}}}}}(A)$.

Merely [*defining*]{} Hochschild cohomology for an arbitrary tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ is in fact much simpler than the definition of $HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$, and one does not need a trace functor for this – we just set $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})={\operatorname{Ext}}^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({\operatorname{{\sf I}}},{\operatorname{{\sf I}}})$, where ${\operatorname{{\sf I}}}\in {{\mathcal C}}$ is the unit object. However, it is well understood by now that just as Hochschild homology always comes equipped with the Connes’ differential, the spectral sequence, and the whole cyclic homology package, Hochschild cohomology should be considered not as an algebra but as the so-called [*Gerstenhaber*]{} algebra; in fact, the pair $HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-),HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ should form a version of “non-commutative calculus”, as proposed for instance in [@TT]. Deformations of the tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ should be controlled by $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$, and the behaviour of $HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$ and $HC_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$ under these deformations reflects various natural actions of $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ on $HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$.

We believe that a convenient development of the “non-commutative calculus” for a tensor category ${{\mathcal C}}$ might be possible along the same lines as our Section \[cat\]. Just as our category ${{\mathcal D}}\Lambda({{\mathcal C}})$ is defined as the category of sections of the cofibration ${{\mathcal C}}_\#/\Lambda$, whose definition imitates the usual cyclic object $A_\#$, one can construct a cofibration ${{\mathcal C}}^\#/\Delta$ which imitates the standard cosimplicial object computing $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\
} } } } } (A)$. 

 Merely [ * defining * ] { } Hochschild cohomology for an arbitrary tensor category $ { { \mathcal C}}$ is in fact much simpler than the definition of $ HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$, and one does not necessitate a touch functor for this – we just set $ HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})={\operatorname{Ext}}^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({\operatorname{{\sf I}}},{\operatorname{{\sf I}}})$, where $ { \operatorname{{\sf I}}}\in { { \mathcal C}}$ is the unit aim. However, it is well understood by now that just as Hochschild homology constantly comes equipped with the Connes ’ differential, the apparitional succession, and the whole cyclic homology package, Hochschild cohomology should be consider not as an algebra but as the so - called [ * Gerstenhaber * ] { } algebra; in fact, the pair $ HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-),HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ should form a version of “ non - commutative calculus ”, as propose for instance in [ @TT ]. Deformations of the tensor category $ { { \mathcal C}}$ should be manipulate by $ HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$, and the behaviour of $ HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$ and $ HC_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$ under these deformations reflects various lifelike actions of $ HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ on $ HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$. 

 We think that a convenient development of the “ non - commutative calculus ” for a tensor category $ { { \mathcal C}}$ might be potential along the same lines as our Section   \[cat\ ]. Just as our category $ { { \mathcal D}}\Lambda({{\mathcal C}})$ is defined as the category of sections of the cofibration $ { { \mathcal C}}_\#/\Lambda$, whose definition imitates the usual cyclic object $ A_\#$, one can construct a cofibration $ { { \mathcal C}}^\#/\Delta$ which imitates the standard cosimplicial object computing $ HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\
}}}}}(A)$.

Megely [*defining*]{} Hochschild cohomology for an arbmtrary fensor cxtegory ${{\mathcal C}}$ is in fact mych sumpler than the definigion of $HJ_{{\:\raiseboz{1pt}{\ttxt{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal R}})$, and onc doea not ieed a trace fukctor for tvis – we just sat $HK^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})={\operatjrname{Ect}}^{{\:\gaisebox{3pt}{\text{\sirckq*{1.5}}}}}({\opedatorname{{\sf I}}},{\operatorname{{\sf I}}})$, whers ${\operauorname{{\sf I}}}\in {{\mathval C}}$ is the unit object. Hlwevfr, it is well undegstood by niw trqt just as Huchschild homology alwzys comes equipped with the Conves’ dnfferential, tye dkectral sequxnce, agd the whole cyclic vomologu package, Hochxchmld xohomology should be ronsidered not as an algebra tuc as the so-called [*Gerwtwnhabgr*]{} alcebrx; in fadt, tge paig $HI_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\fext{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-),HY^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circke*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ whould form a versijn of “non-commutative calculus”, as proposed fod instance in [@TT]. Deformqtions of the tensor fategory ${{\iathcal C}}$ should be controlled by $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\texd{\circmd*{1.5}}}}}({{\mauhgwu C}})$, and the behaviour of $HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mwfhvak C}})$ and $HC_{{\:\raiscbox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mayhfak C}})$ under thesg deformatjons reflects varilus natoral axtions of $HH^{{\:\rsisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ on $HH_{{\:\rausebox{1pt}{\text{\bircoe*{1.5}}}}}(-)$.

We believe that c convenient devglopmemt of the “non-commutativz calchlus” for a hensor cafdgory ${{\mathcal C}}$ oigmt te possible along the same lines as our Sectiov \[cat\]. Just ws our catfgory ${{\mathcal D}}\Lambda({{\matjcal E}})$ is gefined as the category of sections of thx cofibration ${{\mdthbal C}}_\#/\Lambba$, whoxe definition imitates the osual cycjic ocject $A_\#$, onv can convtruct a cosibration ${{\matvfal C}}^\#/\Delta$ wiich imitwtes the standafa cosimplicial object computing $HY^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\
}}}}}(A)$. Merely [*defining*]{} Hochschild cohomology for an category C}}$ is fact much simpler C}})$, one does not a trace functor this – we just set $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal I}}},{\operatorname{{\sf I}}})$, where ${\operatorname{{\sf I}}}\in {{\mathcal C}}$ is the unit object. However, it well understood by now that just as Hochschild homology always comes equipped with Connes’ the sequence, the whole cyclic homology package, Hochschild cohomology should be considered not as an algebra but as so-called [*Gerstenhaber*]{} algebra; in fact, the pair $HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-),HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ form a version of calculus”, as proposed for instance [@TT]. of the category C}}$ be controlled by C}})$, and the behaviour of $HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$ and $HC_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$ under these deformations reflects various natural actions $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ on believe that convenient of “non-commutative calculus” for category ${{\mathcal C}}$ might be possible lines as our Section \[cat\]. Just as our ${{\mathcal D}}\Lambda({{\mathcal is defined as the category of of the cofibration ${{\mathcal C}}_\#/\Lambda$, whose definition imitates usual cyclic object $A_\#$, one can construct a cofibration ${{\mathcal C}}^\#/\Delta$ which imitates the standard computing $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\
}}}}}(A)$.

Merely [*defining*]{} Hochschild Cohomology For an ArbItrArY tenSor cAtegory ${{\mathcal c}}$ Is in Fact much simpler than the DefinItIOn of $hh_{{\:\rAisebOx{1pt}{\texT{\CiRCLe*{1.5}}}}}({{\mAtHcAl C}})$, AnD OnE does Not Need a trAce functor For ThIs – we just set $Hh^{{\:\RaIsebox{3pt}{\teXt{\cIrcle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal c}})={\opEratorNaMe{EXT}}^{{\:\raisEboX{3pt}{\teXt{\circLE*{1.5}}}}}({\operaTorname{{\sf i}}},{\oPEratorNAme{{\sf I}}})$, wHERe ${\OperAtorname{{\sf I}}}\in {{\mathCAl c}}$ Is the unit objecT. HowevEr, IT iS WEll UndErstood by nOw That jUSt as HocHScHILD hoMOlogy always coMes equipped WIth The ConNeS’ diFFerentIal, thE sPEctRal sequence, And tHe whole cyClic hoMOlogy paCKage, HocHschilD coHomOlogY ShOuLd bE cONsiDErEd nOT as An algebrA bUt As the So-caLLED [*gersTenHabeR*]{} algeBra; in fact, the pAir $hH_{{\:\raISebOx{1pt}{\tExt{\ciRcle*{1.5}}}}}(-),hH^{{\:\RaiseBox{3pt}{\tExt{\ciRcLe*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ should form a veRsioN of “non-comMutAtIve CaLculuS”, As propOseD foR instanCe in [@TT]. DEForMaTIONs Of the tensor categorY ${{\mATHcAl C}}$ shoulD be conTRoLlED by $HH^{{\:\raiSeBox{3Pt}{\teXT{\CirclE*{1.5}}}}}({{\matHCaL C}})$, and the BehaviOUr Of $hH_{{\:\raiseBoX{1pt}{\texT{\cIrcLe*{1.5}}}}}({{\mAthcaL c}})$ and $hC_{{\:\raisEbox{1pt}{\teXt{\cirCLe*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$ undeR These deformatIOnS REfLEcts VarIous natural ActiONs of $hH^{{\:\raISeBox{3PT}{\text{\CirclE*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ oN $hH_{{\:\RAisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$.

we BelievE that A convenient deVelopment oF THE “non-commUtatIVe CAlculus” for a tenSor caTegory ${{\mathCAl C}}$ might Be posSible aloNg the same LINes as our secTioN \[caT\]. JuST As Our category ${{\maTHCal D}}\laMbda({{\matHcaL C}})$ is defIneD as The CatEgOry of sectIons of thE cOfIbRaTioN ${{\mathCAl C}}_\#/\LambdA$, wHosE dEfiNitioN ImitatEs the UsuaL cYcLIc oBject $A_\#$, oNE cAN ConsTrUcT a coFibRaTion ${{\mAthcAL C}}^\#/\DElta$ whiCh imitateS thE StanDaRd CosimplIcial object coMpUting $HH^{{\:\raiSeBox{3Pt}{\text{\
}}}}}(A)$.

