Timeline for Is there an example of two strict monoidal categories which are (monoidally) equivalent, but not strictly?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2019 at 19:56 | vote | accept | user1162101 | ||
| Sep 13, 2019 at 20:47 | comment | added | Kevin Carlson | Should've included a reference: arxiv.org/pdf/1112.1448.pdf, and above I should have said that the semi-flexibles are those strictly monoidally equivalent to the true flexibles. | |
| Sep 13, 2019 at 20:26 | comment | added | Kevin Carlson | Regarding your question, such monoidal categories are (by definition) the semi-flexible ones, which are (by a theorem) those monoidally equivalent to a truly flexible one. A flexible monoidal category is one cofibrant for the canonical model structure constructed by Lack, equivalently, one for which $F(C)\to C$ admits a strict monoidal section, which is automatically an equivalence inverse as $F(C)\to C$ is fully faithful. | |
| Sep 13, 2019 at 16:02 | history | answered | Simon Henry | CC BY-SA 4.0 |