Timeline for Is the category of spherical fusion categories regular? (i.e. is image factorisation possible?)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 7, 2015 at 16:15 | answer | added | Manuel Bärenz | timeline score: 2 | |
| Mar 18, 2014 at 16:17 | comment | added | Manuel Bärenz | @NoahSnyder, so I guess I'm fine with strict monoidal spherical categories, those should form a category, right? | |
| Mar 18, 2014 at 16:12 | history | edited | Manuel Bärenz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Mar 17, 2014 at 22:57 | comment | added | Manuel Bärenz | Ah yes, otherwise two monoidal functors don't compose to a monoidal functor, right? Sorry, in that case I'm not sure what my question is. What is a suitable definition of image factorisation in 2-categories? I probably mean strict monoidal then. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 22:15 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | There's a 2-category of tensor categories, tensor functors, and tensor natural transformations. You're talking about a 1-category, so do you mean tensor functors up to natural isomorphism? | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 20:14 | comment | added | Manuel Bärenz | Is the composite of two spherical functors not spherical again? (I'm not referring to spherical fusion cats, bimodule cats and module functors here.) Also I don't know when to call two functors equivalent. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 20:02 | comment | added | Noah Snyder | Do you mean functors up to equivalence? Otherwise it's a 2-category, not a category. | |
| Mar 17, 2014 at 19:05 | history | asked | Manuel Bärenz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |