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


I would like to know whether there is a standard name for the following "slice" category: Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a 2-category and $c \in \mathcal{C}$ an object of $\mathcal{C}$. We can form the category where an object $(d,f)$ is a pair of an object $d\in\mathcal{C}$ and an arrow $f : d\to c$. A morphism $(h, \alpha)$ from $(d,f)$ to $(e,g)$ is given by $h : d \to e$ and a 2-cell $\alpha : f \Rightarrow g \circ h$.

Thanks a lot, ben

[Edit: fixed typo mentioned by Martin]

share|cite|improve this question
I expect that you mean $h : d \to e$. Well I think that this is just the correct notion of slice category in the context of $2$-categories. I would call it (and actually have called it in one of my texts) slice category and denote it by $C / c$. – Martin Brandenburg Jun 24 '11 at 12:47

See this answer to much the same question. I would call this the 'lax' slice category, although it's not so common a notion that everyone would know what you meant, so maybe you should keep the scare quotes around 'lax'.

A propos of Martin's comment, the correct notion of slice 2-category depends on what you're doing -- you might want the strict version, with strictly commuting triangles, or the pseudo version, with invertible 2-cells (this is the strictest one that makes sense for non-strict 2-categories), or this lax version. Or you might want to restrict to (discrete) (op)fibrations as objects.

share|cite|improve this answer
You're right, there is some ambiguity. But instead of introducing an extra notion for the case where everything invertible, I would just use $(C/c)_{cart}$ with the above definition of $C/c$. – Martin Brandenburg Jun 24 '11 at 15:56
I don't think there's any real ambiguity -- what I meant is that there's more than one sensible notion of 'slice 2-category', and which one is correct depends on what you want it for. But yes, they're all contained in the lax slice, so you could take that as fundamental. – Finn Lawler Jun 24 '11 at 18:37
I feel fairly strongly that the unqualified term "slice 2-category" should refer to the pseudo version. Lax objects are generally less well-behaved and less fundamental than pseudo ones, and while they have specialized uses, the central role in the theory is usually played by the pseudo version. – Mike Shulman Jun 24 '11 at 21:32

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.