Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

4

3

In every $n$-category (weak or strict) can be defined the concept of equivalence via a recursive definition: * an equivalence in a set ($0$-category) is just an identity; * for each $n \in \mathbb N$ an equivalence between two object (or $0$-cell), let say $a$ and $b$, in a $n+1$-category is just a $1$-cell $f \colon a \to b$ such that exist a $1$-cell $g \colon b \to a$ and two $2$-cells $\alpha \colon g \circ f \to 1_a$ and $\beta \colon f \circ g \to 1_b$ which are equivalence into the $n$-categories $\hom(g\circ f, 1_a)$ and $\hom(f \circ g, 1_b)$ respectively. There is a good formal definition of equivalence also for $\infty$-category?

flag	asked Jun 7 2011 at 16:14 Giorgio Mossa 1,387●1●6●15

Todd Trimble · Accepted Answer · 2011-06-07 16:47:47Z UTC

7

For some precise definitions and results, see this paper by Eugenia Cheng.

answered Jun 7 2011 at 16:47

Todd Trimble
22.3k●1●62●96

	To be honest, I think that paper is seriously misleading. Her "Unsound definition" 5 is actually a perfectly sound definition; you just have to interpret it coinductively. Unfortunately, coinductive definitions don't seem to be as widely known as inductive ones. – Mike Shulman Jun 8 2011 at 16:25
	That's interesting. But offhand, "seriously misleading" sounds like a pretty strong way to put it, as if the paper is invalid somehow. (I believe the paper predates Eugenia's involvement with corecursive definitions of $\infty$-categories. Aside from the label "unsound definition", is there anything actually wrong with the paper?) – Todd Trimble Jun 8 2011 at 17:57
	I'm sorry if I came on too strong. I didn't mean to say there was anything wrong with the paper; it's a very nice paper overall! I just meant that specifically in the context of the question "how to define equivalences in ∞-categories?", I think it is a misleading reference to give. To my mind, the best definition is actually the coinductive one, which that paper asserts to be unsound. – Mike Shulman Jun 19 2011 at 22:46
	Ouch. :-) Could you provide a better reference, then? – Todd Trimble Jun 19 2011 at 23:12
	I hope that Eugenia, if she is reading this, won't take offense at my comment. The fact that coinductive definitions are meaningful seems generally to be a secret well-kept by computer scientists and rarely taught to mathematicians. I only fairly recently learned it myself. In fact I learned it by reading a coinductive definition of infinity-equivalence, thinking "that's nonsense", and going to look it up and finding out that it wasn't! – Mike Shulman Jun 20 2011 at 3:32

show 6 more comments

Mike Shulman · Answer 2 · 2011-06-20 03:28:31Z UTC

4

A concise coinductive definition can be found, for the case of strict ∞-categories, in the paper "A folk model structure on omega-cat", arXiv. This can be unraveled in order to become equivalent to Eugenia's more explicit version.

answered Jun 20 2011 at 3:28

Mike Shulman
17.2k●20●70

	This is very interesting! Presumably you can unroll the coinduction to make a definition in terms of the existence of an infinite binary tree of higher morphisms (although I don't know if this is a useful thing to do). – S. Carnahan♦ Jun 20 2011 at 10:20
	Yes, as I said, this version can be unraveled into Eugenia's. Perhaps (probably?) for some applications this would be useful. – Mike Shulman Jun 20 2011 at 22:06

Equivalence in $\infty$-categories

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

2 Answers

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.