Finn Lawler free 2-cocompletion (Rev #4)

We want to show that if KK is a bicategory then PK=[K op,Cat]P K = [K^{op}, Cat] is the free 2-cocompletion of KK.

There are several kinds of 2-colimit that we’ll need to talk about. Let D:J→KD \colon J \to K and W:J op→CatW \colon J^{op} \to Cat be pseudofunctors. Then

  1. The 2-colimit W⋆DW \star D satisfies

    K(W⋆D,X)≃[J op,Cat](W,K(D−,X)) K(W \star D, X) \simeq [J^{op}, Cat](W, K(D-, X))

    This is what in the literature is often called a bilimit.

  2. If KK is a strict 2-category, the pseudocolimit W⋆ pDW \star_{p} D satisfies the same property up to isomorphism.

  3. If KK is strict and WW and DD are strict 2-functors, then the strict pseudocolimit W⋆ p sDW \star^s_{p} D satisfies

    K(W⋆ p sD,X)≅Ps(J op,Cat)(W,K(D−,X)) K(W \star^s_p D, X) \cong Ps(J^{op}, Cat)(W, K(D-, X))

    where on the right the functor category is that of strict 2-functors, pseudonatural transformations and modifications.

  4. Under the same hypotheses, the strict colimit W⋆ s sDW \star^s_s D satisfies

    K(W⋆ s sD,X)≅Str(J op,Cat)(W,K(D−,X)) K(W \star^s_s D, X) \cong Str(J^{op}, Cat)(W, K(D-, X))

    where now StrStr denotes the category of strict 2-functors and strict transformations (and modifications).

We need to show that PKP K has all small 2-colimits:

  1. CatCat is strictly 2-cocomplete: its underlying 1-category has small colimits, and CatCat is enriched and tensored over itself, so that it has strict CatCat-weighted colimits.

  2. Pseudocolimits, strict or otherwise, are a fortiori 2-colimits, and strict pseudocolimits are just strict colimits whose weights are ‘cofibrant’ in a suitable sense. Moreover, if KK is a strict 2-category, then for any index bicategory JJ there is a strict 2-category J′J' such that strict functors J′→KJ' \to K are the same thing as pseudofunctors J→KJ \to K, and the 2-colimit of pseudofunctors W⋆DW \star D is equivalent to the strict pseudocolimit of the strictified functors. So a strictly 2-cocomplete strict 2-category is also 2-cocomplete.

  3. CatCat therefore has non-strict 2-colimits. We can now try to compute colimits pointwise in PKP K as for strictly-enriched functor categories: if now D:J→PKD \colon J \to P K and W:J op→CatW \colon J^{op} \to Cat then set (W⋆D)a=W⋆D(−,a)(W \star D) a = W \star D(-,a), and its universal property follows:

    PK(W⋆D,F) ≃∫ aCat(W⋆D(−,a),Fa) ≃∫ a[J op,Cat](W,Cat(D(−,a),Fa)) ≃[J op,Cat](W,∫ aCat(D(−,a),Fa)) ≃[J op,Cat](W,PK(D−,F)) \array{ P K(W \star D, F) & \simeq \int_a Cat(W \star D(-,a), F a) \\ & \simeq \int_a [J^{op}, Cat](W, Cat(D(-,a), F a)) \\ & \simeq [J^{op}, Cat](W, \int_a Cat(D(-,a), F a)) \\ & \simeq [J^{op}, Cat](W, P K(D-, F)) }

    So PKP K has 2-colimits.

Finally, we need to show that if LL is a cocomplete bicategory, then there is a 2-equivalence

Cocont(PK,L)∼[K,L] Cocont(P K, L) \sim [K, L]

For this we simply follow the usual reasoning: from left to right we compose with the Yoneda embedding y:K→PKy \colon K \to P K, and given a functor F:K→LF \colon K \to L we get a cocontinuous PK→LP K \to L sending W:K op→CatW \colon K^{op} \to Cat to W⋆FW \star F.

The co-Yoneda lemma shows that every W≃W⋆yW \simeq W \star y, and if HH is cocontinuous then H(W)≃H(W⋆y)≃W⋆HyH(W) \simeq H(W \star y) \simeq W \star H y, showing that the functor F↦−⋆FF \mapsto - \star F is essentially surjective. It is 2-fully-faithful by the universal property of colimits: a transformation F→GF \to G gives rise to an essentially unique transformation −⋆F→−⋆G-\star F \to -\star G.

Revision on June 14, 2011 at 15:15:33 by Finn Lawler?. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.