are the coherence axioms you need.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

You are looking for the notion of pseudomonoid. The canonical example of a pseudomonoid is a monoidal category (thought of as sitting in the cartesian monoidal 2-category of categories). You can work out the correct axioms for a pseudomonoid from the axioms for a monoidal category: we have a multiplication $m: \mathcal{M} \otimes \mathcal{M} \to \mathcal{M}$, a unit $e: \mathbf{1} \to \mathcal{M}$, an associator $\alpha: m \circ (m \otimes \mathcal{M}) \Rightarrow m \circ (\mathcal{M} \otimes m)$, left and right unit laws $\lambda: m \circ (e \otimes \mathcal{M}) \Rightarrow \mathcal{M}$ and $\rho: m \circ (\mathcal{M} \otimes e) \Rightarrow \mathcal{M}$, and these data must satisfy two diagrams, the pentagon diagram for four-fold products, and the small diagram relating the left and right units.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Yes this is what I say. In the definition of monoidal category the associator is a natural isomorphism which therefore satisfies further naturality diagrams. The associator in the algebra-object case is simply a 2-cell which in general isn't required to satisfy anything like naturality. I wondered whether extra diagrams ought to have been included to reflect this, diagrams akin to those given in the paper of Kapranov and Voevodsky on quantum Yang-Baxter equations. $\endgroup$ Oct 30, 2010 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ I suggest looking at B. Day, R. Street, Monoidal bicategories and Hopf algebroids, Advances in Mathematics, 129, 1 (1997) 99–157 $\endgroup$ Nov 1, 2010 at 9:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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