DOCSLIB.ORG

Dagger Category Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dagger Category Theory Dagger Category Theory Chris Heunen and Martti Karvonen 1 / 19 Outline I What are dagger categories? I What are dagger monads? I What are dagger limits? I What are evils about daggers? 2 / 19 y Terminology: adjoints in Hilbert spaces hf(x) j yiY = hx j f (y)iX If S(X) is poset of closed subspaces, get S(f): S(X)op ! S(Y ) Theorem [Palmquist 74]: S(f) and S(f y) adjoint, and up to scalar any adjunction of this form Dagger A dagger is contravariant involutive identity-on-objects endofunctor f = f yy X Y f y 3 / 19 Dagger A dagger is contravariant involutive identity-on-objects endofunctor f = f yy X Y f y y Terminology: adjoints in Hilbert spaces hf(x) j yiY = hx j f (y)iX If S(X) is poset of closed subspaces, get S(f): S(X)op ! S(Y ) Theorem [Palmquist 74]: S(f) and S(f y) adjoint, and up to scalar any adjunction of this form 3 / 19 I Hilbert spaces and continuous linear maps I Sets and relations I Finite sets and doubly stochastic matrices I Dagger categories and contravariant adjunctions I Inverse category: any f has unique g with f = gfg and g = fgf I Sets and partial injections I Free dagger category: same objects, [X · ! · · · · ! Y ]∼ I Cofree dagger category: same objects, pairs X Y I Dagger functors and natural transformations I Unitary representations and intertwiners Examples I Any groupoid 4 / 19 I Dagger categories and contravariant adjunctions I Inverse category: any f has unique g with f = gfg and g = fgf I Sets and partial injections I Free dagger category: same objects, [X · ! · · · · ! Y ]∼ I Cofree dagger category: same objects, pairs X Y I Dagger functors and natural transformations I Unitary representations and intertwiners Examples I Any groupoid I Hilbert spaces and continuous linear maps I Sets and relations I Finite sets and doubly stochastic matrices 4 / 19 I Inverse category: any f has unique g with f = gfg and g = fgf I Sets and partial injections I Free dagger category: same objects, [X · ! · · · · ! Y ]∼ I Cofree dagger category: same objects, pairs X Y I Dagger functors and natural transformations I Unitary representations and intertwiners Examples I Any groupoid I Hilbert spaces and continuous linear maps I Sets and relations I Finite sets and doubly stochastic matrices I Dagger categories and contravariant adjunctions 4 / 19 I Free dagger category: same objects, [X · ! · · · · ! Y ]∼ I Cofree dagger category: same objects, pairs X Y I Dagger functors and natural transformations I Unitary representations and intertwiners Examples I Any groupoid I Hilbert spaces and continuous linear maps I Sets and relations I Finite sets and doubly stochastic matrices I Dagger categories and contravariant adjunctions I Inverse category: any f has unique g with f = gfg and g = fgf I Sets and partial injections 4 / 19 I Cofree dagger category: same objects, pairs X Y I Dagger functors and natural transformations I Unitary representations and intertwiners Examples I Any groupoid I Hilbert spaces and continuous linear maps I Sets and relations I Finite sets and doubly stochastic matrices I Dagger categories and contravariant adjunctions I Inverse category: any f has unique g with f = gfg and g = fgf I Sets and partial injections I Free dagger category: same objects, [X · ! · · · · ! Y ]∼ 4 / 19 I Dagger functors and natural transformations I Unitary representations and intertwiners Examples I Any groupoid I Hilbert spaces and continuous linear maps I Sets and relations I Finite sets and doubly stochastic matrices I Dagger categories and contravariant adjunctions I Inverse category: any f has unique g with f = gfg and g = fgf I Sets and partial injections I Free dagger category: same objects, [X · ! · · · · ! Y ]∼ I Cofree dagger category: same objects, pairs X Y 4 / 19 Examples I Any groupoid I Hilbert spaces and continuous linear maps I Sets and relations I Finite sets and doubly stochastic matrices I Dagger categories and contravariant adjunctions I Inverse category: any f has unique g with f = gfg and g = fgf I Sets and partial injections I Free dagger category: same objects, [X · ! · · · · ! Y ]∼ I Cofree dagger category: same objects, pairs X Y I Dagger functors and natural transformations I Unitary representations and intertwiners 4 / 19 monad ? limit ? isn't this trivially trivial? Way of the dagger Category theory Dagger category theory isomorphism unitary f −1 = f y idempotent projection f = f y ◦ f functor dagger functor F (f y) = F (f)y y y natural transform natural transformation (α )X = (αX ) monoidal structure monoidal dagger structure (f ⊗ g)y = f y ⊗ gy 5 / 19 isn't this trivially trivial? Way of the dagger Category theory Dagger category theory isomorphism unitary f −1 = f y idempotent projection f = f y ◦ f functor dagger functor F (f y) = F (f)y y y natural transform natural transformation (α )X = (αX ) monoidal structure monoidal dagger structure (f ⊗ g)y = f y ⊗ gy monad ? limit ? 5 / 19 Way of the dagger Category theory Dagger category theory isomorphism unitary f −1 = f y idempotent projection f = f y ◦ f functor dagger functor F (f y) = F (f)y y y natural transform natural transformation (α )X = (αX ) monoidal structure monoidal dagger structure (f ⊗ g)y = f y ⊗ gy monad ? limit ? isn't this trivially trivial? 5 / 19 I Dagger categories, dagger functors, and natural transformations: not just 2-category, but dagger 2-category 2-cells have dagger, so should have unitary coherence laws I Principle: if P =) Q for categories, then P y + laws =) Qy + laws for dagger categories Formal dagger category theory I Daggers not preserved under equivalence 6 / 19 I Principle: if P =) Q for categories, then P y + laws =) Qy + laws for dagger categories Formal dagger category theory I Daggers not preserved under equivalence I Dagger categories, dagger functors, and natural transformations: not just 2-category, but dagger 2-category 2-cells have dagger, so should have unitary coherence laws 6 / 19 Formal dagger category theory I Daggers not preserved under equivalence I Dagger categories, dagger functors, and natural transformations: not just 2-category, but dagger 2-category 2-cells have dagger, so should have unitary coherence laws I Principle: if P =) Q for categories, then P y + laws =) Qy + laws for dagger categories 6 / 19 Kl(GF ) D FEM(GF ) F G C I Dagger adjunction is adjunction in DagCat: no left/right I Dagger monad should at least be dagger functor: so comonad I What interaction between monad and comonad? Dagger monads dagger monads monads I Want = dagger adjunctions adjunctions 7 / 19 I Dagger monad should at least be dagger functor: so comonad I What interaction between monad and comonad? Dagger monads dagger monads monads I Want = dagger adjunctions adjunctions Kl(GF ) D FEM(GF ) F G C I Dagger adjunction is adjunction in DagCat: no left/right 7 / 19 Dagger monads dagger monads monads I Want = dagger adjunctions adjunctions Kl(GF ) D FEM(GF ) F G C I Dagger adjunction is adjunction in DagCat: no left/right I Dagger monad should at least be dagger functor: so comonad I What interaction between monad and comonad? 7 / 19 I If M is dagger Frobenius monoid, then − ⊗ M is dagger monad I Dagger adjunctions induce dagger monads Dagger monads I A dagger monad is a monad that is a dagger functor satisfying µT ◦ T µy = T µ ◦ µyT = 8 / 19 I Dagger adjunctions induce dagger monads Dagger monads I A dagger monad is a monad that is a dagger functor satisfying µT ◦ T µy = T µ ◦ µyT = I If M is dagger Frobenius monoid, then − ⊗ M is dagger monad 8 / 19 Dagger monads I A dagger monad is a monad that is a dagger functor satisfying µT ◦ T µy = T µ ◦ µyT = I If M is dagger Frobenius monoid, then − ⊗ M is dagger monad I Dagger adjunctions induce dagger monads 8 / 19 I Frobenius law for monoid M is Frobenius law for monad − ⊗ M = Kleisli algebras I If T is dagger monad on C, then Kl(T ) has dagger y T (f y) A f T (B) 7! B η T (B) µ T 2(B) T (A) that commutes with C ! Kl(T ) and Kl(T ) ! C 9 / 19 Kleisli algebras I If T is dagger monad on C, then Kl(T ) has dagger y T (f y) A f T (B) 7! B η T (B) µ T 2(B) T (A) that commutes with C ! Kl(T ) and Kl(T ) ! C I Frobenius law for monoid M is Frobenius law for monad − ⊗ M = 9 / 19 I Largest full subcategory with Kl(T ) and EM(T ) ! C dagger I There are EM-algebras that are not FEM Eilenberg-Moore algebras a I Frobenius-Eilenberg-Moore algebra is algebra T (A) ! A with T (a)y T (A) T 2(A) µy µ T 2(A) T (A) T (a) Gives full subcategory FEM(T ) 10 / 19 I There are EM-algebras that are not FEM Eilenberg-Moore algebras a I Frobenius-Eilenberg-Moore algebra is algebra T (A) ! A with T (a)y T (A) T 2(A) µy µ T 2(A) T (A) T (a) Gives full subcategory FEM(T ) I Largest full subcategory with Kl(T ) and EM(T ) ! C dagger 10 / 19 Eilenberg-Moore algebras a I Frobenius-Eilenberg-Moore algebra is algebra T (A) ! A with T (a)y T (A) T 2(A) µy µ T 2(A) T (A) T (a) Gives full subcategory FEM(T ) I Largest full subcategory with Kl(T ) and EM(T ) ! C dagger I There are EM-algebras that are not FEM 10 / 19 Proof.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Subtle Introduction to Category Theory
