
Time flies! This June, Peter May and I organized a workshop on ncategories at the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications:
1) nCategories: Foundations and Applications, http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/
I've been meaning to write about it ever since, but I keep putting it off because it would be so much work. The meeting lasted almost two weeks. It was an intense, exhausting affair packed with talks, conversations, and "Russianstyle seminars" where the audience interrupted the speakers with lots of questions. I took about 50 pages of notes. How am I supposed to describe all that?!
Oh well... I'll just dive in. I'll quickly list all the official talks in this conference. I won't describe the many interesting "impromptu talks", some of which you can see on the above webpage. Nor will I explain what ncategories are, or what they're good for! If you want to learn what they're good for, you should go back to "week73" and read "The Tale of nCategories". And if you want to know what they are, try this brandnew book:
2) Eugenia Cheng and Aaron Lauda, HigherDimensional Categories: an Illustrated Guide Book, available free online at: http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~elgc2/guidebook/
Eugenia and Aaron wrote it specially for the workshop! It's packed with pictures and it's lots of fun.
I'm just going to list the talks....
Throwing etiquette to the winds, I kicked off the conference myself with two talks explaining some reasons why ncategories are interesting and what they should be like:
3) John Baez, Why nCategories? and What ncategories should be like. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#mon
If you're a longtime reader of This Week's Finds you'll know what I said: ncategories give a new world of math in which equations are always replaced by isomorphisms, and this world is incredibly rich in structure. The ncategories called "ngroupoids" magically know everything there is to know about homotopy theory, while those called "ncategories with duals" know everything there is to know about the topology of manifolds. There are, unfortunately, some details that still need to be worked out!
After my talks there was a reception. Later, over dinner, Tom Leinster gave a "Russian style seminar" outlining the different approaches to ncategories:
4) Tom Leinster, Survey and Taxonomy. Talk based on chapter 10 of his book Higher Operads, Higher Categories, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 2004, also available free online at math.CT/0305049.
You'll notice these young ncategory people are smart: they force their publishers to keep their books available for free online! All scientists should do this, since the only people who make serious money from scientific monographs are the publishers. What scientists get from writing technical books is not money but attention. As George Franck said, "Attention is a mode of payment... reputation is the asset into which the attention received from colleagues crystallizes."
The next morning began with a tripleheader talk on "weak categories":
5) Andre Joyal, Peter May and Timothy Porter, Weak categories. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#tues
Here a "weak category" means a category where the usual laws hold only up to homotopy, where the homotopies satisfy laws of their own up to homotopy, ad infinitum. If you know what weak ∞categories are, you can define a weak category to be one of these where all the jmorphisms are equivalences for j > 1. But, the nice thing is that there are ways to define weak categories without the full machinery of ∞categories! People have come up with different approaches: "categories enriched over simplicial sets", "Segal categories", "A_∞ categories" and also Joyal's "quasicategories". The talk was a nice introduction to all these approaches.
Then Michael Batanin explained his definition of ∞categories. This was a blackboard talk, so there are no notes on the web, but you can try his original paper:
6) Michael Batanin, Monoidal globular categories as natural environment for the theory of weak ncategories, Adv. Math. 136 (1998), 39103, also available at http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/~mbatanin/papers.html
and when you get stuck, try the books by ChengLauda and Leinster.
Over dinner, Eugenia Cheng and Tom Leinster explained the concepts of "operad" and "multicategory" which play such an important role in so much work on ncategories. Again there are no notes, so try their books.
I forget when it happened, but sometime around the second or third day of the conference people decided it was too much of a nuisance listening to math lectures while eating dinner  mainly because there wasn't enough room in the dining hall to take notes, and the blackboards weren't big enough. So at that point, we switched to having lectures after dinner. As I said, this workshop was not for wimps!
The morning of the third day began with a noholdsbarred minicourse on model categories by Peter May:
7) Peter May, Model categories. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#wed
Model categories are a wonderful framework for relating different approaches to homotopy theory, and a bunch of people hope they can also be used to relate different approaches to ncategories.
Then Clemens Berger explained Andre Joyal's approach to weak ncategories:
8) Clemens Berger, Cellular definitions. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#wed
Then, either during or after dinner, Eugenia Cheng explained various "opetopic" approaches to weak ncategories. Again, the best way to learn about these is to read the book she wrote with Lauda, or else the book by Leinster.
On the morning of the fourth day, Andre Joyal explained his work on quasicategories  an approach to weak categories in which they are simplicial sets satisfying a restricted version of the Kan condition. They've been around a long time, but Joyal is redoing all of category theory in this context! He's been writing a book about this, which deserves to be called "Quasicategories for the Working Mathematician". Since Joyal is a perfectionist, this will take forever to finish. However, we're hoping to extract a preliminary version from him for the proceedings of this conference. For now, you can read a bit about quasicategories in Tim Porter's notes mentioned in item 5) above.
Then Tom Leinster and Nick Gurski spoke about Ross Street's definition to weak ∞categories, where they are simplicial sets satisfying an even more subtly restricted version of the Kan condition.
9) Nick Gurski and Tom Leinster, Simplicial definition. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#thur
Street's definition is tough to understand at first, but it should eventually include Joyal's quasicategories as a special case, which is nice. For Street's own discussion, see:
10) Ross Street, Weak ωcategories, in Diagrammatic Morphisms and Applications, eds. David Radford, Fernando Souza, and David Yetter, Contemp. Math. 318, AMS, Providence, Rhode Island, 2003, pp. 207213. Also available as www.maths.mq.edu.au/~street/Womcats.pdf
It relies on some work by Dominic Verity which has finally been written up after many years of unpublished limbo:
11) Dominic Verity, Complicial sets, available as math.CT/0410412
After dinner we took a turn towards applications, and Larry Breen explained his work on nstacks and ngerbes. An nstack is like a sheaf that has an (n1)category of sections, while an ngerbe has an (n1)groupoid of sections. Such things show up a lot in algebraic geometry, and more recently in mathematical physics inspired by string theory. Alas, the audience was rather tired this evening, so Larry only got to 1stacks and 1gerbes! But he gave an impromptu talk later where he reached n = 2, and the notes for both talks are available in combined form here:
12) Larry Breen, nStacks and ngerbes: homotopy theory. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#thur
You've heard about David Corfield's quest for a philosophy of real mathematics in "week198". He's one of the few philosophers who understands enough math to realize how cool ncategories are  which may explain why he's having trouble getting a job. On the morning of the fourth day, he gave a talk on the impact ncategories could have in philosophy:
13) David Corfield, nCategory theory as a catalyst for change in philosophy. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#fri
Later that day, Bertrand Toen explained Segal categories, which are another popular approach to weak categories:
14) Bertrand Toen, Segal categories. Notes by Joachim Kock available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#fri
After dinner, he spoke about nstacks and ngerbes:
15) Bertrand Toen, nStacks and ngerbes: algebraic geometry. Notes by Joachim Kock available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#fri
Everyone slept all weekend long. Then on Monday of the second week, the homotopy theorist Zbigniew Fiedorowicz spoke about his work on a kind of nfold monoidal category that has an nfold loop space as its nerve. He has some good papers on the web about this, too:
16) Zbigniew Fiedorowicz, nFold categories. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#mon2
C. Balteanu, Z. Fiedorowicz, R. Schwaenzl and R. Vogt, Iterated monoidal categories, available at math.AT/9808082
Z. Fiedorowicz, Constructions of E_{n} operads, available at math.AT/9808089.
Stefan Forcey continued this theme by discussing enrichment over nfold monoidal categories. He also has a number of papers about this on the arXiv, of which I'll just mention one:
17) Stefan Forcey, Higher enrichment: nfold operads and enriched ncategories, delooping and weakening. Notes available at "http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#mon2
Stefan Forcey, Enrichment over iterated monoidal categories,
Algebraic and Geometric Topology, 4 (2004), 95119, available online
at http://www.maths.warwick.ac.uk/agt/AGTVol4/agt47.abs.html
Also available as math.CT/0403152.
After dinner we discussed how to relate different definitions of weak ncategory.
On Tuesday of the second week, the logician Michael Makkai presented his astounding project of redoing logic in a way that completely eliminates the concept of "equality". This forces you to do all of mathematics using weak ∞categories. I thought this stuff was great, in part because I finally understood it, and in part because it leads naturally to the "opetopic" definition of ncategories that James Dolan and I introduced. The idea of eliminating equality was very much on our mind in inventing this definition, but we didn't create a system of logic that systematizes this idea.
There are no notes for Makkai's talk online, but you can get a lot of good stuff from his website, including:
18) Michael Makkai, On comparing definitions of weak ncategory, available at http://www.math.mcgill.ca/makkai/
and this more technical paper which works out the details of his vision:
19) Michael Makkai, The multitopic ωcategory of all multitopic ωcategories, available at http://www.math.mcgill.ca/makkai/
After Makkai's talk, Mark Weber spoke on ncategorical generalizations of the concept of "monad", which is a nice way of describing mathematical gadgets. There are no notes for this talk, but his work on higher operads is at least morally related:
20) Mark Weber, Operads within monoidal pseudo algebras, available as math.CT/0410230.
Again, after dinner we talked about how to relate different definitions of weak ncategory.
On Wednesday of the second week, Michael Batanin spoke about his recent work relating ncategories to nfold loop spaces. Again no notes, but you can read these papers:
21) Michael Batanin, The EckmannHilton argument, higher operads and E_{n}spaces, available at http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/~mbatanin/papers.html
Michael Batanin, The combinatorics of iterated loop spaces, available at http://www.ics.mq.edu.au/~mbatanin/papers.html
Then Joachim Kock laid the ground for a discussion of ncategories and topological quantum field theories, or "TQFTs", by explaining the definition of a TQFT and the classification of 2d TQFTs:
22) Joachim Kock, Topological quantum field theory primer. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#wed2
In the evening, Marco Mackaay and I said more about the relation between TQFTs and ncategories:
23) Marco Mackaay, Topological quantum field theories. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#wed2
24) John Baez, Space and state, spacetime and process. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#wed2
On Thursday, Ross Street started the day in a pleasantly different way  he gave a historical account of work on categories and ncategories in Australia! Australia is home to much of the best work on these subjects, so if you can understand his history you'll wind up understanding these subjects pretty well:
25) Ross Street, An Australian conspectus of higher category theory. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#thur2
As a younger exponent of the Australian tradition, it was then nicely appropriate for Steve Lack to speak about ways of building a model category of 2categories:
26) Steve Lack, Higher model categories. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#thur2
In the afternoon we had a blast of computer science. First John Power gave a hilarious talk phrased in terms of how one should convince computer theorists to embrace categories, then 2categories, and then maybe higher categories:
27) John Power, Why tricategories? Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#thur2
I spoke about Power's paper with this title back in "week53"; now you can get it online!
Then Philippe Gaucher, Lisbeth Fajstrup and Eric Goubault spoke about higherdimensional automata and directed homotopy theory:
28) Philippe Gaucher, Towards a homotopy theory of higher dimensional automata. Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#thur2
Lisbeth Fajstrup, More on directed topology and concurrency, Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#thur2
Eric Goubault, Directed homotopy theory and higherdimensional automata, Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#thur2
On Friday, Martin Hyland and Tony Elmendorf gave a doubleheader talk on higherdimensional linear algebra and how some concepts in this subject can be simplified using symmetric multicategories. There are, alas, no notes for this talk. You just had to be there.
Finally, my student Alissa Crans gave a talk on higherdimensional linear algebra, with an emphasis on categorified Lie algebras:
29) Alissa Crans, Higher linear algebra. Notes available at Notes available at http://www.ima.umn.edu/categories/#fri2
Hers was the last talk in the workshop! I would like to say more about it, but I'm exhausted... and her talk fits naturally into a discussion of "higher gauge theory", which deserves a Week of its own.
By the way, you can see pictures of this workshop here:
30) John Baez, IMA, http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/IMA/
If you want to see what these crazy ncategory people look like, you can see most of them here.
Hmm. If you wanted me to actually explain something this week, I'm afraid you'll be rather disappointed  so far everything has just been pointers to other material.
Luckily, while I was at this workshop I wrote a little explanation of some material on Picard groups and Brauer groups. There's a Spanish school of higherdimensional algebra, centered in Granada, and this spring Aurora del Rio Cabeza came from Granada to visit UCR. She and James Dolan spent a lot of time talking about categorical groups (also known as "2groups") and cohomology theory. I was, alas, too busy to keep up with their conversations, but I learned a little from listening in... and here's my writeup!
Higher categories show up quite naturally in the study of commutative rings and associative algebras over commutative rings. I'd heard of things called "Brauer groups" and "Picard groups" of rings, and something called "Morita equivalence", but I only understood how these fit together when I learned they were part of a marvelous thing: a weak 3groupoid!
Here's how it goes. You don't need to know much about higher categories for this to make some sense... at least, I hope not.
Starting with a commutative ring R, we can form a weak 2category Alg(R) where:
This has all the structure you need to get a 2category. In particular, we can "compose" an (A,B)bimodule and a (B,C)bimodule by tensoring them over B, getting an (A,C) bimodule. But since tensor products are only associative up to isomorphism, we only get a weak 2category, not a strict one.
This weak 2category has a tensor product, since we can tensor two associative algebras over R and get another one. All the stuff listed above gets along with this process! When an ncategory has a wellbehaved tensor product we call it "monoidal", so Alg(R) is a weak monoidal 2category. But using a standard trick we can reinterpret this as a weak 3category with one object, as follows:
Note how all the morphisms have shifted up a notch. What used to be called objects, the associative algebras over R, are now called 1morphisms. We "compose" them by tensoring them over R.
Next, recall a bit of ncategory theory from "week35". In an ncategory we define a jmorphism to be an "equivalence" iff it's invertible... up to equivalence! This definition may sound circular, but really just recursive. To start it off we just need to add that an nmorphism is an equivalence iff it's invertible.
What does equivalence amount to in the 3category Alg(R)? It's easiest to figure this out from the top down:
In this situation people say M is a "Morita equivalence" from A to B.
In this situation people say A is an "Azumaya algebra".
Here's a nice example of how Morita equivalence works. Over any commutative ring R there's an algebra R[n] consisting of n x n matrices with entries in R. R[n] isn't usually isomorphic to R[m], but they're always Morita equivalent! To see this, suppose
M: R[n] → R[m] is the space of n x m matrices with entries in R,
N: R[m] → R[n] is the space of m x n matrices with entries in R.
These become bimodules in an obvious way via matrix multiplication, and a little calculation shows that they're inverses up to isomorphism!
So, all the algebras R[n] are Morita equivalent. In particular this means that they're all Morita equivalent to R, so they are Azumaya algebras of a rather trivial sort.
If we take R to be the real numbers there is also a more interesting Azumaya algebra over R, namely the quaternions H. This follows from the fact that
H ⊗_{R} H = R[4]
This says H ⊗_{R} H is Morita equivalent to R as an associative algebra over R, which implies (by the definition above) that H is an Azumaya algebra.
Morita equivalence is really important in the theory of C*algebras, Clifford algebras, and things like that. Someday I want to explain how it's connected to Bott periodicity! Oh, there's so much I want to explain....
But right now I want to take our 3category Alg(R), massage it a bit, and turn it into a topological space! Then I'll look at the homotopy groups of this space and see what they have to say about our ring R.
To do this, we need a bit more ncategory theory. A weak ncategory where all the 1morphisms, 2morphisms and so on are equivalences is called a "ngroupoid". For example, given any weak ncategory, we can form a weak ngroupoid called its "core" by throwing out all the morphisms that aren't equivalences.
So, let's take the core of Alg(R) and get a weak 3groupoid. Here's what it's like:
Next, given a weak ngroupoid with one object, it's very nice to compute its "homotopy groups". These are easy to define in general, but I'll just do it for the core of Alg(R) and let you guess the general pattern. First, notice that:
At this point we let out a cackle of ncategorical glee. Then, we define the homotopy groups of the core of Alg(R) as follows:
Here we say two morphisms in an ncategory are "equivalent" if there is an equivalence from one to the other (or if they're equal, in the case of nmorphisms).
I hope the pattern in this definition of homotopy groups is obvious. In fact, ngroupoids are secretly "the same"  in a subtle sense I'd rather not explain  as spaces whose homotopy groups vanish above dimension n. Using this, the homotopy groups as defined above turn out to be same as the homotopy groups of a certain space associated with the ring R! So, we're doing something very funny: we're using algebraic topology to study algebra.
