Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

A general limit lifting theorem for 2-dimensionalmonad theory

(but don’t let the long title scare you!)

Martin SzyldUniversity of Buenos Aires - CONICET, Argentina

CT 2017 @ UBC, Vancouver, Canada

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Limit lifting along the forgetful functor

K is a category, T is a monad on K (KT−→ K , id

i⇒ T , T 2 m⇒ T )

T -Alg

U

AF //

F<<

K

U creates limF ≡ we can give limF a

T -algebra structure such that it is limF

(we lift the limit of F along U)

The subindex (s, p, `) indicates (strict, pseudo, lax) algebra morphisms

Previous results

1 (from the V-enriched case)U−→ creates all limits.

2 T -AlgpU−→ K creates lax and pseudolimits [BKP,89].

3 T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits [Lack,05].

Note: All these limits are weighted, and the projections of the limitare always strict morphisms.

We will present a theorem which unifies and generalizes these results.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Limit lifting along the forgetful functor

K is a category, T is a monad on K (KT−→ K , id

i⇒ T , T 2 m⇒ T )

T -Alg

U

AF //

F<<

K

U creates limF ≡ we can give limF a

T -algebra structure such that it is limF

(we lift the limit of F along U)

The subindex (s, p, `) indicates (strict, pseudo, lax) algebra morphisms

Previous results

1 (from the V-enriched case) T -AlgU−→ K creates all limits.

2 T -AlgpU−→ K creates lax and pseudolimits [BKP,89].

3 T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits [Lack,05].

Note: All these limits are weighted, and the projections of the limitare always strict morphisms.

We will present a theorem which unifies and generalizes these results.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Limit lifting along the forgetful functor

K is a 2-category, T is a 2-monad on K ( K T−→ K, idi⇒ T , T 2 m⇒ T )

T -Alg

U

AF //

F<<

K

U creates limF ≡ we can give limF a

T -algebra structure such that it is limF

(we lift the limit of F along U)

The subindex (s, p, `) indicates (strict, pseudo, lax) algebra morphisms

Previous results

1 (from the V-enriched case) T -AlgU−→ K creates all limits.

2 T -AlgpU−→ K creates lax and pseudolimits [BKP,89].

3 T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits [Lack,05].

Note: All these limits are weighted, and the projections of the limitare always strict morphisms.

We will present a theorem which unifies and generalizes these results.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Limit lifting along the forgetful functor

K is a 2-category, T is a 2-monad on K ( K T−→ K, idi⇒ T , T 2 m⇒ T )

T -Algs

U

A F //

F;;

K

U creates limF ≡ we can give limF a

T -algebra structure such that it is limF

(we lift the limit of F along U)

The subindex (s, p, `) indicates (strict, pseudo, lax) algebra morphisms

Previous results

1 (from the V-enriched case) T -AlgU−→ K creates all limits.

2 T -AlgpU−→ K creates lax and pseudolimits [BKP,89].

3 T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits [Lack,05].

Note: All these limits are weighted, and the projections of the limitare always strict morphisms.

We will present a theorem which unifies and generalizes these results.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Limit lifting along the forgetful functor

K is a 2-category, T is a 2-monad on K ( K T−→ K, idi⇒ T , T 2 m⇒ T )

T -Algs

U

A F //

F;;

K

U creates limF ≡ we can give limF a

T -algebra structure such that it is limF

(we lift the limit of F along U)

The subindex (s, p, `) indicates (strict, pseudo, lax) algebra morphisms

Previous results

1 (from the V-enriched case) T -AlgsU−→ K creates all limits.

2 T -AlgpU−→ K creates lax and pseudolimits [BKP,89].

3 T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits [Lack,05].

Note: All these limits are weighted, and the projections of the limitare always strict morphisms.

We will present a theorem which unifies and generalizes these results.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Limit lifting along the forgetful functor

K is a 2-category, T is a 2-monad on K ( K T−→ K, idi⇒ T , T 2 m⇒ T )

T -Algp

U

A F //

F;;

K

U creates limF ≡ we can give limF a

T -algebra structure such that it is limF

(we lift the limit of F along U)

The subindex (s, p, `) indicates (strict, pseudo, lax) algebra morphisms

Previous results

1 (from the V-enriched case) T -AlgsU−→ K creates all limits.

2 T -AlgpU−→ K creates lax and pseudolimits [BKP,89].

3 T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits [Lack,05].

Note: All these limits are weighted, and the projections of the limitare always strict morphisms.

We will present a theorem which unifies and generalizes these results.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Limit lifting along the forgetful functor

K is a 2-category, T is a 2-monad on K ( K T−→ K, idi⇒ T , T 2 m⇒ T )

T -Alg`

U

A F //

F;;

K

U creates limF ≡ we can give limF a

T -algebra structure such that it is limF

(we lift the limit of F along U)

The subindex (s, p, `) indicates (strict, pseudo, lax) algebra morphisms

Previous results

1 (from the V-enriched case) T -AlgsU−→ K creates all limits.

2 T -AlgpU−→ K creates lax and pseudolimits [BKP,89].

3 T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits [Lack,05].

Note: All these limits are weighted, and the projections of the limitare always strict morphisms.

We will present a theorem which unifies and generalizes these results.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Limit lifting along the forgetful functor

K is a 2-category, T is a 2-monad on K ( K T−→ K, idi⇒ T , T 2 m⇒ T )

T -Alg?

U

A F //

F;;

K

U creates limF ≡ we can give limF a

T -algebra structure such that it is limF

(we lift the limit of F along U)

The subindex (s, p, `) indicates (strict, pseudo, lax) algebra morphisms

Previous results

1 (from the V-enriched case) T -AlgsU−→ K creates all limits.

2 T -AlgpU−→ K creates lax and pseudolimits [BKP,89].

3 T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits [Lack,05].

Note: All these limits are weighted, and the projections of the limitare always strict morphisms.

We will present a theorem which unifies and generalizes these results.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Limit lifting along the forgetful functor

K is a 2-category, T is a 2-monad on K ( K T−→ K, idi⇒ T , T 2 m⇒ T )

T -Alg?

U

A F //

F;;

K

U creates limF ≡ we can give limF a

T -algebra structure such that it is limF

(we lift the limit of F along U)

The subindex (s, p, `) indicates (strict, pseudo, lax) algebra morphisms

Previous results

1 (from the V-enriched case) T -AlgsU−→ K creates all limits.

2 T -AlgpU−→ K creates lax and pseudolimits [BKP,89].

3 T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits [Lack,05].

Note: All these limits are weighted, and the projections of the limitare always strict morphisms.

We will present a theorem which unifies and generalizes these results.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Ω-morphisms of T -algebras

A lax morphism Af−→ B between T -algebras has a structural 2-cell

TATf//

a

⇓f

TB

b

Af// B

1 lax (`) morphism: f any 2-cell.

2 pseudo (p) morphism: f invertible.

3 strict (s) morphism: f an identity.

Fix a family Ω of 2-cells of K. f is a Ω-morphism if f ∈ Ω.

Considering Ω` = 2-cells(K), Ωp = invertible 2-cells,Ωs = identities, we recover the three cases above.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Ω-morphisms of T -algebras

A lax morphism Af−→ B between T -algebras has a structural 2-cell

TATf//

a

⇓f

TB

b

Af// B

1 lax (`) morphism: f any 2-cell.

2 pseudo (p) morphism: f invertible.

3 strict (s) morphism: f an identity.

Fix a family Ω of 2-cells of K. f is a Ω-morphism if f ∈ Ω.

Considering Ω` = 2-cells(K), Ωp = invertible 2-cells,Ωs = identities, we recover the three cases above.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Ω-morphisms of T -algebras

A lax morphism Af−→ B between T -algebras has a structural 2-cell

TATf//

a

⇓f

TB

b

Af// B

1 lax (`) morphism: f any 2-cell.

2 pseudo (p) morphism: f invertible.

3 strict (s) morphism: f an identity.

Fix a family Ω of 2-cells of K. f is a Ω-morphism if f ∈ Ω.

Considering Ω` = 2-cells(K), Ωp = invertible 2-cells,Ωs = identities, we recover the three cases above.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Ω-morphisms of T -algebras

A lax morphism Af−→ B between T -algebras has a structural 2-cell

TATf//

a

⇓f

TB

b

Af// B

1 lax (`) morphism: f any 2-cell.

2 pseudo (p) morphism: f invertible.

3 strict (s) morphism: f an identity.

Fix a family Ω of 2-cells of K. f is a Ω-morphism if f ∈ Ω.

Considering Ω` = 2-cells(K), Ωp = invertible 2-cells,Ωs = identities, we recover the three cases above.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Ω-morphisms of T -algebras

A lax morphism Af−→ B between T -algebras has a structural 2-cell

TATf//

a

⇓f

TB

b

Af// B

1 lax (`) morphism: f any 2-cell.

2 pseudo (p) morphism: f invertible.

3 strict (s) morphism: f an identity.

Fix a family Ω of 2-cells of K. f is a Ω-morphism if f ∈ Ω.

Considering Ω` = 2-cells(K), Ωp = invertible 2-cells,Ωs = identities, we recover the three cases above.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

A general notion of weighted limit. The conical case(Gray,1974)

We fix A,B 2-categories, Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω ⊆ 2-cells(B)

• σ-ω-natural transformation: AF //θ⇓G// B, θ is a lax natural

transformation

FAθA //

Ff

⇓θf

GA

Gf

FBθB

// GB

such that θf is in Ω when f is in Σ.

• σ-ω-cone (for F , with vertex E ∈ B): is a σ-ω-natural A4E

//θ⇓F// B,

i.e.

FA

Ff

E

θA 77

θB''

⇓θf

FB

such that θf is in Ω when f is in Σ.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

A general notion of weighted limit. The conical case(Gray,1974)

We fix A,B 2-categories, Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω ⊆ 2-cells(B)

• σ-ω-natural transformation: AF //θ⇓G// B, θ is a lax natural

transformation

FAθA //

Ff

⇓θf

GA

Gf

FBθB

// GB

such that θf is in Ω when f is in Σ.

• σ-ω-cone (for F , with vertex E ∈ B): is a σ-ω-natural A4E

//θ⇓F// B,

i.e.

FA

Ff

E

θA 77

θB''

⇓θf

FB

such that θf is in Ω when f is in Σ.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

A general notion of weighted limit. The conical case(Gray,1974)

We fix A,B 2-categories, Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω ⊆ 2-cells(B)

• σ-ω-natural transformation: AF //θ⇓G// B, θ is a lax natural

transformation

FAθA //

Ff

⇓θf

GA

Gf

FBθB

// GB

such that θf is in Ω when f is in Σ.

• σ-ω-cone (for F , with vertex E ∈ B): is a σ-ω-natural A4E

//θ⇓F// B,

i.e.

FA

Ff

E

θA 77

θB''

⇓θf

FB

such that θf is in Ω when f is in Σ.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

• σ-ω-limit: is the universal σ-ω-cone, in the sense that the followingis an isomorphism

B(E,L)π∗−→ σ-ω-Cones(E,F )

On objects: ϕ oo // θ

FA

Ff

E

θA //

θB//

L

πA99

πB %%

FB

• We have the dual notion of σ-ω-opnatural, yielding σ-ω-oplimits,where the direction of the 2-cells is reversed.

• The notions of lax, pseudo and strict limits are recovered withparticular choices of Ω (and Σ).

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

• σ-ω-limit: is the universal σ-ω-cone, in the sense that the followingis an isomorphism

B(E,L)π∗−→ σ-ω-Cones(E,F )

On objects: ϕ oo // θ

FA

Ff

E ⇓θf

θA //

θB//

L ⇓πf

πA99

πB %%

FB

• We have the dual notion of σ-ω-opnatural, yielding σ-ω-oplimits,where the direction of the 2-cells is reversed.

