Let $\cal K$ be a 2-category, and $A$ an object therein. Is there a way to define the "slice object" $A/a$ in $\cal K$ formally (in such a way that if $K = Cat$ we recover precisely the notion of the slice category $A/a$)?

I suggest that if $\cal K$ has comma objects then $A/a = (1_A\downarrow a)$ where $a\colon 1\to A$ is an "element" of $A$ and $1_A$ is the identity.

Is this construction meaningful? If yes, there is a diagram $a\mapsto A/a$ from ${\cal K}(1,A)$ to $\cal K$. What's its colimit (supposing each hom-category is small and $\cal K$ admits this colimit)?


Yes, that's the right way to define "slice objects" in a 2-category. But there's no way to say what the colimit of that diagram is for a general $K$ and $A$. For instance, $A$ might not admit any "global elements" $1\to A$, so that the colimit would be the initial object. Or, if $K$ is a 1-category regarded as a 2-category, then "$A/a$" is the terminal object for all $a$, so your colimit is the coproduct of one copy of the terminal object for each global element of $A$. You might get something more interesting by looking at generalized elements $X\to A$, or at the universal generalized element $1_A : A\to A$, but you'll probably still need some "exactness" conditions on $K$ to be able to say anything.

  • $\begingroup$ This is what I expected, indeed. I just want to have an intuition for this construction, so it's not a problem to stick to more well-behaved $K$'s. So, what are some sufficient conditions on $K$ ensuring that the construction is non-trivial and interesting? $\endgroup$ – fosco Dec 14 '16 at 23:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @FoscoLoregian I kind of feel that that's like asking for sufficient conditions on a 1-category that pullbacks (say) are nontrivial and interesting. Comma objects are a basic notion of 2-category theory; they're probably going to be interesting in any interesting and non-trivial 2-category. If the question is about when objects admit "enough" global elements, then I can't think of much to say except "sometimes"; that by itself is a condition on a 2-category, analogous to well-pointedness" for 1-categories. $\endgroup$ – Mike Shulman Dec 15 '16 at 11:30
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, I like the analogy $\endgroup$ – fosco Dec 15 '16 at 11:54

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.