Merely [*defin ing*]{} Ho chsch ild  co ho molo gy f or an arbitrar y  ten sor category ${{\mathc al C} }$ is i n  f act m uch sim p le r tha nth e d ef i ni tionof$HH_{{\ :\raisebox {1p t} {\text{\circ l e* {1.5}}}}}( {{\ mathcal C}}) $,and on edoe s  notnee d a t race f u nctorfor this–w e just set $HH ^ { {\ :\ra isebox{3pt}{\text { \c i rcle*{1.5}}}}} ({{\ma th c al C }}) ={\ operatorna me {Ext} } ^{{\:\r a is e b o x{3 p t}{\text{\cir cle*{1.5}}} } }({ \opera to rna m e{{\sf  I}}} ,{ \ ope ratorname{{ \sfI}}})$, w here $ { \operat o rname{{ \sf I} }}\ in{{\m a th ca l C }} $  is th e u n itobject.Ho we ver,it i s w e ll u nde rsto od by  now that jus t a s Ho c hsc hildhomol ogyal wayscomesequip pe d with the Conn es’different ial ,the  s pectr a l sequ enc e,and the  wholec ycl ic h o mo logy package, Hoch sc h i ld  cohomol ogy sh o ul db e consid er ednota s  an a lgeb r abut as t he so- c al le d [*Ger st enhabe r* ]{}  al gebra ;  infact,the pair  $HH_ { {\:\raisebox{1 p t}{\text{\cir c le * { 1. 5 }}}} }(- ),HH^{{\:\r aise b ox{3 pt}{ \ te xt{ \ circl e*{1. 5} } }} } (-)$ should form ave rsionof “n on-commutativ e calculus ” , as propo sedf or instance in [@ TT].Deformatio n s of the  tens or categ ory ${{\m a t hcal C}} $ s hou ldbec o nt rolled by $HH ^ { {\:\ ra isebox{ 3pt }{\text {\c irc le* {1. 5} }}}}({{\m athcal C }} )$ ,an d t he be h aviour o f$HH _{ {\: \rais e box{1p t}{\t ext{ \c ir c le* {1.5}}} } }( { { \mat hc al  C}} )$an d $HC _{{\ : \ra isebox{ 1pt}{\tex t{\ c ircl e* {1 .5}}}}} ({{\mathcal C }} )$ under t he sedeform a t ions ref lects various natural a c tions o f $ HH^{{ \:\r aisebox{3 pt} {\text {\c i rcle*{ 1.5}}} }}(-) $on$ H H_{{\ : \ ra ise bo x{1pt}{\te x t {\c ircle *{ 1.5} }}}}(-) $.

We believe tha t  aconvenient de vel opme n t  o f t h e“ non -c o mmu t a tive calculus”for a tens or ca tegory ${{ \ mat hc al C}}$  mightbe po s sible a long thesame line sas o u r  Se ction \[ca t\]. Jus t as ourc atego r y${{\m ath cal D} }\ Lam bda({ {\math c alC}})$  is de fi ned as  theca tegory o f sections of the cofib ration  ${{\ mat hcal C}}_ \#/ \ Lam bda$, who se d efinitionimi tat es th e u s ual c ycli c  o bje c t $A_ \#$, one can c o ns tru c t  a  cofibratio n $ {{\ mathc alC }}^\#/ \Del ta$ which imitate s  the standardcosi m p lic ial obje ct  computing $HH ^{{ \: \ r aisebox{ 3p t}{\text{\
}}}}}(A)$.

Merely [*defining*]{}_Hochschild cohomology_for an arbitrary tensor_category ${{\mathcal_C}}$_is in_fact_much simpler than_the definition of_$HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$, and one_does not need_a_trace functor for this – we just set $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})={\operatorname{Ext}}^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({\operatorname{{\sf I}}},{\operatorname{{\sf I}}})$, where ${\operatorname{{\sf_I}}}\in_{{\mathcal C}}$_is_the_unit object. However, it is_well understood by now that_just as_Hochschild homology always comes equipped with the Connes’_differential,_the spectral sequence,_and the whole cyclic homology package, Hochschild cohomology should_be considered not as an algebra_but as the_so-called_[*Gerstenhaber*]{}_algebra; in fact, the_pair $HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-),HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ should form a version_of “non-commutative calculus”, as proposed for_instance in [@TT]. Deformations of the tensor_category ${{\mathcal C}}$ should be controlled_by $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$, and the_behaviour of_$HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$ and $HC_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}({{\mathcal C}})$_under these deformations_reflects various_natural actions of_$HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$ on $HH_{{\:\raisebox{1pt}{\text{\circle*{1.5}}}}}(-)$.

We believe that a_convenient development of_the “non-commutative calculus” for a tensor_category_${{\mathcal C}}$ might_be_possible_along the_same lines as_our_Section \[cat\]. Just_as_our category ${{\mathcal D}}\Lambda({{\mathcal C}})$ is_defined_as the category of sections of the_cofibration ${{\mathcal C}}_\#/\Lambda$, whose_definition_imitates the usual cyclic_object $A_\#$, one can construct_a cofibration ${{\mathcal C}}^\#/\Delta$ which imitates_the standard_cosimplicial object_computing $HH^{{\:\raisebox{3pt}{\text{\