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

The yoga of categorification has gained a lot of popularity in recent years, and some techniques for it have made a lot of progress. It's well-understood that, for example, a ring is probably categorified by a monoidal abelian (or triangulated) category.

But I get a little more confused another step up. If I have a braided tensor category, what sort of 2-category should I expect to categorify it?

Edit: I realized this wasn't the right question to ask; what I really wanted to know is What structure on a monoidal category would make its 2-category of module categories monoidal and braided?

share|cite|improve this question
When you say "a ring is probably categorified by a monoidal category" I assume you mean by a monoidal additive category? Plain monoidal categories just categorify monoids. – Mike Shulman Nov 9 '09 at 2:01
Ring ~ monoidal category is close to the kind of categorification I am most interested in, but unfortunately I have no idea how to continue to the next step. – Reid Barton Nov 9 '09 at 2:26
Perhaps the more interesting question is, given a braided 2-category and a braided category, how does one justify the claim that one is a categorification of the other? – S. Carnahan Nov 9 '09 at 16:52

I'd guess you want braided monoidal (i.e. 2-monoidal) 2-category based on the guess that Grothendieck group moves you one step left on the Baez-Dolan periodic table. That is you want a 4-category with only one object and only one morphism.

share|cite|improve this answer

As Noah mentioned, you want a braided 2-category, or roughly equivalently, a 4-category with one object (i.e., one 0-morphism) and one 1-morphism. Under this translation, objects in the braided category become 2-endomorphisms of the 1-morphism, and the braided monoidal structure is given by the composition law for 2-endomorphisms, which should admit a canonical action of the E[2]-operad (assuming you chose a good model for n-categories).

I think the usual decategorification process involves removing all non-invertible morphisms above level n, and (if you don't believe in infinity-categories) collapsing isomorphism classes of n-morphisms to points. I may be missing some subtleties in the abelian/enriched situation, as it's been a while since I've read Baez-Dolan. In your case, n=3, so you can repeat the first sentence in this paragraph with the appropriate substitution. In the braided language (shifting down by 2), this means you remove the non-invertible 2-morphisms and contract the isomorphism classes of maps to be single maps. If your braided category was weak, this strictifies composition of 1-morphisms.

share|cite|improve this answer

The free braided monoidal 2-category with duals on one self-dual object generator is the 2-category of 2-tangles. The original proof of Fisher had a gap, in part, because he relied on the original movie-move theorem. In our abstract, there was a slight mis-statement about the meaning of "movie" in that context. The error was fixed in CRS, and then Baez Langford gave a precise characterization of a free braided monoidal 2-category with duals.

Ben's question might be along the lines of using Lauda-Khovanov construction to construct a representation theory of the categorification of $u^+(sl(2))$ for example. Arron spoke about this in Riverside on Saturday morning. According to Arron's slides, there was hope that such representations can give a BM2Catw/D.

Is anyone working on giving an explicit "other" braided monoidal 2-cat w/ duals?

share|cite|improve this answer
That's exactly what I'm interested in, though I think in retrospect this was the wrong question to ask. – Ben Webster Nov 9 '09 at 23:52

I have a lot I would like to say about this, but it's not really in any coherent form in my head, so I'll content myself to one comment without justification: as the first step, I believe you will need to repeat the process that takes us from the natural numbers to the integers and from the category of R-modules to its derived category, applying it to the category of [whatever you think of as categorifying an R-module]s.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.