How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Set-object enriched categories, enriched functors, and enriched natural transformations form a strict 2-category
Statement
Fix a locally small monoidal category . Then the -categories with a set of objects, the -functors between them, and the -natural transformations between those functors form a strict 2-category in the sense of Strict 2-category.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A locally small monoidal category .
A -category has a set of objects, hom-objects in , composition morphisms, and identity morphisms satisfying associativity and the unit laws (Enriched category over a monoidal base).
A -functor is a function on objects together with hom-object maps compatible with enriched composition and units (Enriched functor).
A -natural transformation is a family of components satisfying the enriched naturality law (Enriched natural transformation).
A strict 2-category consists of objects, hom-categories, identity 1-morphisms, and horizontally composable functors satisfying strict associativity and unit laws (Strict 2-category).
Proof
Take objects to be the set-object -categories. For fixed , let the objects of the hom-category be the -functors from [L2], and let the morphisms be the -natural transformations from [L3]. The identity 2-cell on a functor has components from [L1], and vertical composition of and is defined componentwise by . Associativity and the unit laws for this vertical composition follow directly from the associativity and unit diagrams of [L1].
Horizontal composition of 1-morphisms is ordinary composition of -functors: if and , then and the compatibility axioms follow from those in [L2]. Whiskering of 2-cells is also componentwise: and . These formulas preserve naturality because [L2] and [L3] are already written against enriched composition.
Step 1.1 gives a category of 1-morphisms and 2-morphisms for every ordered pair of objects, and step 1.2 gives horizontal composition functors between those hom-categories. The associativity and unit laws are strict because they are literal equalities of composed functions and of componentwise composites. Thus [L4] applies.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
8 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- G. M. Kelly, Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory, Section 1.2 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Geoffrey Cruttwell, Normed Spaces and the Change of Base for Enriched Categories, Section 2.3 (standard reference, not scraped)