Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 32 references

2-Segal sets and pseudomonoids in the bicategory of spans

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read 2-Segal sets are in one-to-one correspondence with pseudomonoids in the bicategory of spans, and this paper proves both directions.

desk verdict Useful expository paper on 2-Segal sets and pseudomonoids in Span, with a genuine gap: the inverse construction is never verified, so the stated one-to-one correspondence is not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.22832 v1 pith:NN4H7YLD submitted 2025-05-28 math.CT math.AT

Sophia E Marx , Rajan Amit Mehta This is my paper
classification math.CTmath.AT MSC 18B1018B4018C4018N50
keywords 2-SegalsetpseudomonoidbicategoryofspanssimplicialcategorificationHallalgebraincidencegraphicalcalculus
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proves that 2-Segal sets, the simplicial sets that generalize nerves of categories, are in one-to-one correspondence with pseudomonoids—monoids whose associativity and unit laws hold up to coherent isomorphism—inside the bicategory of spans of sets. This makes precise the idea, originating in work on Hall and incidence algebras, that a 2-Segal set is a categorified associative algebra: the multiplication of the algebra is replaced by a span, and the higher simplices supply the coherence laws. The proof is elementary and fully worked in both directions, using a graphical calculus that turns subdivisions of polygons into string diagrams for spans. A reader familiar with ordinary simplicial sets but not higher category theory can follow the entire argument.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a graphical calculus that represents an n-simplex of a 2-Segal set as a subdivided (n+1)-gon. A subdivision of the polygon into two polygons corresponds to the pullback expressing X_n as a fiber product of smaller X_k over X_1, and the 2-Segal condition says that any two subdivisions of the same polygon give canonically isomorphic sets. The dual graph of the triangulated polygon is then a string diagram for the n-fold multiplication span µ_n, which turns the polygon-subdivision isomorphisms into the associator and unitors of a pseudomonoid. In the reverse direction, the same dual-graph correspondence lets the coherence theorem for pseudomonoids produce the face, degeneracy, and 2-Segal structure maps of a simplicial set from any pseudomonoid.

What would settle it

The theorem would be overturned by any 2-Segal set for which the diagram in Remark 3.3 is not a pullback—that is, any 2-Segal set that is not unital—since the definition of the unitors in Section 5.1 depends on this. A direct check is also possible: take a concrete 2-Segal set, such as the nerve of a partial monoid, write out the associator and unitors the construction gives, and verify the pentagon and triangle identities in Span; a mismatch would show the correspondence is not as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, Theorem 5.1, is that there is a one-to-one correspondence, up to isomorphism, between 2-Segal sets and pseudomonoids in Span. Given a 2-Segal set X•, the paper builds a pseudomonoid whose underlying object is the set X1 of 1-simplices; the unit is the span η: {•} ← X0 → X1 given by s0, and the multiplication is the span µ: X1 × X1 ← X2 → X1 given by (d2,d0) and d1. The 2-Segal isomorphisms from subdivisions of the (n+1)-gon provide the associator, and the remaining coherence data comes from the unitality of 2-Segal sets. In the other direction, a pseudomonoid (X, µ, η) yields a simplicial set whose n-simplices are the apexes of the n-fold multiplication spans µn: X^n ← X_n → X, with face and degeneracy maps defined by the canonical 2-isomorphisms that the coherence theorem for pseudomonoids provides. The paper shows these two constructions are inverse up to isomorphism, and that the whole correspondence can be read as a categorification of associative algebras.

Load-bearing premise

The proof relies on the fact, imported from [12], that every 2-Segal set is unital: a degenerate 1-simplex is exactly s0(x) for some vertex x, and this is what makes the unit and the unitors of the pseudomonoid constructible. If unitality ever failed, the construction of a pseudomonoid from a 2-Segal set would not go through.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Hall algebra and the incidence (co)algebra constructions from a 2-Segal set are direct consequences: applying the pullback-pushforward functor to the pseudomonoid's spans yields an associative algebra with unit.
  • Every Segal set is 2-Segal, so every nerve of a category carries the pseudomonoid structure; the theorem thus covers classical category nerves as a special case.
  • The correspondence is an elementary, set-level shadow of Stern's ∞-categorical equivalence, so it can serve as a bridge for readers who want the 2-Segal viewpoint without ∞-category theory.
  • The graphical calculus becomes a proof technique: any identity that holds for all subdivisions of a polygon corresponds to a coherence identity for the associated pseudomonoid, so the pentagon and triangle equations can be read directly from pictures.
  • Because pseudomonoids are the objects of a known theory, results about pseudomonoids (such as the coherence theorem) can be imported to produce structure on 2-Segal sets, e.g., the use of the coherence theorem to construct face and degeneracy maps in the reverse direction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same polygon-dual-graph dictionary should work for 2-Segal objects in any category with finite limits, not only Set, because the proof uses only universal properties of pullbacks and the unitality theorem is known to hold for 2-Segal spaces.
  • If unitality is dropped, the correspondence likely restricts to nonunital pseudomonoids ('pseudo-semigroups') in Span, so the unit is the only place where the external unitality theorem is essential.
  • The correspondence suggests that computing the Hall algebra of a 2-Segal set is equivalent to computing the decategorified monoid of a pseudomonoid, which may yield new examples by starting with any span-wise monoid structure and checking the coherence identities.
  • A fully functorial version would identify morphisms of 2-Segal sets with oplax morphisms of pseudomonoids, as Stern observed; spelling this out at the set level would give a clean statement of the correspondence as an equivalence of categories rather than a bijection of objects.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper surveys 2-Segal sets and their graphical calculus, and then proves Theorem 5.1: a one-to-one correspondence (up to isomorphism) between 2-Segal sets and pseudomonoids in the bicategory Span of sets and spans. The forward direction (Section 5.1) constructs the multiplication span, associator, and unitors from the 2-Segal isomorphisms, following the approach of [8]. The backward direction (Section 5.2) starts from a pseudomonoid, defines X_n as the apex of the n-fold multiplication span, and defines face and degeneracy maps via coherence 2-isomorphisms and projections. The paper also discusses partial categories, several concrete examples, and Hall and incidence algebra constructions.

Significance. The main theorem is a known special case of Stern's infinity-categorical correspondence, but the paper aims to give an elementary and widely accessible proof, with a graphical calculus for 2-Segal sets and spans. The dual-graph interpretation in Section 5.1 is a useful contribution, and the examples in Sections 3 and 6 make the paper valuable as an introduction. The exposition is generally clear and the Hall/incidence algebra section connects the categorical framework to classical combinatorics. However, as detailed below, the proof of the main theorem is not complete as written: several load-bearing verifications are deferred or omitted.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.2 and Theorem 5.1] The theorem is not established because the two constructions are never shown to be inverse up to isomorphism. Section 5.2 ends by asserting that the constructed simplicial set is 2-Segal, but it does not prove that applying the construction of Section 5.1 to this simplicial set recovers the original pseudomonoid, nor that applying Section 5.2 to the pseudomonoid produced in Section 5.1 recovers the original 2-Segal set. For example, for a 2-Segal set X, the 3-simplices of the reconstructed simplicial set are the apex of μ∘(μ×id), canonically identified with X_2 ×_{X_1} X_2 via T_13; one must check that the face maps defined in Section 5.2 agree with the original face maps under this identification, but no such check appears.
  2. [§5.1, paragraph after Eq. (3.8)] The pentagon equation for the associator a = T_02 ∘ (T_13)^{-1} is left as 'a nice exercise for the reader', and the triangle identity is asserted as 'immediate'. These are central coherence conditions for the pseudomonoid structure, not optional details. A complete proof of Theorem 5.1 must include an explicit verification that a satisfies the pentagon equation using the 2-Segal functor for n=3, and that ℓ and r satisfy the triangle identity.
  3. [§5.2, definitions of face and degeneracy maps] The simplicial identities and the 2-Segal conditions for the constructed simplicial set are claimed to follow from the graphical calculus, but no rigorous verification is supplied. The face and degeneracy maps are defined by choosing canonical 2-isomorphisms and then projecting; compatibility of these choices is needed for the simplicial identities. The statement that the string diagrams 'correspond precisely' to the graphical calculus of Section 3.4 is not a substitute for checking the identities directly, especially because the backward construction has not been shown to satisfy the same graphical rules as the forward direction.
  4. [§5.2, degeneracy maps] The displayed canonical 2-isomorphism used to define degeneracies appears to have the wrong type. If μ is the multiplication morphism with two inputs, then μ_{n+1} ∘ (id^i × μ × id^{n-i}) is a span from X^{n+2} to X, not from X^n to X. The formula as written therefore cannot define a map from X_n to X_{n+1}. If the intended morphism is the unit η rather than μ, the formula should be corrected; otherwise, the construction must be explained more carefully.
  5. [Statement of Theorem 5.1] The theorem is stated as a 'one-to-one correspondence (up to isomorphism)' without specifying the categories or bicategories involved and without discussing morphisms between 2-Segal sets or between pseudomonoids. If the intended statement is an equivalence of categories, as in Stern's result, the paper needs to define the relevant functors and natural transformations, or at least state clearly that only isomorphism classes of objects are being compared. If only a bijection of isomorphism classes is claimed, the missing round-trip verification in Section 5.2 is still required.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'BICA TEGOR Y' should be 'BICATEGORY'.
  2. [§4.5] The string diagrams for η and μ appear to be missing from the text between 'We represent η and μ, respectively, by the following string diagrams:' and 'Note that'.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'Propositiion' before Corollary 3.7, 'amd' in Section 3.2, 'the the Hall algebra' in Section 6.2, and an extra parenthesis in 'Figure 11))' in Section 5.1.
  4. [§3.1, Proposition 3.1] The proof of Proposition 3.1 is said to be similar to that of Proposition 2.1, but since the equivalence of the three 2-Segal conditions is used throughout the graphical calculus, a detailed proof or a precise reference would improve self-containedness.
  5. [§3.2, Proposition 3.8] The proof of Proposition 3.8 is left as an exercise. If this characterization is intended to be used in later sections, at least a sketch of the proof should be included.
  6. [§5.2] The paper relies on the coherence theorem for pseudomonoids to obtain canonical 2-isomorphisms to μ_n, but the choices of these isomorphisms are not specified. Since the face and degeneracy maps are defined through these choices, a precise statement of which coherence isomorphism is used in each case would make the construction checkable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the two directions are constructed from independent inputs, and the only self-citation supplies technique rather than the theorem.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. Section 5.1 constructs a pseudomonoid from a 2-Segal set by setting eta = s0, mu = (d2,d0; d1), a = T02 ∘ T13^{-1}, and unitors via the unitality theorem; the unitality input is cited from the independent source [12] (Feller-Garner-Kock-Proulx-Weber), and the pentagon/triangle checks are justified by the 2-Segal functor Proposition 3.15, not assumed. Section 5.2 constructs a simplicial set from a pseudomonoid by taking X_n as the apex of the left-associated n-fold multiplication and defining face and degeneracy maps via canonical pseudomonoid coherences; it invokes the independent coherence theorem [21,32] to conclude that the 2-Segal maps are isomorphisms. This is a deduction from the pseudomonoid axioms, not a restatement of the target theorem. The only self-citation, [8] (Contreras-Mehta-Stern), supplies the graphical calculus and the approach for the forward direction, but the paper reproduces the relevant graphical facts and states Proposition 3.15 rather than deferring the theorem to [8]; hence it is not load-bearing. One genuine proof gap is that the round-trip inverse verification (Psi∘Phi ≅ id and Phi∘Psi ≅ id) is never explicitly checked in Section 5.2, so Theorem 5.1 is not fully established as a one-to-one correspondence; however, an omitted verification is a correctness concern, not a circular reduction, and it does not raise the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters and no invented entities. Its deductive core rests on standard set-theoretic pullbacks and on two external theorems: the unitality of 2-Segal sets and the coherence theorem for pseudomonoids. These are cited but not proved in this paper.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math The category of sets has finite limits, so pullbacks exist and are used to compose spans.
    Used throughout Section 4 to define the bicategory Span and its composition.
  • domain assumption Every 2-Segal set is unital: the diagram (3.6) is a pullback.
    Cited from [12] and used in Remark 3.3, Section 3.4, and Section 5.1 to define unitors and degeneracy maps via dotted edges.
  • domain assumption Coherence theorem for monoidal bicategories and pseudomonoids.
    Used in Section 5.2 to assert that any tree-like string diagram is canonically 2-isomorphic to the n-fold multiplication μ^n.
  • domain assumption Planar binary rooted trees are the dual graphs of triangulated polygons.
    Used in Section 5.2 to transfer the graphical calculus for 2-Segal sets to the verification of simplicial identities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 2-Segal sets and pseudomonoids in the bicategory of spans." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NN4H7YLD

@misc{pith2026250522832,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 2-Segal sets and pseudomonoids in the bicategory of spans},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NN4H7YLD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.22832}
}
read the original abstract

In this survey article, we give an introduction to the notion of a 2-Segal set and prove that 2-Segal sets are equivalent to pseudomonoids in the bicategory of spans. The proof utilizes graphical techniques for 2-Segal sets and spans that should be useful in more general settings. There are procedures for obtaining an associative algebra from a 2-Segal set (satisfying finiteness conditions). We describe these procedures and give several examples of algebras arising from 2-Segal sets. Wherever possible, we avoid higher category theory so as to make the paper accessible to a wide audience.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.22832 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Hasse diagrams of the posets of subdivided length 2 intervals (on the left) and subdivided length 3 intervals (on the right). Proof. The implications 2 =⇒ 1 and 2 =⇒ 3 are immediate, since the maps (2.9) and (2.11) are special cases of (2.10). The implication 1 =⇒ 2 follows from the fact that the maps in (2.10) can be obtained by repeated use of (2.9). Finally, the implication 3 =⇒ 2 follows from the commutative… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization of the maps P 5 13 : [2] → [5], given by {0, 1, 2} 7→ {1, 2, 3}, and Q5 13 : [4] → [5], given by {0, 1, 2, 3, 4} 7→ {0, 1, 3, 4, 5}. Given α ∈ HomC(x, y), we have that T2(s0α) = (d2s0α, d0s0α) = (s0d1α, α) = (s0x, α), and it follows that α ◦ s0x = d1s0α = α. A similar calculation using s1α shows that s0y ◦α = α. This establishes that C is a category, but we still need to prove that X• is isomorphic to … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The poset of subdivided squares. =⇒ ⇒= =⇒ ⇒= =⇒ =⇒ ⇒= ⇒= =⇒ =⇒ =⇒ =⇒ =⇒ ⇒= =⇒ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (15 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The poset of subdivided pentagons. of sets. In [8], this functor was called the 2-Segal functor. For n = 3, the 2-Segal functor takes the poset in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Graphical calculus for the face map d 4 1 : X4 → X3. For the remainder of this section, we will assume that X• is 2-Segal. Then, Proposition 3.15 justifies the use of graphical representations as follows: • An unsubdivided (n + 1)-gon represents Xn. • A subdivided (n +…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: On the left, visualization of the identity d 4 1d 5 3 = d 4 2d 5 1 . Both sides have the effect of deleting the same two triangles. On the right, visualization of the identity d 4 2d 5 3 = d 4 2d 5 2 . Both sides have the effect of deleting the same quadrilateral. 2 1 …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The figure on the left represents {ω ∈ X5 | e3ω ∈ s0(X0)}. The figure on the right represents {(ξ, ψ) ∈ X2 × X3 | eoutξ = e1ψ, e2ξ ∈ s0(X0)}. 2 1 0 5 4 3 ω ⇐⇒ 2 1 0 5 4 3 η ⇐⇒ 2 1 0 5 4 3 η [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Since e3ω is degenerate, we have that ω = s2η, where η = d2ω = d3ω. This also illustrates that there are two ways to produce s2η by appending a degenerate 2-simplex so that the result has degenerate 3rd vertebra. dotted, we will only make use of diagrams where external…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: This diagram could represent (m ◦ (h × k)) ◦ (f × g) or m◦ ((h×k) ◦ (f ×g)) or m◦ ((f ◦h)×(g ◦ k)). Insertion of identity morphisms or monoidal units is also possible, e.g. (m ◦ (id × id) ◦ (h × k)) ◦ (f × g). represent morphisms f ×m : X ×(Y ×Z) → U ×V and g : X ×Y ×Z…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: If f, g, h are as in (4.5) and (4.6), the diagram on the left represents the projection map A ×Y B → A, and the diagram on the right represents the projection map A × C → A. In this situation, we refer to the natural maps A×Y B → A and A×Y B → B as the projection maps…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The dual graph of the (n + 1)-gon can be interpreted as the string diagram for the n-fold multiplication span (5.2) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The pentagon with a dotted edge and the string di￾agram obtained as its dual graph are two different ways of repre￾senting X0 ×X1 X4, which is canonically isomorphic to {ω ∈ X4 | e2ω ∈ s0(X0)} [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The partially-dotted triangle on the left represents {ω ∈ X2 | e1ω ∈ s0(X0)}. The isomorphism with s0(X1) ∼= X1 defines the left unitor ℓ. Similarly, the right unitor r is obtained via the triangle on the right. T02 ==⇒ ⇐ T13 == =⇒s1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The maps that appear in the triangle identity are a = T02 ◦ T −1 13 , ℓ = s −1 1 ◦ T −1 02 , r = s −1 1 ◦ T −1 13 . The triangle identity r = ℓ ◦ a follows. To define unitors, we further extend the dual graph correspondence to allow for subdivided (n + 1)-gons where o…
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: On the left, the string diagram for µ4. On the mid￾dle and right, two other trees with four open leaves, representing morphisms that are canonically 2-isomorphic to µ4. 5.2. From pseudomonoids in Span to 2-Segal sets. Let X be a pseu￾domonoid in Span with unit morphis…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: String diagrams depicting the face maps d n 0 (left), d n i for 0 < i < n (middle), and d n n (right). The face maps are defined by using the canonical 2-isomorphism from µn to the morphism shown here, then projecting to the µn−1 component. · · · · · · µn+1 i n − i […
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: String diagram depicting the degeneracy maps s n i . The degeneracy maps are defined by using the canonical 2- isomorphism from µn to the morphism shown here, then projecting to the µn+1 component. correspond precisely to the graphical calculus described in Section 3.…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The 2-Segal conditions for X• are almost immediate from this construc￾tion, since the string diagram representing µn is the dual graph of the stan￾dard left-triangulated (n + 1)-gon (consisting of all the edges connecting vertex 0 to the other vertices), and the cohere…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    Stern,Frobenius and commutative pseudomonoids in the bicategory of spans, J

