From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3374
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Prof. Peter Johnstone"
Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories
Subject: Re: Laws
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:38:02 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019267 8481 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:34:27 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:34:27 +0000 (UTC)
To: categories@mta.ca
Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Tue Aug 8 08:51:12 2006 -0300
Return-path:
Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca
Delivery-date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:51:12 -0300
Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61)
(envelope-from )
id 1GAQ40-0007Vc-PS
for categories-list@mta.ca; Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:48:01 -0300
Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca
Precedence: bulk
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 7
Original-Lines: 61
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3374
Archived-At:
The following seems so obvious that I suspect it's not what Tom is
really asking for; but it seems to me to be an answer to his
question. A law in Tom's sense is just a parallel pair of arrows
F(X) \rightrightarrows F(1) in the algebraic theory T under
consideration (thinking of T as the dual of the category of
finitely-generated free algebras). To get the theory of algebras
satisfying a given set S of laws, you just need to construct the
product-respecting congruence on T generated by S (i.e., the usual
closure conditions for a congruence, plus the condition that
f ~ f' and g ~ g' imply f x g ~ f' x g'), and factor out by it.
Now any T-algebra A (in a category C, say) corresponds to a product-
preserving functor F: T --> C; and the set of laws satisfied by A
is just the (necessarily product-respecting) congruence generated
by F, i.e. the set of parallel pairs in T having the same image
under F. Is there anything more to it than that?
Peter Johnstone
------------
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006, Tom Leinster wrote:
> Dear category theorists,
>
> Here's something that I don't understand. People sometimes talk about
> algebraic structures "satisfying laws". E.g. let's take groups. Being
> abelian is a law; it says that the equation xy = yx holds. A group G
> "satisfies no laws" if
>
> whenever X is a set and w, w' are distinct elements of the free
> group F(X) on X, there exists a homomorphism f: F(X) ---> G
> such that f(w) and f(w') are distinct.
>
> For example, an abelian group cannot satisfy no laws, since you could take
> X = {x, y}, w = xy, and w' = yx. There are various interesting examples
> of groups that satisfy no laws.
>
> To be rather concrete about it, you could define a "law satisfied by G" to
> be a triple (X, w, w') consisting of a set X and elements w, w' of F(X),
> such that every homomorphism F(X) ---> G sends w and w' to the same thing.
> A law is "trivial" if w = w'. Then "satisfies no laws" means "satisfies
> only trivial laws".
>
> You could then say: given a group G, consider the groups that satisfy all
> the laws satisfied by G. (E.g. if G is abelian then all such groups will
> be abelian.) This is going to be a new algebraic theory.
>
> What bothers me is that I feel there must be some categorical story I'm
> missing here. Everything above is very concrete; for instance, it's
> heavily set-based. What's known about all this? In particular, what's
> known about the process described in the previous paragraph, whereby any
> theory T and T-algebra G give rise to a new theory?
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>