Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:19 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
Jun 13, 2014 at 1:07 comment added user62675 @ZhenLin Yes, I found Martin Brandenburg's comment here. I forgot to cite it; I apologize for that. I have added it into the answer. Again, I apologize for forgetting to cite it.
Jun 13, 2014 at 1:05 history edited user62675 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 128 characters in body
Jun 13, 2014 at 1:02 comment added Zhen Lin (1) You're quoting Martin Brandenburg. (2) I have yet to see an explicit definition of the so-callled "proper language of categories".
Jun 12, 2014 at 22:42 history edited user62675 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 338 characters in body
Jun 12, 2014 at 22:40 comment added user62675 @QiaochuYuan Strict monoidal categories are not definable in the (proper) language of categories. (Strict monoidal categories belong instead in set theory.) See my edit incorporating that into the answer.
Jun 12, 2014 at 21:55 history edited user62675 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 1 character in body
Jun 12, 2014 at 21:03 comment added Qiaochu Yuan The first statement should be false if not interpreted carefully. For example, it shouldn't be true that you can transport a strict monoidal structure to another strict monoidal structure along an equivalence of categories, although I don't know an explicit counterexample. The analogous statement in homotopy theory is that you shouldn't be able to transport a strictly associative multiplication to another strictly associative multiplication along a homotopy equivalence. So there is really something to check here, namely that the usual definition of a monoidal category is weak enough.
Jun 12, 2014 at 21:02 history edited user62675 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 121 characters in body
Jun 12, 2014 at 20:53 history answered user62675 CC BY-SA 3.0