    Ivan Contreras, Rajan Amit Mehta, and Walker H. Stern,Frobenius and commutative pseudomonoids in the bicategory of spans, J. Geom. Phys.207(2025), Paper No. 105309, 31

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Baez and James Dolan,From finite sets to Feynman diagrams, Mathematics unlimited—2001 and beyond, 2001, pp

    John C. Baez and James Dolan,From finite sets to Feynman diagrams, Mathematics unlimited—2001 and beyond, 2001, pp. 29–50

    work page 2001

  3. [2]

    Baez, Alexander E

    John C. Baez, Alexander E. Hoffnung, and Christopher D. Walker,Higher dimen- sional algebra VII: Groupoidification, Theory Appl. Categ.24(2010), No. 18, 489– 553

    work page 2010

  4. [3]

    Combinatorial examples and applications of 2-Segal sets

    Julia E Bergner,Combinatorial examples and applications of 2-Segal sets, arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.18544 (2024). 32 SOPHIA E MARX AND RAJAN AMIT MEHTA

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Bergner, Ang´ elica M

    Julia E. Bergner, Ang´ elica M. Osorno, Viktoriya Ozornova, Martina Rovelli, and Claudia I. Scheimbauer,2-Segal sets and the Waldhausen construction, Topology Appl.235(2018), 445–484

    work page 2018

  6. [5]

    Carboni, G

    A. Carboni, G. M. Kelly, R. F. C. Walters, and R. J. Wood,Cartesian bicategories II, Theory Appl. Categ.19(2007), 93–124

    work page 2007

  7. [6]

    Mireille Content, Fran¸ cois Lemay, and Pierre Leroux,Cat´ egories de M¨ obius et fonc- torialit´ es: un cadre g´ en´ eral pour l’inversion de M¨ obius, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A28 (1980), no. 2, 169–190

    work page 1980

  8. [7]

    Ivan Contreras, Molly Keller, and Rajan Amit Mehta,Frobenius objects in the cate- gory of spans, Rev. Math. Phys.34(2022), no. 10, Paper No. 2250036, 34

    work page 2022

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Benjamin Cooper and Matthew B Young,Hall algebras via 2-Segal spaces, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19384 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Brian Day and Ross Street,Monoidal bicategories and Hopf algebroids, Adv. Math. 129(1997), no. 1, 99–157

    1997

  3. [11]

    2244, Springer, Cham, 2019

    Tobias Dyckerhoff and Mikhail Kapranov,Higher Segal spaces, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 2244, Springer, Cham, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Proulx, and Mark Weber, Every 2-Segal space is unital, Commun

    Matthew Feller, Richard Garner, Joachim Kock, May U. Proulx, and Mark Weber, Every 2-Segal space is unital, Commun. Contemp. Math.23(2021), no. 2, Paper No. 2050055, 6

    2021

  5. [13]

    Imma G´ alvez-Carrillo, Joachim Kock, and Andrew Tonks,Decomposition spaces in combinatorics, arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.09225 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Math.331(2018), 952–1015

    ,Decomposition spaces, incidence algebras and M¨ obius inversion I: Basic the- ory, Adv. Math.331(2018), 952–1015

    2018

  7. [15]

    Goerss and John F

    Paul G. Goerss and John F. Jardine,Simplicial homotopy theory, Progress in Math- ematics, vol. 174, Birkh¨ auser Verlag, Basel, 1999

    1999

  8. [16]

    Alexander Grothendieck,Techniques de construction et th´ eor` emes d’existence en g´ eom´ etrie alg´ ebrique. III. Pr´ eschemas quotients, S´ eminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 6, 1995, pp. Exp. No. 212, 99–118

    1995

  9. [17]

    201, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013

    Nick Gurski,Coherence in three-dimensional category theory, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 201, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013

    2013

  10. [18]

    Claudio Hermida and Paulo Mateus,Paracategories. I. Internal paracategories and saturated partial algebras, Theoret. Comput. Sci.309(2003), no. 1-3, 125–156

    2003

  11. [19]

    ,Paracategories. II. Adjunctions, fibrations and examples from probabilistic automata theory, Theoret. Comput. Sci.311(2004), no. 1-3, 71–103

    2004

  12. [20]

    Andr´ e Joyal and Ross Street,The geometry of tensor calculus. I, Adv. Math.88 (1991), no. 1, 55–112

    1991

  13. [21]

    Math.152(2000), no

    Stephen Lack,A coherent approach to pseudomonads, Adv. Math.152(2000), no. 2, 179–202

    2000

  14. [22]

    Tom Leinster,Notions of M¨ obius inversion, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin19 (2012), no. 5, 911–935

    2012

  15. [23]

    In progress

    Sophia E Marx and Rajan Amit Mehta,Cosymmetric sets and categorified 2- dimensional topological quantum field theories. In progress

  16. [24]

    Paper No

    Paulo Mateus, Am ´ ılcar Sernadas, and Cristina Sernadas,Precategories for combining probabilistic automata, CTCS ’99: Conference on Category Theory and Computer Science (Edinburgh), 1999, pp. Paper No. 29016, 18

    1999

  17. [25]

    Charles Rezk,A model for the homotopy theory of homotopy theory, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.353(2001), no. 3, 973–1007

    2001

  18. [26]

    Gian-Carlo Rota,On the foundations of combinatorial theory. I. Theory of M¨ obius functions, Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete2(1964), 340–368. 2-SEGAL SETS AND PSEUDOMONOIDS IN THE BICATEGORY OF SPANS 33

    1964

  19. [27]

    Hautes ´Etudes Sci

    Graeme Segal,Classifying spaces and spectral sequences, Inst. Hautes ´Etudes Sci. Publ. Math.34(1968), 105–112

    1968

  20. [28]

    Math.21(1973), 213– 221

    ,Configuration-spaces and iterated loop-spaces, Invent. Math.21(1973), 213– 221

    1973

  21. [29]

    Categ.31(2016), Paper No

    Michael Stay,Compact closed bicategories, Theory Appl. Categ.31(2016), Paper No. 26, 755–798

    2016

  22. [30]

    Stern,2-Segal objects and algebras in spans, J

    Walker H. Stern,2-Segal objects and algebras in spans, J. Homotopy Relat. Struct. 16(2021), no. 2, 297–361

    2021

  23. [31]

    ,Perspectives on the 2-Segal conditions(2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Dominic Verdon,Coherence for braided and symmetric pseudomonoids, arXiv preprint arXiv:1705.09354 (2017). Department of Mathematics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA Email address:semarx@umass.edu Department of Mathematical Sciences, Smith College, 44 College Lane, Nor...

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.