From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/2040 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Toby Bartels Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Sketches and ideas (Was: the walking adjunction and biadjunction) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 00:23:14 -0800 Message-ID: <20011206002314.A401@math-cl-n03.ucr.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241018363 2166 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:19:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:19:23 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Thu Dec 6 09:11:02 2001 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 09:11:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16ByEU-0005PA-00 for categories-list@mta.ca; Thu, 06 Dec 2001 09:06:34 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from T.Leinster@dpmms.cam.ac.uk on Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 02:29:56AM +0000 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 13 Original-Lines: 86 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:2040 Archived-At: Tom Leinster wrote in part: >Toby Bartels wrote: >>For example, one could define the idea of multiplication in a monoid >>as a binary operation and a nullary operation >>or alternatively as an operation on finite tuples. >>The former is more common, but I prefer the latter; >>who has the right idea? >An interesting question in itself. I don't think either idea is "right", That was supposed to be my point. Just as a group can be described many ways by generators and relations, so a sketch (if we define a sketch to be an entire category; apparently that varies) can be described many ways by ideas. It's the category that truly characterises what a monoid is (in the given doctrine), so it better deserves the name "idea", if we're trying to hark back to Plato-n (even just to be cute). (Whether or not it's too late to change, I can't say.) >we've disallowed ourselves from using what would probably be the natural >choice of axioms, >[[m_1^1 ... m_1^{k_1}] ... [m_n^1 ... m_n^{k_n}]] = [m_1^1 ... m_n^{k_n}], >m = [m], >since this is a binary + nullary presentation. 2 indices and 0 indices. *Gulp* You're right! I always felt annoyed having to write in that nullary axiom; now I know why. >So instead we should derive >from the n-fold multiplications a k-ary operation o_T on M for each (finite, >planar) k-leafed tree T; and the axioms then become that o_T = o_U for any >two k-leafed trees T and U. I suppose that you're aware of this, but note that we need to allow nodes that don't branch but also aren't labelled (considered leaves), which is where we place []. For example, the tree m . \ / \ / \./ indicates the product [m[]]; that it equals m is the right unit law. This threw me for a moment, since [] seemed at first to have disappeared. We could also go straight to trees and define them as the basic operations, then requiring as axiom that grafting of trees produces the same result as composing the operations. If we were defining a nonassociative operation without identity, then we could denote the basic operations by *binary* trees. >Specifically, you have to make sure that the coherence cells o_T >--~--> o_U are compatible with "grafting of trees", which means taking a >k-leafed tree T and sticking onto its leaves k trees T_1, ..., T_k, to make a >new tree T(T_1, ..., T_k) - but this expression has *2* (bad number!) levels >of trees. The nullary counterpart is grafting 0 trees to get the tree m. >So we need to replace these axioms with equivalent >non-binary-and-nullary ones, and this means considering more complicated >structures still. Well, I managed to introduce grafting back before the categorification! Aren't I clever? Too clever for my own good? ^_^ >(The considerations in the last paragraph are really to do with writing down >a non-binary-and-nullary presentation of the theory of operads, which are >themselves monoids of a sort.) As long as we learn the lesson that binary operations warrant a search for their nullary partners, then we've done the important thing, at least, even if we miss out on some ever more complicated elegance. -- Toby toby@math.ucr.edu