Re: Quantifiers for monoids

[Dusko Pavlovic <D.Pavlovic@doc.ic.ac.uk>]

[Note from moderator: apologies to Dusko for prepending nonsense to his
post, regards, Bob]

Uday S. Reddy:

 > Consider a monoid <M,*,1> in a CCC.  The operations of interest are
 > natural transformations E_A : [A => M] -> M that satisfy the following
 > equations (in the internal language of the CCC):
 > 
 >1)     E_A(\lambda x. 1)  =  1
 >2)     E_A(\lambda x. a * g`x) = a * E_A(g)
 >3)     E_A(\lambda x. g`x * a) = E_A(g) * a
 >4)     E_A(\lambda x. E_B(\lambda y. h`x`y)) = 
 > 			E_B(\lambda y. E_A(\lambda x. h`x`y))

The naturality of E_A in A seems to be a very strong requirement
(provided that am not misuncerstanding anything, ofcourse).

Let T the terminal object (since 1 already denotes the unit of
M). Equations (1) and (2) imply

	E_T(\lambda x. a) = a, 

so E_T is iso. The naturality, on the other hand, implies that for
every a,b : T --> A holds

	a=>M ; E_T   =   E_A   =   b=>M ; E_T

Such E_A, I think, shouldn't be thought of as a quantifier: modulo
E_T, it actually boils down to the *evaluation* at (ie substitution
of) an arbitrary global point of A:

	E_A(g)  = g`a = g`b

Instanciating A = M and g = \lambda x. x yields a = 1, ie 1: T --> M
is the only global point of M. If T generates, M is T.

On the other hand, if there is an initial object 0 in the CCC, the
naturality in A implies that all E_A are constantly 1...

Without the naturality, conditions (1--4) seem to be rather easy to
satisfy. For a fixed A, conditions (2) and (3) are a kind of
naturality on E_A itself. To make this precise, define on A=>M the
pointwise monoid structure

	g * h   =  \lambda x. g`x * h`x
	
Thinking of M and A=>M as categories, each with one object *, we have
the Hom-functors from M^op x M and from A=>M^op x A=>M to the CCC
where they live.

On the other hand, there is the monoid morphism

	I : M ---> A=>M
	      m |--> \lambda x. m

which can be construed as a functor. Precomposing Hom_{A=>M} with I^op
and I, we get a functor from M^op x M. Conditions (2) and (3) are now
exactly the naturality of

	E_A : Hom_{A=>M} (I*, I*) ---> Hom_M (*,*)

in each of the arguments. Hom_M thus appears as a retract of the
functor Hom_{A=>M} o (I^op x I)... All together, E_A thus appear as a
weak kind of *abstraction operators* (like in
www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/duskop/papers/CLNA.ps.gz).

All this may not be enlightening at all, but it does seem to help pin
down the models: eg, evaluations/substitutions of the arbitrary points
will work again, as well as, when M is a complete lattice, the infima
and the suprema, corresponding to the quantifiers... (No naturality in
A, ofcourse.)

Apologies if I got carried away a bit. It's a nice question. I hope
others will tell more.

Regards,
-- Dusko Pavlovic