4
$\begingroup$

Is there a sort of lax Yoneda Lemma for 2-categories? Here is what I seem to have proven (although I have not checked all the details):

If $\mathcal{C}$ is a (weak) 2-category, $A$ is an object of $\mathcal{C}$, and $F : \mathcal{C} \to \mathsf{Cat}$ is a lax functor, then the category of lax transformations $\mathrm{Hom}(A,-) \to \mathcal{C}$ together with modifications is isomorphic to the category $F(A)$. (Not just equivalent, right?) If $F$ is strong, then every lax transformation $\mathrm{Hom}(A,-) \to \mathcal{C}$ is already strong.

Is this correct?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ ncatlab.org/nlab/show/… has a weaker result, which suggests Lax(Hom(A, -), F) ≅ FA might not be the case in general $\endgroup$
    – user54748
    May 22 '15 at 14:05
5
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal{C} $ be a $2$-category and $A$ be an object of $\mathcal{C} $. In most of the cases, there are lax natural transformations $\mathcal{C}(A,-)\to\mathcal{C}(A,-) $ which are not $2$-natural or even pseudonatural. For instance, take the $2$-category generated by two parallel arrows $f,g: A\to B $ with a $2$-cell $f\to g$. We have that $\mathcal{C}(A,A) = \ast $ and $\mathcal{C}(A,B) = 2 $. Observe that, by the Enriched Yoneda Lemma, the category $[\mathcal{C}(A, -), \mathcal{C}(A, -)] _ {Strc} $ is isomorphic to $\mathcal{C} (A, A) $ and, therefore, terminal (only one object and the identity). However, $[\mathcal{C}(A, -), \mathcal{C}(A, -)] _ {Lax} $ has another object (besides the identity). This proves that $\mathcal{C} (A, A) $ is not isomorphic to $[\mathcal{C}(A, -), \mathcal{C}(A, -)] _ {Lax} $. And this nontrivial lax natural transformation is not isomorphic to the identity - therefore $[\mathcal{C}(A, -), \mathcal{C}(A, -)] _ {Lax} $ is not equivalent to $[\mathcal{C}(A, -), \mathcal{C}(A, -)] _ {Strict} $. And, by the bicategorical Yoneda Lemma, we conclude that $[\mathcal{C}(A, -), \mathcal{C}(A, -)] _ {Lax} $ is not equivalent to $[\mathcal{C}(A, -), \mathcal{C}(A, -)] _ {Psd}\simeq [\mathcal{C}(A, -), \mathcal{C}(A, -)] _ {Strict} $. This fact contradicts your conjecture. The Lax version of the Yoneda Lemma should be weaker.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.