Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Mar 20 at 0:00 comment added David White This paper of Michael Ching's from 2005 is relevant: arxiv.org/abs/math/0510490
May 15, 2015 at 18:59 answer added Dmitri Pavlov timeline score: 5
Dec 26, 2013 at 2:14 vote accept ziggurism
Dec 26, 2013 at 2:13 comment added ziggurism Thank you for clarifying, gentlemen. I had thought requiring monoidal product to preserve coproducts would be an unusual requirement, which is why I had to ask. I somehow forgot that this was implied by closedness of the monoidal product, which is a natural for enrichment categories. So obvious in hindsight... thanks again!
Dec 25, 2013 at 20:59 comment added Peter May Quite right, Tom. I did mention taking V to be closed on page 3 of the paper Joe cites and Fernando rightly points out that that fixes everything. I should have assumed that or the distributivity explicitly (as I'm sure I did elsewhere). In all of my applications, V has been closed.
Dec 25, 2013 at 17:09 comment added Tom Leinster I've certainly always assumed this distributivity, and I'm pretty sure it (or something close to it) is needed. If it's not mentioned in that paper of Peter May's, it must just have been a slip on his part.
Dec 25, 2013 at 9:52 comment added Fernando Muro You're completely correct. I've also found such things. The point is that people often consider operads in closed symmetric monoidal categories, hence $\otimes$ preserves $\coprod$. I had wondered about the insistence on closedness. First I thought it was only to define endomorphism operads, but it also solves more subtle problems like the one you point out.
Dec 25, 2013 at 8:39 answer added Dan Petersen timeline score: 5
Dec 25, 2013 at 7:18 history asked ziggurism CC BY-SA 3.0