Talk:Braided monoidal category

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Braided category

Anybody willing to fill in this redlink, either by an appropriate redirect, or a new article? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 07:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my comments I made May 9, 2007 on Wikipedia's article on Braided Monoidal Categories. D.S.

Question about usage of opposite category here

I think the usage of ${\mathcal {C}}^{op}$ in the first sentence is confusing. In particular, it seems like ${\mathcal {C}}^{op}$ is being described as the same category as ${\mathcal {C}}$ but with a different (opposite) monoidal structure, rather than a monoidal structure on the opposite category of ${\mathcal {C}}$ as described in Opposite (category theory), which is the much more customary definition of ${\mathcal {C}}^{op}$ .

So, given a monoidal category, $({\mathcal {C}},\otimes )$ , are we saying that $({\mathcal {C}},\otimes )^{op}$ is of the form $({\mathcal {C}}^{op},\otimes ^{op})$ or is it of the form $({\mathcal {C}},\otimes ^{op})$ ?

A "natural isomorphism" would mean between two functors between the same categories, so it seems like this would mean that you'd want $\otimes ^{op}:{\mathcal {C}}\times {\mathcal {C}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {C}}$ and a natural isomorphism between $\otimes$ and $\otimes ^{op}$ .

Thomaso (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm trying to work out if a few different characterisations are equal and the description given in the opening line is not exactly correct. The differences are subtle but it's best to be as exact as possible. I believe the natural isomorphism is from $\otimes$ to $\otimes ^{op}$ as you say.

MitchB (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]