3
$\begingroup$

I'm looking for an opinion if the following makes sense.

A linear representation of a groupoid $\mathcal{G}$ is a functor $$\nabla: \mathcal{G}\longrightarrow \mathsf{Vect}_{\mathbb K},$$ where $\mathsf{Vect}_{\mathbb K}$ is the category of vector spaces over $\mathbb K$.

I presume we could define analogously a linear 2-representation of a strict $2$-grupoid $2\textrm{-}\mathcal{G}$ as a strict 2-functor:

$$2\textrm{-}\nabla: 2\textrm{-}\mathcal{G}\longrightarrow 2\textrm{-}\mathsf{Vect}_{\mathbb K},$$ where $2\textrm{-}\mathsf{Vect}_{\mathbb K}$ is the $2$-category of 2-vector spaces (the objects are groupoids internal to $\mathsf{Vect}_{\mathbb K}$). I don't know if this definition appears in the literature but I believe it sounds reasonable.

Now, how to make sense of a non-linear version of a 2-representation of a 2-groupoid?

I'm inclined to define a 2-action of a strict $2$-groupoid $2\textrm{-}\mathcal{G}$ is a strict two functor

$$\rho: 2\textrm{-}\mathcal{G}\longrightarrow 2\textrm{-}\mathsf{Grpd},$$ where $2\textrm{-}\mathsf{Grpd}$ is the 2-category of 2-grupoids (the objects are groupoids internal to $\mathsf{Grpd}$).

To me it sounds $2\textrm{-}\mathsf{Grpd}$ must be the non-linear version of $2\textrm{-}\mathsf{Vect}_{\mathbb K}$.

But I'm not quite certain if this is really coeherent with what an action must mean. I believe category theory must provide some prototype of what an action must be in any setting and I should follow that, but that is beyond my categorical knowledge.

To be precise, my question is, is it "right" to define a 2-action of a strict 2-groupoid as strict 2-functor $\rho: 2\textrm{-}\mathcal{G}\longrightarrow 2\textrm{-}\mathsf{Grpd}$?

I'm looking for arguments which could support it is "natural" to make such definition.

Thanks.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ When do such things occur? I'm very curious. $\endgroup$ – Yosemite Sam Mar 3 '18 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ When you try to integrate some objects which appear in the context of Lie algebroids, VB-algebroids, etc. For example, in this pre-print arxiv.org/pdf/1608.00664.pdf the authors integrate VB-algebroids using strict 2-functors. For me, it appears when I try to integrate non-linear versions of VB-algebroids. $\endgroup$ – PtF Mar 3 '18 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ There's a general account of actions by infinity-groups (ncatlab.org/nlab/show/infinity-action) and indeed infinity-groupoids (ncatlab.org/nlab/show/groupoid+infinity-action). $\endgroup$ – David Corfield Mar 3 '18 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ I think allowing homomorphisms of 2-categories will lead to lead to more examples. $\endgroup$ – David Roberts Mar 5 '18 at 8:51
2
$\begingroup$

A few years ago I collected some results from

in a short beamer that you can find here. It is completely expository (it might have a considerable amount of errors in it!)

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

For information: As 2-groups are equivalent to crossed modules, you could do a google search for representation theory of those. There is a thesis from Bangor by Forrester-Barker which looked at the linear representation theory of such and other people have explored that as well. One such is an AMS memoir: Infinite-Dimensional Representations of 2-Groups by John Baez, Aristide Baratin, Laurent Freidel, Derek K. Wise, which should be useful.

You could look at 2-actions of a 2-groupoid on any 2-category, and in particular on 2-groupoids. There are links with 2-stacks of 2-groupoids, and that is a very interesting area.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I appreciate your answer =) $\endgroup$ – PtF Mar 4 '18 at 22:13
1
$\begingroup$

Here are some suggestions on this matter.

In this area one should be aware that there are equivalences of categories

(crossed modules of groupoids) $\sim$ ($2$-groupoids) $\sim$ (double groupoids with connections)

and one has to consider in which of these one should try to formulate results.

In the paper "Modelling and computing homotopy types: I" the distinction is made between "Narrow" and "Broad" algebraic models, and their uses, and for this comparison $2$-groupoids are between the two.

In this paper we (Mackenzie and RB) define actions of a double groupoid on a groupoid, and this seems easily extendable to actions of an $n$-fold groupoid on an $(n-1)$-fold groupoid.

The book Nonabelian Algebraic Topology (NAT) defines cubical $\omega$-groupoids, and it also gives a cubical Dold-Kan theorem. So from chain complexes of vector spaces over $\mathbb K$ one gets a category $\omega$-$\mathsf{Vect}_{\mathbb K}$; so one can start to consider "representations".

There is evidence that such discussions in a globular setting, i.e. in terms of $n$-categories, would be more awkward. Certainly I have found them so. That is why the book NAT strongly uses cubical methods.

These ideas are not well worked out, but I hope give some possibilities.

$\endgroup$

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.