categories - Category Theory list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: dagger?
@ 2007-03-09  3:31 Peter Selinger
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Peter Selinger @ 2007-03-09  3:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: categories

Lawrence Stout wrote:
>
> Could someone please post a definition of a dagger category and a
> reference for typical useful examples?

For reference: an involutive category (or dagger category) is a
category C equipped with a contravariant, involutive,
identity-on-objects functor "+" (my ASCII rendition of the TeX symbol
$\dagger$).

The main reason to consider dagger structure is that it allows the
following definitions (and other similar ones):

* a morphism f:A->B is _unitary_ if f is invertible and f^{-1} = f^+

* a morphism f:A->A is _hermitian_ if f = f^+.

* a morphism f:A->A is _hermitian positive_ if there exists some
  object B and g:A->B such that f = g^+ o g.

* a morphism f:A->B is called an _isometry_ if f^+ o f = id.
  ("Isometry" is to "unitary" like "mono" to "iso").

The main example is the category of finite-dimensional Hilbert
spaces. In it, for a map f : A -> B, the map f^+ : B -> A is given as
the adjoint of f (in the linear-algebra sense). Note that the
definition of the adjoint requires inner products, hence *Hilbert* and
not just vector spaces.

The category of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces is additionally
compact closed, so that for a morphism f : A -> B, we also have
f^* : B^* -> A^*.  While the functor (-)^* is also contravariant and
involutive, it is not to be confused with the dagger structure. A^* is
the dual space, which is not naturally isomorphic to A. Also, relative
to chosen bases, the matrix of f^* is the transpose of that of f,
whereas the matrix of f^+ is the adjoint (complex conjugate transpose).

Dagger compact closed categories were axiomatized by Abramsky and
Coecke [LICS 2004], and also by Baez and Dolan [ArXiV:q-alg/9503002,
1995].  One requires the following compatibilities between the two
structures:

* (f tensor g)^+ = f^+ tensor g^+,
* the structural natural isomorphisms (associativity, symmetry, etc)
  are unitary,
* the maps I -> (A^* tensor A) and (A^* tensor A) -> I are each
  other's adjoints.

As Abramsky and Coecke have shown, many interesting constructions from
Hilbert spaces can be done in a dagger compact closed category.

Another example of a dagger compact closed category is the category of
sets and relations, but it is degenerate, in the sense that A^* = A
and f^* = f^+.

-- Peter




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* re: dagger?
@ 2007-03-07  3:51 Lawrence Stout
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Lawrence Stout @ 2007-03-07  3:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: categories

I have a sneaking suspicion that dagger categories might be of
interest in some work I'm doing, but the term means absolutely
nothing to me.  Category with involution does have a meaning, which
is why I think they might be interesting.  Could someone please post
a definition of a dagger category and a reference for typical useful
examples?

For other examples of a notations promoted to the name of a concept:
K theory, L functions,  p matrices, H spaces (OK, that one is a bit
of a cheat, since it comes from the first letter of a name instead of
from the arbitrary choice of symbol), \lambda calculus.




Lawrence Stout
Professof of Mathematics
Illinois Wesleyan University






^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-03-09  3:31 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-03-09  3:31 dagger? Peter Selinger
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-03-07  3:51 dagger? Lawrence Stout

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).