You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Is it correct to say that a symmetric monoidal category is a braided monoidal category whose braiding is an involution?
nLab seems to say exactly this: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/symmetric+monoidal+category#definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braided_monoidal_category#Symmetric_monoidal_categories
It's not literally an involution (except possibly in some parameterized sense) because the indices are different.
Otherwise, yes.
Due to what Reid points out, I wouldn't say the symmetry is an involution unless I clarified that right away. Might as well just say
The components might not be involutions, but maybe the natural transformation itself is an involution, no?
no, it can't be—it's not an endomorphism
it's a transformation from ⊗ to ⊗ ∘ τ, where τ is the swapping functor C × C → C × C
to be precise, symmetry says that braiding's inverse is not itself but its own whiskering by τ
which is well-typed since τ is an involution
So the symmetry is a kind of "quasi-involution" that's riding the involution .
Here "riding" is one of Jim Dolan's terms for a certain kind of microcosm principle thing...
For example if you have 2 monoids in two different monoidal categories, you can have a morphism from one monoid to another riding a monoidal functor from one monoidal category to the other.
oooh
i like that
ive definitely noticed that kind of thing before :eyes:
nice to have a name for it
Yes, I like it.
It hasn't really caught on, but we should just start using it - it's pretty clear.