Timeline for Coherence theorem for symmetric lax monoidal functors
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2016 at 23:59 | history | edited | Mike Shulman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
more missing "symmetric"s.
|
| Jul 12, 2016 at 17:09 | comment | added | Bruno Stonek | Thanks. One more question: when you say "Similarly, a strong symmetric monoidal morphism..." you mean a strong symmetric morphism of symmetric pseudomonoids, right? (I believe a couple of "symmetric" are still missing in that last part, by the way!). Sorry for the silly questions, I haven't dealt with these concepts before. | |
| Jul 11, 2016 at 22:48 | history | edited | Mike Shulman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added missing adjectives "symmetric"
|
| Jul 11, 2016 at 22:47 | comment | added | Mike Shulman | Yes, a symmetric pseudomonoid, fixed. I've never heard anyone say "lax transformation" in the monoidal case; monoidal functors can be lax or oplax, but there is no room for monoidal transformations to be lax or oplax; they are just monoidal. Here I'm talking about (op)lax transformations between 2-functors. | |
| Jul 11, 2016 at 18:19 | comment | added | Bruno Stonek | Thanks a lot for your reply. I'm a bit confused by your last paragraph. When you say "a lax symmetric monoidal functor can be identified with a pseudomonoid", do you mean a symmetric pseudomonoid? What do you mean by "oplax transformation" in this context? (I'm only aware of (op)lax transformations between (op)lax monoidal functors between monoidal categories) | |
| Jul 1, 2016 at 4:50 | history | answered | Mike Shulman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |