From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/8681 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Garner Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: categories of models of cartesian PROPs Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 10:28:19 +1000 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Richard Garner NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1440096547 2988 80.91.229.3 (20 Aug 2015 18:49:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 18:49:07 +0000 (UTC) To: John Baez , categories Original-X-From: majordomo@mlist.mta.ca Thu Aug 20 20:49:00 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from smtp3.mta.ca ([138.73.7.22]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZSUtX-0006l4-My for gsmc-categories@m.gmane.org; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 20:48:59 +0200 Original-Received: from mlist.mta.ca ([138.73.1.63]:43327) by smtp3.mta.ca with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1ZSUsx-0002k8-5i; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:48:23 -0300 Original-Received: from majordomo by mlist.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZSUsy-0005Lh-8t for categories-list@mlist.mta.ca; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 15:48:24 -0300 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:8681 Archived-At: Dear John, Caveat lector - this is all rather off the cuff so there may be some mistakes in what follows: > Suppose you have a category with finite products, say T, and a symmetric > monoidal category, say C. Let [T,C] be the category where > > objects are symmetric monoidal functors from T to C, > morphisms are monoidal natural transformations. > > *1. What structure beyond a mere category does [T,C] automatically get > in > this sort of situation?* > > I haven't thought about this much. Even if T were just symmetric > monoidal, > I think [T,C] should get a symmetric monoidal structure due to "pointwise > multiplication", just as the set of homomorphisms from one commutative > monoid to another becomes a commutative monoid where > > fg(x) := f(x) g(x) > > Should [T,C] also have some sort of "comultiplication"? What extra > benefits do we get from T being cartesian? Yes, this pointwise structure exists; it's part of a monoidal bicategory structure on the 2-category of symmetric monoidal closed categories and symmetric strong monoidal functors. More generally if T is any symmetric pseudomonoidal 2-monad on Cat, then the 2-category of T-algebras and strong morphisms is a monoidal bicategory; see: Hyland, Power "Pseudo-commutative monads and pseudo-closed 2-categories" (2002) In the case you describe it seems that this pointwise structure on StrMon[T,C] is actually cartesian. The point is that, since each t in T is a cocommutative comonoid naturally in T, if F: T--->C is strong monoidal, then each Ft is a cocommutative comonoid, naturally in T. But this means that we have maps F ---> F * F for the pointwise tensor product on StrMon[T,C], making it into a cocommutative comonoid therein. Since these maps are actually natural in F, each object of StrMon[T,C] is naturally a cocommutative comonoid, so that the monoidal structure must be cartesian. There's some details I haven't checked here, because various things need to be strong monoidal functors and transformations, but my immediate impression is that all this should work. > *2. What further structure do we get if C has some particular class of > limits or colimits?* For any symmetric monoidal T, it's easy to see that LaxMon[T,C] will inherit any pointwise limits existing in the mere functor category [T,C]. Likewise OplaxMon[T,C] will inherit any colimits. In order for some class of these pointwise limits or colimits to restrict back to StrMon[T,C], it seems that what you need is for the tensor functor C x C ----> C and the unit functor I:1---->C to preserve limits or colimits in that class. In particular, if C had filtered colimits or reflexive coequalisers (or more generally any kind of sifted colimit) and these were preserved by the tensor product functor in each variable separately (which would happen if, for example, C were symmetric monoidal closed) then you could deduce that, actually, C x C ---> C and 1 ---> C preserved them, and so conclude that StrMon[T,C] had filtered colimits / reflexive coequalisers computed pointwise. Dually, if C had coreflexive equalisers preserved by tensor in each variable (for example, if C = Vect) then StrMon[T,C] would again have pointwise coreflexive equalisers. In particular, if T is cartesian, so that we have finite products given by the pointwise tensor product, then in this case we have all finite limits. Richard [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]