From: Tom Leinster <tl@maths.gla.ac.uk>
To: categories@mta.ca
Subject: Re: mystification and categorification
Date: 07 Mar 2004 19:43:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1078688585.20775.171.camel@tl-linux.maths.gla.ac.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <002a01c401ab$cd50b370$1767eb44@grassmann>
Steve Schanuel wrote:
> a category with both plus and times as extra monoidal structures.
> (Does anyone know an example of interest in which the plus is not
> coproduct?)
Here are two examples that I've come across previously of rig categories
in which the plus is not coproduct:
(i) the category of finite sets and bijections, with + and x inherited
from the category of sets;
(ii) discrete rig categories, which are of course the same thing as
rigs.
> This freedom is unnecessary; a little algebra plus Robbie
> Gates' theorem provides a solution G to G^2=G+1 which satisfies no
> additional equations, in an extensive category (with coproduct as plus,
> cartesian product as times).
If you *do* allow yourself the freedom to use any rig category then an
even simpler solution exists, also satisfying no additional equations:
just take the rig freely generated by an element G satisfying G^2 = G +
1 and regard it as a discrete rig category.
> Since in the category of sets, any nasty old infinite set satisfies
> the golden equation and many others, I have taken the liberty of
> interpreting 'nice' to mean at least 'satisfying no unexpected
> equations'.
I'd interpret "nice" differently. (Apart from anything else, the
trivial example in my previous paragraph would otherwise make the golden
object problem uninteresting.) "Nice" as I understand it is not a
precise term - at least, I don't know how to make it precise. Maybe I
can explain my interpretation by analogy with the equation T = 1 + T^2.
A nice solution T would be the set of finite, binary, planar trees
together with the usual isomorphism T -~-> 1 + T^2; a nasty solution
would be a random infinite set T with a random isomorphism to 1 + T^2.
(Both these solutions are in the rig category Set with its standard +
and x.) I regard the first solution as nice because I can see some
combinatorial content to it (and maybe, at the back of my mind, because
it has a constructive feel), and the second as nasty because I can't.
I'm not certain what I think of the solution given by the set of
not-necessarily-finite binary planar trees (nice?), or by the set of
binary planar trees of cardinality at most aleph_5 (probably nasty).
Maybe the finding of a "nice" solution is similar in spirit to the
finding of a "concrete interpretation" of a combinatorial identity. As
an extremely simple example, consider the identity saying that each
entry in Pascal's triangle is the sum of the two above it,
(n+1 choose r) = (n choose r-1) + (n choose r).
This is a doddle to prove, but all the same you'd be missing something
if you didn't know the standard "concrete interpretation": choosing r
objects out of n+1 objects amounts to EITHER choosing the first one and
then choosing r-1 of the remaining n OR ... . Even if the challenge of
finding a "nice solution" or "concrete interpretation" isn't made
precise, I think there is a shared sense of what would count as an
answer, and finding an answer is in general not straightforward.
Best wishes,
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-07 19:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <schanuel@adelphia.net>
2004-03-04 5:44 ` Stephen Schanuel
2004-03-05 16:55 ` David Yetter
2004-03-06 6:49 ` Vaughan Pratt
2004-03-07 21:04 ` Mike Oliver
2004-03-08 10:20 ` Steve Vickers
2004-03-07 19:43 ` Tom Leinster [this message]
2004-03-09 10:54 ` Pawel Sobocinski
2004-03-12 13:50 ` Quillen model structure of category of toposes/locales? Vidhyanath Rao
2003-02-20 0:16 More Topos questions ala "Conceptual Mathematics" Galchin Vasili
2003-02-20 18:48 ` Stephen Schanuel
2003-02-21 0:57 ` Vaughan Pratt
2003-06-10 21:23 ` Galchin Vasili
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1078688585.20775.171.camel@tl-linux.maths.gla.ac.uk \
--to=tl@maths.gla.ac.uk \
--cc=categories@mta.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).