3
$\begingroup$

A strict action of a strict 2-group (seen as 2-category with only one object $\star$) $\mathcal{G}$ on a 2-space (principally a category) $\mathcal{M}$ is a strict 2-functor $\Phi:\mathcal{G}\to \mathsf{DiffCat}$ with:

  • $\Phi(\star) = \mathcal{M}$
  • $\forall g\in\mathcal{G}^{1}: \Phi_{g}:=\Phi(g)$ is a smooth map (principally an endofunctor) $\Phi_{g}:\mathcal{M}\to\mathcal{M}$
  • $\forall h\in\mathcal{G}^{2}$ such that $h:g\Rightarrow g'$, $\Phi_{h}:=\Phi(h)$ is a smooth 2-map (principally a natural transformation) $\Phi_{h}:\Phi_{g}\Rightarrow\Phi_{g'}$

(see for example Transformation Double Categories Associated to 2-Group Actions Def. 3.2)

The automorphism 2-group of $\mathcal{M}$ is, as pointed out in Higher Gauge Theory (page 15), a coherent 2-group $\mathcal{AUT}(\mathcal{M})$ whose morphisms are (smooth) autoequivalences of $\mathcal{M}$, and whose 2-morphisms are (smooth) invertible 2-maps. An autoequivalence $t$ (with weak inverse $\bar{t}$) is less strict than an (strictly) invertible (smooth) functor, in the sens that the strict relation $t\bar{t}=\bar{t}t=id_{\mathcal{M}}$ becomes a mere (smooth, invertible) pair of natural transformations $\tau:t\bar{t}\Rightarrow id_{\mathcal{M}}$ and $\bar{\tau}:\bar{t} t\Rightarrow id_{\mathcal{M}}$.

As I see it, the image of a strict action $\Phi$ as defined above contains not only strictly invertible endofunctors, but also potentially autoequivalences:

  • The existence of strict inverses is ensured by the 2-group action axioms:

$$\Phi_{gg'}=\Phi_{g}\circ\Phi_{g'}$$

       which gives:

$$\Phi_{g}\circ\Phi_{g^{-1}} = \Phi_{e}=id_{\mathcal{M}}$$

  • The existence of weak inverses is implied by the existence of some 2-morphisms of the form:

$$h:gg'\Rightarrow 1$$

       which gives invertible natural transformations:

$$\Phi_{h}:\Phi_{g}\circ\Phi_{g'}\Rightarrow id_{\mathcal{M}}$$

The sctrict inverses will always exist, but the existence of the weak inverses is liable to the existence of 2-morphisms of the form $h:gg'\Rightarrow 1$.

Let $p:E\to B$ a locally trivializable bundle with a cover $\{U_i\}$ of $B$ and typical fiber $F$ (restricting to a trivial base 2-space for the sake of simplicity).

The local triviality of this bundle is encoded in the existence of the following diagram which defines local trivializations $t_i$, and which lives in $\mathsf{Set}$:

enter image description here

and which give the relation:

$$\pi_1\circ t_i = p$$

since the canonical 2-morphisms of $\mathsf{Set}$ (if considered as a 2-category) are all identities.

The categorification of the concept of locally trivializable bundle (the so called 2-bundle) lies (as pointed out in From Loop Space Mechanics to Nonabelian Strings page 46) in the replacement of the above diagram by a diagram living not in $\mathsf{Set}$ but in $\mathsf{Cat}$ (or $\mathsf{DiffCat}$ for smoothness), and since $\mathsf{Cat}$, if considered as a 2-category, possesses non-trivial natural transformations, the precedent equality becomes a mere natural transformation, in the sens that $t_i$ are in fact equivalences with weak inverses $\bar{t_i}:U_i \times F \to E|_{U_i}$, that is, there exists natural transformations $\tau$ and $\bar{\tau}$ such that:

$$\tau:t_i\bar{t_i}\Rightarrow 1$$ $$\bar{\tau}:\bar{t_i}t_i\Rightarrow 1$$

In particular, this means that $\bar{t}$ is also an equivalence, which permits us to construct autoequivalences for double overlaps $U_{ij}$ (Higher Gauge Theory):

$$t_j\bar{t_i}:U_{ij}\times F\to U_{ij}\times F$$

Since this autoequivalence acts trivially on the $U_{ij}$ factor, it will define a function $g_{ij}:U_{ij}\to\mathcal{Aut}(F)$

As defined in Higher Gauge Theory (page 19), a locally trivial 2-bundle $p:E\to B$ is said to have $\mathcal{G}$ as its structure 2-group when, in particular, the transition functions $g_{ij}$ factor through an action $\Phi:\mathcal{G}\to\mathcal{Aut}(F)$

My questions

  • Is all what I said coherent?
  • Does a s̲t̲r̲i̲c̲t̲ action of a s̲t̲r̲i̲c̲t̲ 2-group on a category (or a 2-space) give, inter alia, a̲u̲t̲o̲e̲q̲u̲i̲v̲a̲l̲e̲n̲c̲e̲s̲? Really?
  • If yes, not every 2-group can be the structure 2-group of a given 2-bundle (like for a 1-bundle in fact), but with a higher order condition, namely, the existence of a 2-morphism $h:gg'\Rightarrow 1$ for every pair of morphisms $(g,g')$ that happens to give an autoequivalence (via the 2-group action) on some path $U_i$

old question

I'm stuggling with an issue I found in Baez and Schreiber article "Higher Gauge Theory". They say (pp. 9 line 1)

For the benefit of experts, we should admit that we are only defining ‘strict’ Lie 2-groups

and (definition 16):

A (strict) action of a smooth 2-group $\mathcal{G}$ on a smooth 2-space $F$ is a smooth homomorphism,

$\alpha: \mathcal{G}\rightarrow \mathcal{AUT}(F)$

that is, a smooth map that preserves products and inverses.

However, they also said (pp. 15):

The 2-space $\mathcal{AUT}(F)$ is a kind of a 2-group, with composition of autoequivalences giving the product. However, it is not the sort of 2-group we have been considering here, because it does not have 'strict inverses': the group laws involving inverses do not hold as equations, but only up to specified isomorphisms that satisfy coherence laws of their own. So, $\mathcal{AUT}(F)$ is a 'coherent' smooth Lie group in the sense of Baez and Lauda [12].

My question: the functoriality of the action $\alpha$ should give strict inverses for endofunctors of $F$, not weak ones, because morphisms of $\mathcal{G}$ are in fact isomorphisms (they have strict inverses). Why did these authors say that the action functor will give autoequivalences of $F$? Is there something I missed?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

I could be wrong (it's hard to be sure since the phrase "preserves inverses" is a bit vague), but I think that's why they said they were defining only a strict action. A weak action would only preserve products and inverses up to coherent isomorphism. So I think you are right that a (strict)e action $\alpha$ takes each element of $G$ to an auto-isomorphism rather than merely an autoequivalence. But that doesn't change the fact that $AUT(F)$ contains autoequivalences that are not auto-isomorphisms; they just can't be in the image of a strict action.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Does not the 2-morphism $h:gg'\Rightarrow 1$ give an equivalence $\alpha(g)$ whose weak inverse is $\alpha(g')$ $\endgroup$ – Pedro Jan 25 '16 at 11:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Pedro I don't understand your question. $\endgroup$ – Mike Shulman Jan 25 '16 at 23:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ At first this seemed too obvious to mention, but it sounds like you may be missing the fact that strict inverses are automatically also weak inverses? $\endgroup$ – Mike Shulman Feb 4 '16 at 5:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What I said was that "autoequivalences that are not auto-isomorphisms ... just can't be in the image of a strict action" [emphasis added]. $\endgroup$ – Mike Shulman Feb 4 '16 at 16:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Right, exactly. Although I think your inclusion should be $Im(\Phi) \subseteq Aut_{strict}(F) \subseteq Aut_{weak}(F)$ -- not every strict automorphism is in the image of an action. $\endgroup$ – Mike Shulman Feb 5 '16 at 4:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.