• The notions of lax, pseudo and strict limits are recovered withparticular choices of Ω (and Σ).

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

• σ-ω-limit: is the universal σ-ω-cone, in the sense that the followingis an isomorphism

B(E,L)π∗−→ σ-ω-Cones(E,F )

On objects: ϕ oo // θ

FA

Ff

E∃ !ϕ

⇓θf//

θA //

θB//

L ⇓πf

πA99

πB %%

FB

• We have the dual notion of σ-ω-opnatural, yielding σ-ω-oplimits,where the direction of the 2-cells is reversed.

• The notions of lax, pseudo and strict limits are recovered withparticular choices of Ω (and Σ).

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

• σ-ω-limit: is the universal σ-ω-cone, in the sense that the followingis an isomorphism

B(E,L)π∗−→ σ-ω-Cones(E,F )

On objects: ϕ oo // θ

FA

Ff

E∃ !ϕ

⇑θf//

θA //

θB//

L ⇑πf

πA99

πB %%

FB

• We have the dual notion of σ-ω-opnatural, yielding σ-ω-oplimits,where the direction of the 2-cells is reversed.

• The notions of lax, pseudo and strict limits are recovered withparticular choices of Ω (and Σ).

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

• σ-ω-limit: is the universal σ-ω-cone, in the sense that the followingis an isomorphism

B(E,L)π∗−→ σ-ω-Cones(E,F )

On objects: ϕ oo // θ

FA

Ff

E∃ !ϕ

⇑θf//

θA //

θB//

L ⇑πf

πA99

πB %%

FB

• We have the dual notion of σ-ω-opnatural, yielding σ-ω-oplimits,where the direction of the 2-cells is reversed.

• The notions of lax, pseudo and strict limits are recovered withparticular choices of Ω (and Σ).

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (finding the hypotheses)

We consider Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). The σ-ω-limits arealways taken with respect to Σ and Ω.

T -AlgΩ′

U

A F //

F

;;

K

Can we give L = σ-ω-limF a structure of algebrasuch that the projections are strict morphisms?

We need the 2-cells θf yielding a σ-ω-cone:

TFAa // FA

TL

TπA77

L

TFB FB

θf ∈ Ω if f ∈ Σ: T (Ω) ⊆ Ω , Ω′ ⊆ Ω ⇒ TL`−→ L.

The limit L is Ω′-compatible ⇒ (TL, `) is the desired lifted limit.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (finding the hypotheses)

We consider Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). The σ-ω-limits arealways taken with respect to Σ and Ω.

T -AlgΩ′

U

A F //

F

;;

K

Can we give L = σ-ω-limF a structure of algebrasuch that the projections are strict morphisms?

We need the 2-cells θf yielding a σ-ω-cone:

TFAa // FA

TL

TπA77

`// L

πA77

TFB FB

θf ∈ Ω if f ∈ Σ: T (Ω) ⊆ Ω , Ω′ ⊆ Ω ⇒ TL`−→ L.

The limit L is Ω′-compatible ⇒ (TL, `) is the desired lifted limit.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (finding the hypotheses)

We consider Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). The σ-ω-limits arealways taken with respect to Σ and Ω.

T -AlgΩ′

U

A F //

F

;;

K

Can we give L = σ-ω-limF a structure of algebrasuch that the projections are strict morphisms?

We need the 2-cells θf yielding a σ-ω-cone:

TFAa // FA

Ff

TL

TπB''

TπA77

`

⇓θf// L ⇓πf

πA77

πB ''TFB

b// FB

θf ∈ Ω if f ∈ Σ: T (Ω) ⊆ Ω , Ω′ ⊆ Ω ⇒ TL`−→ L.

The limit L is Ω′-compatible ⇒ (TL, `) is the desired lifted limit.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (finding the hypotheses)

We consider Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). The σ-ω-limits arealways taken with respect to Σ and Ω.