But, we don't need to know this to figure out what these homotopy groups are like. Unraveling the definitions a bit, one sees they amount to this:
People had been quite happily studying these groups for a long time without knowing they were the homotopy groups of the core of a weak 3category associated to the commutative ring R! But, the relationships between these groups are easier to explain if you use the ncategorical picture. It's a great example of how ncategories unify mathematics.
For example, everything we've done is functorial. So, if you have a homomorphism between commutative rings, say
f: R → S
then you get a weak 3functor
Alg(f): Alg(R) → Alg(S)
This gives a weak 3functor from the core of Alg(R) to the core of Alg(S), and thus a map between spaces... which in turn gives a long exact sequence of homotopy groups! So, we get interesting maps going from the unit, Picard and groups of R to those of S  and these fit into an interesting long exact sequence.
For more, try the following papers. The first paper is actually about a generalization of Azumaya algebras called "Azumaya categories", but it starts with a nice quick review of Azumaya algebras and Brauer groups:
31) Francis Borceux and Enrico Vitale, Azumaya categories, available at http://www.math.ucl.ac.be/AGEL/Azumaya_categories.pdf
Category theorists will enjoy the generalization: since algebras are just oneobject categories enriched over Vect, the concept of Azumaya algebra really wants to generalize to that of an Azumaya category. I'm sure most of the BrauerPicardMorita stuff generalizes too, but I haven't checked that out yet.
This second paper makes the connection between Picard and Brauer groups explicit using categorical groups:
32) Enrico Vitale, A PicardBrauer exact sequence of categorical groups, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 175 (2002) 383408. Also available as http://www.math.ucl.ac.be/membres/vitale/catgruppi2.pdf
Addendum: It turns out that the PicardBrauer 3group has a long and illustrious history. Ross Street explained this to me; I've taken the liberty of numbering the references in his email.
Dear JohnIt is great that you jumped in and started writing that report on the Minneapolis meeting. "A journey of a thousand miles . . . ".
[Carrying on the IMA Russian spirit, I just got back from Christchurch NZ where I gave 11 hours (in 2 days) of lectures on topos theory to a very patient group of physicists, philosophers, mathematicians, and even one economist.]
It is also great that you promoted the work of the Granada School. That subject is particularly close to my heart. So here goes another personal history. Probably back at Tulane U in 196970, Jack Duskin (who was a great source of inspiration to me and, I believe, to the Granada School) would have pointed me to the papers
33) Grothendieck, Alexander Le groupe de Brauer. III. Exemples et complements. (French) 1968 Dix Exposes sur la Cohomologie des Schemas pp. 88188 NorthHolland, Amsterdam; Masson, Paris
34) Grothendieck, Alexander Le groupe de Brauer. II. Theorie cohomologique. (French) 1968 Dix Exposes sur la Cohomologie des Schemas pp. 6787 NorthHolland, Amsterdam; Masson, Paris
35) Grothendieck, Alexander Le groupe de Brauer. I. Algèbres d'Azumaya et interpretations diverses. (French) 1968 Dix Exposes sur la Cohomologie des Schemas pp. 4666 NorthHolland, Amsterdam; Masson, Paris
pushing the Brauer group concept of ring theorists (e.g. Azumaya) into the scheme view of algebraic geometry. I later read papers by category theorists, like
36) Lindner, Harald, Morita equivalences of enriched categories. Conferences du Colloque sur l'Algebre des Categories (Amiens, 1973), III. Cahiers Topologie Geom. Differentielle 15 (1974), no. 4, 377397, 449450.
37) FisherPalmquist, J.; Palmquist, P. H. Morita contexts of enriched categories. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 50 (1975), 5560.
which seemed to be the beginning of a simpler understanding. Somehow (?) I obtained an original bound reprint of
38) Froehlich, A.; Wall, C. T. C. Graded monoidal categories. Compositio Math. 28 (1974), 229285.
which I have just looked at and realised I should read again (since Turaev and Mueger have been using Ggraded categories to understand the Gequivariant version of Turaev's 3manifold invariant work). It was forerunner to
39) Froehlich, A.; Wall, C. T. C. Equivariant Brauer groups. Quadratic forms and their applications (Dublin, 1999), 5771, Contemp. Math., 272, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2000.
