5
$\begingroup$

$\require{AMScd}$I have the feeling that there is a connection between the existence of a Kan extension in a 2-category ($\bf Cat$ will be sufficient) and a 2-dimensional notion of orthogonality.

Given $$\begin{CD} A @>f>> B \\ @VgVV @.\\ C \end{CD}$$ the existence of $h = lan_gf : C \to B$ still "solves the lifting problem" or "shows that $B$ if $g$-local" (according to your preferred terminology), but only in a weak sense, because $\eta : f \to hg$ is in general neither an identity, nor invertible (although it is still universal).

I am reinforced in this feeling by a few examples:

  1. here https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.06469 lax orthogonal factorization systems are defined, and although the 2-dimensional aspect is kept to a bare minimum (hom-categories are simply posets), lax orthogonality is defined exactly via an extension property (see first lines of page 2);
  2. In this paper "(ptwise) cocomplete 0-cells" $X$ are defined as those objects of a 2-category $\cal K$ that admit all (ptwise) left extensions; the class of all these $X$'s is treated, there, exactly the same way as an orthogonal class (with the aim to prove, under surprisingly mild assumptions, that it is 2-reflective, i.e. that "cocompletions exist").
  3. In the diagram $$\begin{CD} A @>f>> B \\ @VgVV @.\\ C \end{CD}$$ of morphisms in a 1-category, orthogonality is attained precisely if $g^*=\hom(g,B)$ is invertible. Here, the (say, left) Kan extension of $f$ along $g$ exists if $g^*$ has a left adjoint.

So,

How do I make precise this intuition? How do I ground it on these examples? Does the notion of weak orthogonality, of which "being $g$-local" is a particular case, coincide with the lax orthogonality defined in the first paper (in such a way that, say $lan_g$ exists when $B\to *$ is right lax orthogonal to $g$)?

$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand your (3). When a 1-category is regarded as a 2-category with only identity 2-cells, it seems to me that a Kan extension exists iff there is a unique morphism $C\to B$ making the triangle commute. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, indeed: the condition $g\perp B$ is equal to the existence of the left Kan extension. 2-discreteness gives uniqueness of $C\to B$ for free, right? $\endgroup$
    – fosco
    Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 18:05
  • $\begingroup$ Right, I guess. I think I don't even know what you mean by $\hom(g,B)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 21:34
  • $\begingroup$ Well, hom(g,B) is the function of sets $\hom(C,B) \to \hom(A,B)$ between the homs in a category, and the category of 1-cells thereof, in a 2-category. I guess my question is: why nobody mentions this? Who comes first, is orthogonality a Kan extension, or rather Kan extension is a weak orthogonality conditions? (I agree I'd have to formulate a precise question to hope for a precise answer, yes (-: ) $\endgroup$
    – fosco
    Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 23:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You have a funny way of asking questions, as if it were someone else's obligation to have already explored all potentially interesting parts of mathematics. If I had to guess, I would guess that "lax factorization systems" are sufficiently different from ordinary ones that the underlying structures have mainly been studied under other names, such as pointwise cocomplete objects, etc. You might also be interested in algebraic weak factorization systems ncatlab.org/nlab/show/algebraic+weak+factorization+system . $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18, 2018 at 17:39

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

My impression is that this is essentially the topic of Di Liberti–Lobbia–Sousa's KZ-pseudomonads and Kan Injectivity. Connections to lax orthogonal factorisation systems have been explored in unpublished work by Bourke and Walker (see Walker's slides Characterizations of lax orthogonal factorization systems).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Connections to lax orthogonal factorization systems are more precisely what Fosco is looking for, and I wish someone would have explored them (in a paper). $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2 at 18:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .