I apologize in advance for my naiveté. I'm completely missing the formal background to ask this question, but am very curious about one particular point.

I recently learned that there's the concept of a 2-category, which has objects, morphisms, and morphisms between morphisms. I didn't go through the formal definition, but I immediately got the feeling that this must be a useful concept, because of the following two familiar examples of categories admitting "morphisms between morphisms": in category theory itself, there are categories, functors, and natural transformations between functors. Even more impressive, in topology there are topological spaces, continuous maps, and homotopies between continuous maps. I will call this informally the "2-category of topological spaces".

In homotopy theory one is interested in topological spaces up to the following notion of equivalence: we identify two topological spaces $X$ and $Y$ if there are two continuous maps $f\colon X\to Y$ and $g\colon Y\to X$ such that $f\circ g$ is homotopic to the identity on $Y$ and $g\circ f$ is homotopic to the identity on $X$. In this case we say that $X$ and $Y$ are homotopy equivalent.

This construction can be cast in categorical terms by considering what Wikipedia calls the naive homotopy category: the objects are topological spaces and the morphisms are homotopy classes of continuous maps. This is a well-defined category because of the following property (also taken from Wikipedia) that I am going to call $(*)$:

if $f_1, g_1 \colon X → Y$ are homotopic, and $f_2, g_2 \colon Y → Z$ are homotopic, then their compositions $f_2 \circ f_1$ and $g_2 \circ g_1 \colon X → Z$ are also homotopic.

Now the following holds (by definition of the notion of an isomorphism in a category): two topological spaces are isomorphic in the naive homotopy category if and only if they are homotopy equivalent.

Note that this construction can be considered as a passage from the "2-category of topological spaces" to the naive homotopy category: morphisms in the latter are equivalence classes of morphisms in the former (and the notion of "equivalence of morphisms" is induced by the morphisms between morphisms). So we started with a 2-category and pressed it into a conventional category by identifying "isomorphic" morphisms in the 2-category.

Question 1: Does this construction of a category from a 2-category (by identifying isomorphic morphisms) have a name?

In order for this to work, I guess the following generalization of $(*)$ should hold in every 2-category: if $f_1, g_1 \colon X → Y$ are isomorphic, and $f_2, g_2 \colon Y → Z$ are isomorphic, then their compositions $f_2 \circ f_1$ and $g_2 \circ g_1 \colon X → Z$ are also isomorphic, where $f$ is isomorphic to $g$ if there are "morphisms between morphisms" $\eta\colon f\to g$ and $\lambda\colon g\to f$ with $\eta\circ \lambda$ equals the identity "morphism between morphisms" on $g$ and $\lambda \circ \eta$ equals the identity "morphism between morphisms" on $f$. (If that makes sense.)

Question 2: Does this generalization of $(*)$ hold in every 2-category?

Question 3: Let's call the above construction of a category from a 2-category the homotopy category of the 2-category. If two 2-categories $C$ and $D$ are biequivalent (I read on the nLab that this "is the appropriate notion of equivalence between 2-categories"), does it follow that the homotopy category of $C$ is equivalent to the homotopy category of $D$?

I already did some research regarding Question 1, but the only thing I could find is the notion of a homotopy 2-category. This seems very related: it's about assigning a 2-category to any "(∞,n)-category" (I guess that's a category with even morphisms between morphisms of morphisms and so on). But I can't find anything on making a conventional category from a 2-category.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yes, I believe this is the conventional meaning of "homotopy category of a 2-category". Yes, horizontal composition in a 2-category respects isomorphisms. Yes, biequivalent 2-categories yield equivalent homotopy categories. $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Apr 10, 2021 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ @ZhenLin Thanks so much! Would you mind copy and pasting your comment as an answer? Optimally with a reference to a place in the literature where the "homotopy category of a 2-category" appears, but I also would accept your answer as it is. $\endgroup$
    – user913156
    Apr 11, 2021 at 10:28
  • $\begingroup$ The following additional question came to my mind: how different can two 2-categories with equivalent homotopy categories be? $\endgroup$
    – user913156
    Apr 11, 2021 at 10:30

1 Answer 1

  1. I believe "the homotopy category of a 2-category" conventionally refers to the category obtained by taking the 2-category, identifying any 1-morphisms that are isomorphic, and discarding the 2-cells. This is justified because one can define "the homotopy theory of a 2-category" as follows: discard all non-invertible 2-morphisms to obtain a groupoid-enriched category, then take nerves of hom-groupoids to obtain a simplicially enriched category (in fact, enriched in Kan complexes). The homotopy category of a 2-category is thus recovered as a special case of the homotopy category of a simplicially enriched category.

  2. Horizontal composition in a 2-category is functorial, in the sense if you have objects $X, Y, Z$ then you have a horizontal composition functor $\textrm{Hom} (Y, Z) \times \textrm{Hom} (X, Y) \to \textrm{Hom} (X, Z)$. In particular, horizontal composition respects isomorphisms of 1-morphisms.

  3. If a 2-functor 2-fully-faithful (i.e. induces equivalences of hom-categories) then the induced functor between homotopy categories is fully faithful. If a 2-functor is 2-essentially surjective on objects then the induced functor between homotopy categories is essentially surjective on objects. Thus, biequivalent 2-categories have equivalent homotopy categories. The converse is about as far from true as you can get – after all, any 1-category is also a 2-category in a trivial way, but a 2-category is usually not biequivalent to its homotopy category. More seriously, the construction of the homotopy category ignores non-invertible 2-morphisms, which means you also can't distinguish between a 2-category and its "underlying" (2, 1)-category.


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.