Let $Cat$ be the category of categories, then its morphism category consists of functors as objects and morphism between functors as morphisms. If we restrict to the case where the two functors $\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}:A\to B$, then these morphisms between $\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G}$ are the natural transformations. What is the name of a general morphism between two functors $\mathcal{F}:A\to B,\mathcal{G}:C\to D$?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What makes you think there is such a thing? $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin May 29 '14 at 10:14
  • $\begingroup$ @ZhenLin If there are a pair of functors $\mathcal{H}:A\to C$ and $\mathcal{I}:B\to D$ such that $\mathcal{G}\mathcal{H}= \mathcal{I}\mathcal{F}$, it's a morphism between $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ right? $\endgroup$ – mez May 29 '14 at 11:29
  • $\begingroup$ That's a possible definition. In some situations it is more natural to require that $GH$ and $IF$ are merely isomorphic (and such an isomorphism belongs to the data of a morphism between $F$ and $G$). I would just call it a morphism from $F$ to $G$. But if you use that concept somewhere, better explain it to the readers. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg May 29 '14 at 12:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The first example one usually encounters of a "category of morphisms" is the arrow category, which would correspond to this definition. For $F$ and $G$ parallel functors, however, I don't think that's equivalent to the natural transformations between them... $\endgroup$ – askyle May 29 '14 at 15:16

$\require{AMScd}$ I think you are mistaking between two distinct notions (see also the comments).

The first notion is the arrow category, defined as follow. Let $\mathscr C$ be category. The category $\operatorname{Arr}(\mathscr C)$ (also denoted $\mathscr C^{\mathbf 2}$ or $\mathscr C^\rightarrow$) is the category whose

  • objects are the arrow $f$ of $\mathscr C$,
  • morphisms $(f\colon a \to b) \to (g \colon c \to d)$ are the commutative square $$ \begin{CD} a @>f>> b \\ @VVV @VVV \\ c @>>g> d , \end{CD}$$
  • composition is the concatenation of such squares.

You can of course apply that definition with $\mathscr C = \mathsf{Cat}$.

The second notion is the enrichment of $\mathsf {Cat}$ over itself. That is, the category $\mathsf{Cat}$ has the property that, for any two objects $A$ and $B$, the hom-set $\hom_{\mathsf{Cat}}(A,B)$ actually carries a category structure in such a way that the composition $$ \hom_{\mathsf{Cat}}(B,C) \times \hom_{\mathsf{Cat}}(A,B) \to \hom_{\mathsf{Cat}}(A,C) $$ is a functor. The short way to say it is : $\mathsf{Cat}$ is enriched over the (cartesian closed) monoidal category $(\mathsf{Cat},\times,\mathbf 1)$ (where $\mathbf 1$ is the final category).

The two notions are very distinct and not to be confused !


There is a more general notion that might be relevant here: the double category $\Bbb{CAT}$ of categories, functors and profunctors, where a profunctor $\mathcal A\not\to\mathcal B$ can be defined as a category $\mathcal U$ equipped with a functor $U:\mathcal U\to 2$ where $2=\,[x\to y]$ is the category of one arrow and $\mathcal A=H^{-1}(x)$ and $\mathcal B=H^{-1}(y)$ [see e.g. in nLab].

Let the horizontal arrows of $\Bbb{CAT}$ be the profunctors, the vertical arrows the functors, and let the cells -what you are looking for- be the functors $T:\mathcal U\to\mathcal V$ for which $T|_\mathcal A=F$ and $T|_\mathcal C=G$: $$ \mathcal A \overset{\mathcal U}{\not\to}\mathcal C \\ \ F\downarrow\ T\ \downarrow G \\ \mathcal B \underset{\mathcal V}{\not\to}\mathcal D $$

You can verify that if $\mathcal U$ and $\mathcal V$ are both the identity profunctors, then we get back exactly the natural transformations $F\leadsto G$.


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.