T -AlgΩ′

U

A F //

F

;;

K

Can we give L = σ-ω-limF a structure of algebrasuch that the projections are strict morphisms?

We need the 2-cells θf yielding a σ-ω-cone:

TFAa // FA

Ff

TL ⇓θf

TπB''

TπA77

L

TFBb// FB

θf ∈ Ω if f ∈ Σ:

T (Ω) ⊆ Ω , Ω′ ⊆ Ω ⇒ TL`−→ L.

The limit L is Ω′-compatible ⇒ (TL, `) is the desired lifted limit.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (finding the hypotheses)

We consider Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). The σ-ω-limits arealways taken with respect to Σ and Ω.

T -AlgΩ′

U

A F //

F

;;

K

Can we give L = σ-ω-limF a structure of algebrasuch that the projections are strict morphisms?

We need the 2-cells θf yielding a σ-ω-cone:

TFA

TFf

Ff⇒

a // FA

Ff

⇓θf : TL ⇓Tπf

TπB''

TπA77

L

TFBb// FB

θf ∈ Ω if f ∈ Σ:

T (Ω) ⊆ Ω , Ω′ ⊆ Ω ⇒ TL`−→ L.

The limit L is Ω′-compatible ⇒ (TL, `) is the desired lifted limit.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (finding the hypotheses)

We consider Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). The σ-ω-limits arealways taken with respect to Σ and Ω.

T -AlgΩ′

U

A F //

F

;;

K

Can we give L = σ-ω-oplimF a structure of algebrasuch that the projections are strict morphisms?

We need the 2-cells θf yielding a σ-ω-opcone:

TFA

TFf

Ff⇒

a // FA

Ff

⇑θf : TL ⇑Tπf

TπB''

TπA77

L

TFBb// FB

θf ∈ Ω if f ∈ Σ:

T (Ω) ⊆ Ω , Ω′ ⊆ Ω ⇒ TL`−→ L.

The limit L is Ω′-compatible ⇒ (TL, `) is the desired lifted limit.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (finding the hypotheses)

We consider Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). The σ-ω-limits arealways taken with respect to Σ and Ω.

T -AlgΩ′

U

A F //

F

;;

K

Can we give L = σ-ω-oplimF a structure of algebrasuch that the projections are strict morphisms?

We need the 2-cells θf yielding a σ-ω-opcone:

TFA

TFf

Ff⇒

a // FA

Ff

⇑θf : TL ⇑Tπf

TπB''

TπA77

L

TFBb// FB

θf ∈ Ω if f ∈ Σ: T (Ω) ⊆ Ω

, Ω′ ⊆ Ω ⇒ TL`−→ L.

The limit L is Ω′-compatible ⇒ (TL, `) is the desired lifted limit.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (finding the hypotheses)

We consider Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). The σ-ω-limits arealways taken with respect to Σ and Ω.

T -AlgΩ′

U

A F //

F

;;

K

Can we give L = σ-ω-oplimF a structure of algebrasuch that the projections are strict morphisms?

We need the 2-cells θf yielding a σ-ω-opcone:

TFA

TFf

Ff⇒

a // FA

Ff

⇑θf : TL ⇑Tπf

TπB''

TπA77

L

TFBb// FB

θf ∈ Ω if f ∈ Σ: T (Ω) ⊆ Ω , Ω′ ⊆ Ω

⇒ TL`−→ L.

The limit L is Ω′-compatible ⇒ (TL, `) is the desired lifted limit.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (finding the hypotheses)

We consider Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). The σ-ω-limits arealways taken with respect to Σ and Ω.

T -AlgΩ′

U

A F //

F

;;

K

Can we give L = σ-ω-oplimF a structure of algebrasuch that the projections are strict morphisms?

We need the 2-cells θf yielding a σ-ω-opcone:

TFA

TFf

Ff⇒

a // FA

Ff

⇑θf : TL ⇑Tπf

TπB''

TπA77

L

TFBb// FB

θf ∈ Ω if f ∈ Σ: T (Ω) ⊆ Ω , Ω′ ⊆ Ω ⇒ TL`−→ L.

