Showing changes from revision #3 to #4:
Added | Removed | Changed
There are three notions of equipment in the literature:
Wood’s: an identity-on-objects, locally fully faithful pseudofunctor , written , where each has a right adjoint in .
Shulman’s: a framed bicategory, that is, a pseudo double category whose source and target functors form a bifibration.
that of Carboni–Kelly–Verity–Wood: a (normal) pseudofunctor , where is a 1-category.
The last is strictly more general than the others, as are even their starred pointed equipments, i.e. those equipped with a transformation , where the left and right actions of have suitable adjoints. These CKVW equipments should be equivalent to the others if we ask for a transformation making a (pseudo)monad in a suitable bi- or tricategory of ‘biprofunctors’.
Question: Why are these all equivalent?
Let’s forget about the ‘op-connections’ for the moment.
A pseudofunctor that is the identity on objects and locally fully faithful is the same as an identity-on-objects pseudofunctor out of the locally discrete bicategory given by simply throwing away the 2-cells of .
An identity-on-objects pseudofunctor exhibits as the Kleisli object of a monad on in the 2-category of biprofunctors (q.v.). This will be the associated CKVW equipment.
…
Last revised on January 13, 2014 at 13:03:38. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.