2-limits and 2-terminal objects are too different

DOI10.1007/S10485-022-09691-ZMaRDI QIDQ2105679zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Tslil Clingman, Lyne Moser

Publication date 8 December 2022

Published in Applied Categorical Structures (Search for Journal in Brave)

Copyright license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.01313

zbMATH Keywords

2-dimensional limits2-dimensional terminal objectsslice 2-categories

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Definitions and generalizations in theory of categories (18A05) Functor categories, comma categories (18A25) Limits and colimits (products, sums, directed limits, pushouts, fiber products, equalizers, kernels, ends and coends, etc.) (18A30) 2-categories, bicategories, double categories (18N10)

Abstract: In ordinary category theory, limits are known to be equivalent to terminal objects in the slice category of cones. In this paper, we prove that the 2-categorical analogues of this theorem relating 2-limits and 2-terminal objects in the various choices of slice 2-categories of 2-cones are false. Furthermore we show that, even when weakening the 2-cones to pseudo- or lax-natural transformations, or considering bi-type limits and bi-terminal objects, there is still no such correspondence.

Review text

It is well known in ordinary category theory that limits are equivalent to terminal objects in the slice category of cones. The principal objective in this paper is to show by counter-examples that the \(2\)-categorical analogues of the theorem relating \(2\)-limits and \(2\)-terminal objects in various choices of slice \(2\)-categories of \(2\)-cones fail, even if relaxing the \(2\)-cones to pseudo- or lax-natural transformations or considering bi-type limits and bi-terminal objects. The synopsis of the paper goes as follows. \begin{itemize} \item[\S 2] introduces the notions of \(2\)-limits and strict-slices of \(2\)-cones, establishing that a \(2\)-limit is always \(2\)-terminal in the strict-slice of \(2\)-cones while providing a counter-example against the converse. \item[\S 3] turns to the larger \(2\)-categories of pseudo- and lax-slicees of \(2\)-cones, demonstrating by counter-examples that \(2\)-limits are in fact unrelated to \(2\)-terminal objects in these. \item[\S 4] introduces pseudo- and lax-limits, investigating their relationships with \(2\)-terminal objects in the different slices. \item[\S 5] addresses the case of bi-type limits, showing that these are particularly always bi-terminal in the pseudo-slice of appropriate cones and adapting the results obtained for the \(2\)-type cases to the bi-type cases. \end{itemize}

Recommendations

• Bilimits are bifinal objects
• Flexible limits for 2-categories
• Elementary observations on 2-categorical limits
• Limits for lax morphisms
• Bi-initial objects and bi-representations are not so different

Cites work

• A 2-categories companion
• A notion of limit for enriched categories
• Bi-initial objects and bi-representations are not so different
• Elementary observations on 2-categorical limits
• Enriched categories, internal categories and change of base
• Higher dimensional categories. From double to multiple categories
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3751225 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3567036 (Why is no real title available?)
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1389226 (Why is no real title available?)
• Limits indexed by category-valued 2-functors

Cited in

(5)

• Bilimits are bifinal objects
• 2-final 2-functors
• Elementary observations on 2-categorical limits
• Yoneda lemma and representation theorem for double categories
• Thomason's colimit theorem for the double category of elements

This page was built for publication: 2-limits and 2-terminal objects are too different

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2105679)