The limit L is Ω′-compatible ⇒ (TL, `) is the desired lifted limit.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (finding the hypotheses)

We consider Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). The σ-ω-limits arealways taken with respect to Σ and Ω.

T -AlgΩ′

U

A F //

F

;;

K

Can we give L = σ-ω-oplimF a structure of algebrasuch that the projections are strict morphisms?

We need the 2-cells θf yielding a σ-ω-opcone:

TFA

TFf

Ff⇒

a // FA

Ff

⇑θf : TL ⇑Tπf

TπB''

TπA77

L

TFBb// FB

θf ∈ Ω if f ∈ Σ: T (Ω) ⊆ Ω , Ω′ ⊆ Ω ⇒ TL`−→ L.

The limit L is Ω′-compatible ⇒ (TL, `) is the desired lifted limit.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (properly stated)

Theorem: Let Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). Assume T (Ω) ⊆ Ω

and Ω′ ⊆ Ω. Then T -AlgΩ′ U−→ K creates Ω′-compatible σ-ω-oplimits.

the proof follows the ideas of the previous slide

We deduce the result for weighted σ-ω-limits, by showing that theycan be expressed as conical σ-ω-limits.

The case Ω,Ω′ ∈ Ω`,Ωp,ΩsT (Ω) ⊆ Ω 3, Ω′-compatible 3

1 (with Ω = Ω′ = Ωs) T -AlgsU−→ K creates all (strict) limits.

2 (with Ω = Ω′ = Ωp) T -AlgpU−→ K creates σ-limits (thus in

particular lax and pseudolimits).

3 (with Ω = Ω′ = Ω`) T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (properly stated)

Theorem: Let Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). Assume T (Ω) ⊆ Ω

and Ω′ ⊆ Ω. Then T -AlgΩ′ U−→ K creates Ω′-compatible σ-ω-oplimits.

the proof follows the ideas of the previous slide

We deduce the result for weighted σ-ω-limits, by showing that theycan be expressed as conical σ-ω-limits.

The case Ω,Ω′ ∈ Ω`,Ωp,ΩsT (Ω) ⊆ Ω 3, Ω′-compatible 3

1 (with Ω = Ω′ = Ωs) T -AlgsU−→ K creates all (strict) limits.

2 (with Ω = Ω′ = Ωp) T -AlgpU−→ K creates σ-limits (thus in

particular lax and pseudolimits).

3 (with Ω = Ω′ = Ω`) T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Our limit lifting theorem (properly stated)

Theorem: Let Σ ⊆ Arrows(A), Ω,Ω′ ⊆ 2-cells(K). Assume T (Ω) ⊆ Ω

and Ω′ ⊆ Ω. Then T -AlgΩ′ U−→ K creates Ω′-compatible σ-ω-oplimits.

the proof follows the ideas of the previous slide

We deduce the result for weighted σ-ω-limits, by showing that theycan be expressed as conical σ-ω-limits.

The case Ω,Ω′ ∈ Ω`,Ωp,ΩsT (Ω) ⊆ Ω 3, Ω′-compatible 3

1 (with Ω = Ω′ = Ωs) T -AlgsU−→ K creates all (strict) limits.

2 (with Ω = Ω′ = Ωp) T -AlgpU−→ K creates σ-limits (thus in

particular lax and pseudolimits).

3 (with Ω = Ω′ = Ω`) T -Alg`U−→ K creates oplax limits.

Limit lifting results Unifying morphisms Unifying limits Our result References

Thank you for your attention!

References

[BKP,89] Blackwell R., Kelly G. M., Power A.J., Two-dimensionalmonad theory, JPAA 59.

[Gray,74] Gray J. W., Formal category theory: adjointness for2-categories, Springer LNM 391.

[Lack,05] Lack S., Limits for lax morphisms, ACS 13.

A general limit lifting theorem for 2-dimensional monad theory isavailable as arXiv:1702.03303.