I am trying to generalize the notion of monoid object internal to a (not necessarily strict) monoidal category, by weakening the associativity and unitarity diagrams (see this nlab entry.) Of course this construction only makes sense in a (not necessarily strict) monoidal 2-category, since we use 2-isomorphisms. As written in the nlab entry, the goal is to be able to define a (not necessarily strict) monoidal category as a pseudomonoid in $\textbf{Cat}$. This is my definition so far:

Given a (not necessarily strict) monoidal 2-category $(C,\otimes, I, \alpha_C, \lambda_C, \rho_C)$, where $\alpha_C$, $\lambda_C$ and $\rho_C$ are respectively the associator and the left and right unitors, we define a pseudomonoid in $C$ by the following data:

  • an object $M \in |C|$
  • a 1-morphism $\mu: M \otimes M \to M$ called multiplication;
  • a 1-morphism $\eta: I \to M$ called the unit;
  • a 2-isomorphism $\alpha_M: \mu \circ (\mu \otimes \text{Id}_M) \to \mu \circ (\text{Id}_M \otimes \mu) \circ \alpha_C$ called the (internal) associator;
  • a 2-isomorphism $\lambda_M: \mu \circ (\eta \otimes \text{Id}_M) \to \lambda_C$ called the (internal) left unitor, and
  • a 2-isomorphism $\rho_M: \mu \circ (\text{Id}_M \otimes \eta) \to \rho_C$ called the (internal) right unitor,

such that some diagrams commute.

As you might expect I am having some trouble defining the relevant diagrams, namely MacLane's pentagon and the triangle identity. Normally $\alpha$ is defined my its morphisms $\alpha_{x,y,z}: x \cdot (y \cdot z) \to (x \cdot y) \cdot z$ where $a \cdot b$ is shorthand for $\mu(a,b)$. That gives a very nice way of writing the pentagon. Simlarly, $\lambda$ is defined by $\lambda_x: 1 \cdot x \to x$ and $\rho$ by $\rho_x: x \cdot 1 \to x$, where $1$ is shorthand for $\eta(I)$ I suppose.

However, defining $\alpha$ this way seems evil to me (not in the technical sense), since $M$ need not contain elements, and in general 2-morphisms are not natural transformations. In the spirit of category theory, is there a way to define the 2-isomorphisms (maybe like I did above?) in a way that makes the relevant diagrams possible to write?

As might be apparent, I am not very familiar with this kind of 2-categorical reasoning, and as far as I know this question may not even be well-defined or even meaningful. I apologize in advance if that is the case.

  • $\begingroup$ Don't be so modest, this is a very well written question. $\endgroup$ Jun 10, 2014 at 13:11
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, your comment makes me feel less out of place. $\endgroup$
    – JoeyBF
    Jun 10, 2014 at 13:23

1 Answer 1


The pentagon identity is a commutative diagram of $2$-morphisms, each one induced by $\alpha_M$. It looks as follows. Because I'm lazy, I will omit the associators from $\mathcal{C}$.

$$\begin{array}{cc} \mu \circ ((\mu \circ (\mu \otimes\mathrm{id}_M)) \otimes \mathrm{id}_M) & \rightarrow & \mu \circ ((\mu \circ (\mathrm{id}_M \otimes \mu)) \otimes \mathrm{id}_M) & \rightarrow & \mu \circ (\mathrm{id}_M \otimes (\mu \circ (\mu \otimes \mathrm{id}_M))) \\ \downarrow &&&& \downarrow \\ \mu \circ (\mu \otimes \mu) & & \rightarrow && \mu \circ (\mathrm{id}_M \otimes (\mu \circ (\mathrm{id}_M \otimes \mu))) \end{array}$$ It should be rather straight forward to write down the $2$-morphisms here. For example, the first $\rightarrow$ in the first line is $\mu \circ (\alpha_M \otimes \mathrm{id}_M)$.

Applying this to the monoidal $2$-category of small categories, we obtain the usual pentagon identity.

$$\begin{array}{c} ((A \otimes B) \otimes C) \otimes D & \rightarrow & (A \otimes (B \otimes C)) \otimes D & \rightarrow & A \otimes ((B \otimes C) \otimes D) \\ \downarrow &&&& \downarrow \\ (A \otimes B) \otimes (C \otimes D) && \rightarrow && A \otimes (B \otimes (C \otimes D))\end{array}$$

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. If I may, I have one more question. If you added the associators from $C$, wouldn't the cells of your diagrams become 2-morphisms? I would see it as whiskering $\alpha_C$ by what you wrote, and then the morphisms between these would be 3-morphisms. Where have I made a mistake? $\endgroup$
    – JoeyBF
    Jun 10, 2014 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ No, $\alpha$ is a $2$-morphism. $\endgroup$ Jun 10, 2014 at 17:14

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.