Skip to main content
2 of 4
added 88 characters in body
Sridhar Ramesh
  • 5.8k
  • 1
  • 34
  • 45

Intuition for effects of "weak" vs. "strict" categories in Eckmann-Hilton arguments

A standard example for demonstrating the need for genuinely weak n-categories is that a weak 3-category with unique 0- and 1-cells amounts to the same thing as a braided monoidal category (by an Eckmann-Hilton argument), but were one to use a strict 3-category instead, this would automatically become a fortiori symmetric. In trying to get a better intuition for "the right notion" of weak categories (this is still unsettled, right?), I was wondering if anyone could give me a good intuition for what step in the argument for symmetry in the strict case we want to fail in the weak case and why. [I suppose this amounts to more generally giving a good intuition for what higher-dimensional coherence isomorphisms we should refrain from demanding to exist in the definition of weak categories, and why, but this example seems in particular like a usefully illustrative introductory context]

Sridhar Ramesh
  • 5.8k
  • 1
  • 34
  • 45