Timeline for Are strict higher categories more general than weak higher categories?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 27 at 5:47 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jul 26 at 23:04 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed capitals, removed tag
|
| Jul 26 at 22:21 | answer | added | Achim Krause | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jul 26 at 22:20 | comment | added | user509184 | @PanMrož There is a nice concise discussion of the difference in generality between weak higher categories and strict higher categories, and motivating examples of weak higher categories which fail to be strict, in Leinster's "Higher Operads, Higher Categories" book, in the "Alert" remark on pg. xv (page 23 in the arXiv PDF): arxiv.org/pdf/math/0305049 | |
| Jul 26 at 22:09 | comment | added | Pan Mrož | why the downvotes? I am just trying to understand the topic | |
| Jul 26 at 21:57 | comment | added | Pan Mrož | but can we explicitly defined what kind of morphisms we want level by level in weak higher categories? | |
| Jul 26 at 21:55 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | It is exactly the opposite; strict higher categories are much less general and they express much less. Famously there is no strict $3$-groupoid which models the homotopy $3$-type of $S^2$ (mathoverflow.net/questions/269172/…). | |
| Jul 26 at 21:47 | history | asked | Pan Mrož | CC BY-SA 4.0 |