From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/2037 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tom Leinster Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: the walking adjunction and biadjunction Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 02:29:56 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241018361 2156 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:19:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:19:21 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Wed Dec 5 15:25:53 2001 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 15:25:53 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 3.33 #2) id 16BheI-0006NV-00 for categories-list@mta.ca; Wed, 05 Dec 2001 15:24:07 -0400 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL5] X-Scanner: exiscan *16B5LI-0001Sg-00*0QLuVhmB0e2* http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/ Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 10 Original-Lines: 57 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:2037 Archived-At: 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", but I (presumably) share with you the feeling that often the latter is more appropriate. However, if you resolve wholeheartedly never to use a binary + nullary presentation of a monoid-like structure then you actually find yourself in quite an extreme position. For instance, a monoid would be defined as a set M together with an n-fold operation (m_1, ..., m_n) |---> [m_1 ... m_n] on M for each natural n, subject to axioms. This is as expected so far, but 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. 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. The situation gets more extreme still if you want a wholeheartedly non-binary-and-nullary presentation of the notion of monoidal category. We have an underlying category M, an n-fold tensor functor for each n, and then coherence cells obeying coherence axioms. The obvious choice for the coherence cells comes from turning the two equations above into specified isomorphisms, but again this is disallowed, so we have to specify a coherence cell o_T --~--> o_U for each T and U, where o_T, o_U are now derived tensor functors. Then we need to put axioms on the coherence cells, and once more the obvious way of doing this involves something of a binary + nullary character. 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. So we need to replace these axioms with equivalent non-binary-and-nullary ones, and this means considering more complicated structures still. (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.) Tom