People sometimes say that monoids are "categories with one object". In fact people sometimes suggest that this is the natural definition of a monoid (and likewise "groupoid with one object" as the definition of a group).

But categories naturally form a $2$-category $\mathbf{Cat}$. So if we took the above definition seriously then we would view monoids as forming a $2$-category $\mathbf{Mon}$. The objects would be monoids and the morphisms would be monoid homomorphisms, but there would also be $2$-morphisms between homomorphisms. A $2$-morphism between $f,g:M\to N$ is an $n\in N$ such that $nf(m)=g(m)n$ for all $m\in M$.

If one takes the principle of equivalence seriously then this poses a problem because we lose the ability to talk about the "underlying set" of a monoid. There's no $2$-functor $U:\mathbf{Mon}\to\mathbf{Set}$ (treating $\mathbf{Set}$ as a $2$-category with no nontrivial $2$-morphisms) that sends each monoid to its underlying set and each homomorphism to its underlying function. In the $1$-category of monoids this would be given by applying the functor $\mathrm{Hom}(\Bbb N,-)$. But in the $2$-category $\mathbf{Mon}$ two homomorphisms $f,g:\Bbb N\to M$ are isomorphic whenever $f(1)=mg(1)m^{-1}$ for some $m\in M$, so this construction only gives us the set of conjugacy classes of $M$ rather than its set of elements.

Clearly this poses a problem if we want to work with monoids and groups. In particular proofs involving finite groups often require the ability to count the number of elements in some subset of a group. It becomes impossible to state Lagrange's Theorem. We also lose the ability to talk about the free group on a set, since we can't construct the adjoint to the nonexistent functor $U$.

In light of this, I want to know if it's actually possible to take "category with one object" as our definition of monoid, and still be able to prove things in a practical way. I can see two ways to do this:

1) Recover the $1$-category of monoids from $\mathbf{Mon}$ in some natural way


2) Show that we can reconstruct group theory in a way that never uses concepts like "order of a group" or "free group on a set"

Does anybody know a way to do either of these?


First of all, even having one object is not invariant under equivalence. So perhaps a monoid is actually a category with a unique isomorphism class of objects. Then the way this issue is handled in topology is to consider a different 2-category: that of pointed categories, that is, categories with a distinguished object, functors preserving that object, and natural transformations which are the identity on that object. This fixes your problem: the category of pointed functors between two pointed monoids is discrete.

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This (bi)equivalence between monoids and pointed connected categories is spelt out in "Lectures on n-Categories and Cohomology" by Baez and Shulman, arxiv.org/abs/math/0608420, in the section "Pointedness versus connectedness" $\endgroup$ – Dap Apr 25 '18 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! This completely solves the issue. I added my own answer that explores some of the details. $\endgroup$ – Oscar Cunningham Apr 25 '18 at 21:23

Kevin Carlson answered the question, but I thought I'd add my own answer based on his, with some more details.

The ($1$-)category $\mathbf{Set}$ lives inside the $2$-category $\mathbf{Cat}$, as the full sub-$2$-category on the discrete categories. The inclusion $F:\mathbf{Set}\to\mathbf{Cat}$ has a right adjoint $U:\mathbf{Cat}\to\mathbf{Set}$ that sends a category to its set of isomorphism classes.

So a "category with one object" (or, to better respect the principle of equivalence, a "category with one isomorphism class of objects") is precisely a category $\mathcal{M}$ such that there's a bijection $1\to U\mathcal M$. Since there's at most one such bijection we could equally well say that it's a category equipped with a bijection $a:1\to U\mathcal M$. But as I said in the question, this gives a $2$-category with unwanted $2$-morphisms.

Instead, the correct definition is to look at categories equipped with a particular object to which every other object is isomorphic. An object is precisely a functor from the terminal category, and the terminal category is equivalent to $F1$. So we define a monoid to be a category $\mathcal M$ equipped with a functor $a:F1\to\mathcal M$ which corresponds to a bijection $1\to U\mathcal M$ under the isomorphism $\mathrm{Hom}(F1,\mathcal M)\cong\mathrm{Hom}(1,U\mathcal M)$ given by the adjunction.

Based on this definition, it makes sense to say that a morphism between monoids $(\mathcal M,a)\to(\mathcal N,b)$ is a functor $f:\mathcal M\to\mathcal N$ such that $f\circ a\simeq b$, and that a 2-morphism $f\to g$ is given by a natural transformation $\alpha:f\to g$ such that $(\alpha\circ f)_\bullet = g(\mathrm{id}_\bullet)$ (where $\bullet$ is the object of $1$). Of course there is in fact only one such natural transformation, so this version of $\mathbf{Mon}$ is indeed a $1$-category.

The sort of definition we gave above is actually quite common in mathematics. Two similar definitions arise from the usual adjunction between $\mathbf{Set}$ and $\mathbf{Vect}$. A basis $S$ of a vector space $V$ is precisely a function $f:S\to UV$ that the corresponding function $FS\to V$ is an isomorphism. Dually a vector space structure $V$ on a set $S$ is a function $FS\to V$ such that the corresponding function $S\to UV$ is a bijection.

By analogy, we could say that a monoid is not a "category with one object" but rather a "category structure on the set with one element". This gives some intuition for why monoids only form a $1$-category. Categories naturally form $2$-categories, but structures based on sets are only sophisticated enough to form $1$-categories.

In fact, I believe that if we allow any set $S$ in place of $1$ in the above definition of a monoid then we get a definition of the $1$-category of categories. So we could also define monoids by first passing to this $1$-category, and then looking at the "categories with one object" within it.


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.