On my sabbatical at Wesleyan University (Middletown CT) in 197677, I joined in the algebraists' workshop on SLNM 181 on separable algebras over commutative rings which was trying to do some of Grothendieck's stuff without the cohomology and alg geom. Joyal taught me a bit about Brauer too, motivating to some extent the work I did on stacks.
Anyway, out of all this, other stuff I've forgotten, and the experience in module theory for enriched categories, it became clear that Morita contexts were a bit silly and adjunctions of (bi)modules were probably better and less ad hoc. The beginning point should be a particular monoidal bicategory Alg(RMod) based on a commutative ring R: objects are Ralgebras, morphisms are bimodules, 2cells are module morphisms. The group of units, Picard group and Brauer group all sat happily in there as homotopy groups of the monoidal bicategory.
> I'd heard of things called "Brauer groups" and "Picard groups" > of rings, and something called "Morita equivalence", but I only > understood how these fit together when I learned they were part > of a marvelous thing: a weak 3groupoid!After beginning the work with Joyal on braided monoidal categories and learning of his work with Tierney on homotopy 3types, I spoke at the homotopy meeting in Bangor in 1986(?) on this monoidal bicategory Alg(RMod) as a fundamental example. (It is discussed much later in the last part of
40) R. Gordon, A.J. Power and R. Street, Coherence for tricategories, Memoirs of the American Math. Society 117 (1995) Number 558.)
At the 1987 Meeting in LouvainLaNeuve, Duskin (who loves simplicial sets) found a simplicial set whose only nontrivial homotopy groups were the three in question:
41) Duskin, John W. The Azumaya complex of a commutative ring. Categorical algebra and its applications (LouvainLaNeuve, 1987), 107117, Lecture Notes in Math., 1348, Springer, Berlin, 1988.
I pointed out to Jack that this was the nerve of Alg(RMod) and he included a remark about that in the published version. Also see
42) Duskin, J. An outline of a theory of higherdimensional descent. Actes du Colloque en l'Honneur du Soixantieme Anniversaire de Rene Lavendhomme (LouvainlaNeuve, 1989). Bull. Soc. Math. Belg. Ser. A 41 (1989), no. 2, 249277.
The Brauer group section of
43) Categorical and combinatorial aspects of descent theory, Applied Categorical Structures (to appear; March 2003 preprint available at math.CT/0303175).
gives some more on this.
The article
44) K.K. Ulbrich, Group cohomology for Picard categories, J. Algebra 91 (1984) 464498.
should also be mentioned. It is a great, to use your term, "categorification" of usual cohomology with abelian group coefficients: one step towards the grander goal of coefficients in a general weak ncategory.
The Spanish School (and the Belgian School) is continuing with nice work in this area. For example there is the recent paper by Carrasco/MartinezMoreno. Here is the review I wrote yesterday.
Carrasco/MartinezMoreno: Simplicial cohomology with coefficients in symmetric categorical groups The full cohomology theory of simplicial sets with coefficients in a general weak ncategory is a longterm goal. The classical cohomology revolves around the fact that an abelian group A can be regarded as an ncategory whose simplicial nerve is the combinatorial EilenbergMac Lane space K(A,n). Following Takeuchi and Ulbrich [J. Pure Appl. Algebra 27 (1983) 6173; MR84g:18025] and Ulbrich [J. Algebra 91 (1984) 464498; MR86h:18003], the present authors develop cohomology where the coefficient object is a symmetric categorical group A. In this important case too, A can be regarded as a weak ncategory whose simplicial nerve is here denoted by K(A,n); it has nonvanishing homotopy groups only in dimensions n and n+1, and represents the cohomology of simplicial sets in the homotopy category. This functor K(,n) essentially has a leftadjoint leftinverse P_{n} so that homotopy classes of simplicial maps from X to Y are classified by the cohomology of X with coefficients in P_{n}(Y).Back to marking papers.Best wishes,
Ross
This last paper is:
44) P. Carrasco and J. MartinezMoreno, Simplicial cohomology with coefficients in symmetric categorical groups, Applied Categorical Structures 12 (2004), 257286.
© 2004 John Baez
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
