# HG changeset patch # User Kevin Walker # Date 1275615728 25200 # Node ID 8dad3dc7023b4605649e175eb208e76b62fdff53 # Parent bc22926d4fb0d8ef0be877693e54a13c7e95c955 module morphism stuff diff -r bc22926d4fb0 -r 8dad3dc7023b text/ncat.tex --- a/text/ncat.tex Thu Jun 03 09:47:18 2010 -0700 +++ b/text/ncat.tex Thu Jun 03 18:42:08 2010 -0700 @@ -1269,10 +1269,11 @@ we have \begin{eqnarray*} (\bd g)(\olD\ot x \ot \cbar) &=& \bd(g(\olD\ot x \ot \cbar)) + g(\olD\ot\bd(x\ot\cbar)) + \\ - & & \;\; g((\bd_+\olD)\ot x\ot\cbar) + \gl(g((\bd_0\olD)\ot x\ot\cbar')\ot\cbar'') . + & & \;\; g((\bd_+\olD)\ot x\ot\cbar) + \gl''(g((\bd_0\olD)\ot \gl'(x\ot\cbar'))\ot\cbar'') . \end{eqnarray*} \nn{put in signs, rearrange terms to match order in previous formulas} -Here $\gl$ denotes the module action in $\cY_\cC$. +Here $\gl''$ denotes the module action in $\cY_\cC$ +and $\gl'$ denotes the module action in $\cX_\cC$. This completes the definition of $\hom_\cC(\cX_\cC \to \cY_\cC)$. Note that if $\bd g = 0$, then each @@ -1309,14 +1310,24 @@ If $\deg(\olD) = 0$, $(\bd g) = 0$ is equivalent to the fact that each $h_K$ is a chain map. +We can think of a general closed element $g\in \hom_\cC(\cX_\cC \to \cY_\cC)$ +as a collection of chain maps which commute with the module action (gluing) up to coherent homotopy. +\nn{ideally should give explicit examples of this in low degrees, +but skip that for now.} +\nn{should also say something about composition of morphisms; well-defined up to homotopy, or maybe +should make some arbitrary choice} \medskip Given $_\cC\cZ$ and $g: \cX_\cC \to \cY_\cC$ with $\bd g = 0$ as above, we next define a chain map \[ g\ot\id : \cX_\cC \ot {}_\cC\cZ \to \cY_\cC \ot {}_\cC\cZ . \] -\nn{this is fairly straightforward, but the details are messy enough that I'm inclined -to postpone writing it up, in the hopes that I'll think of a better way to organize things.} + +\nn{not sure whether to do low degree examples or try to state the general case; ideally both, +but maybe just low degrees for now.} + + +\nn{...} @@ -1324,13 +1335,10 @@ \medskip -\nn{do we need to say anything about composing morphisms of modules?} - -\nn{should we define functors between $n$-cats in a similar way?} - - -\nn{...} - +\nn{should we define functors between $n$-cats in a similar way? i.e.\ natural transformations +of the $\cC$ functors which commute with gluing only up to higher morphisms? +perhaps worth having both definitions available. +certainly the simple kind (strictly commute with gluing) arise in nature.}