    A Subtle Introduction to Category Theory W. J. Zeng Department of Computer Science, Oxford University \Static concepts proved to be very effective intellectual tranquilizers." L. L. Whyte \Our study has revealed Mathematics as an array of forms, codify- ing ideas extracted from human activates and scientific problems and deployed in a network of formal rules, formal definitions, formal axiom systems, explicit theorems with their careful proof and the manifold in- terconnections of these forms...[This view] might be called formal func- tionalism." Saunders Mac Lane Let's dive right in then, shall we? What can we say about the array of forms MacLane speaks of? Claim (Tentative). Category theory is about the formal aspects of this array of forms. Commentary: It might be tempting to put the brakes on right away and first grab hold of what we mean by formal aspects. Instead, rather than trying to present \the formal" as the object of study and category theory as our instrument, we would nudge the reader to consider another perspective. Category theory itself defines formal aspects in much the same way that physics defines physical concepts or laws define legal (and correspondingly illegal) aspects: it embodies them. When we speak of what is formal/physical/legal we inescapably speak of category/physical/legal theory, and vice versa. Thus we pass to the somewhat grammatically awkward revision of our initial claim: Claim (Tentative). Category theory is the formal aspects of this array of forms. Commentary: Let's unpack this a little bit. While individual forms are themselves tautologically formal, arrays of forms and everything else networked in a system lose this tautological formality.
    [Show full text]
  • A Few Points in Topos Theory
    A few points in topos theory Sam Zoghaib∗ Abstract This paper deals with two problems in topos theory; the construction of finite pseudo-limits and pseudo-colimits in appropriate sub-2-categories of the 2-category of toposes, and the definition and construction of the fundamental groupoid of a topos, in the context of the Galois theory of coverings; we will take results on the fundamental group of étale coverings in [1] as a starting example for the latter. We work in the more general context of bounded toposes over Set (instead of starting with an effec- tive descent morphism of schemes). Questions regarding the existence of limits and colimits of diagram of toposes arise while studying this prob- lem, but their general relevance makes it worth to study them separately. We expose mainly known constructions, but give some new insight on the assumptions and work out an explicit description of a functor in a coequalizer diagram which was as far as the author is aware unknown, which we believe can be generalised. This is essentially an overview of study and research conducted at dpmms, University of Cambridge, Great Britain, between March and Au- gust 2006, under the supervision of Martin Hyland. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 General knowledge 3 3 On (co)limits of toposes 6 3.1 The construction of finite limits in BTop/S ............ 7 3.2 The construction of finite colimits in BTop/S ........... 9 4 The fundamental groupoid of a topos 12 4.1 The fundamental group of an atomic topos with a point . 13 4.2 The fundamental groupoid of an unpointed locally connected topos 15 5 Conclusion and future work 17 References 17 ∗e-mail: [email protected] 1 1 Introduction Toposes were first conceived ([2]) as kinds of “generalised spaces” which could serve as frameworks for cohomology theories; that is, mapping topological or geometrical invariants with an algebraic structure to topological spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • The Morita Theory of Quantum Graph Isomorphisms
    Commun. Math. Phys. Communications in Digital Object Identifier (DOI) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-018-3225-6 Mathematical Physics The Morita Theory of Quantum Graph Isomorphisms Benjamin Musto, David Reutter, Dominic Verdon Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Received: 31 January 2018 / Accepted: 11 June 2018 © The Author(s) 2018 Abstract: We classify instances of quantum pseudo-telepathy in the graph isomorphism game, exploiting the recently discovered connection between quantum information and the theory of quantum automorphism groups. Specifically, we show that graphs quantum isomorphic to a given graph are in bijective correspondence with Morita equivalence classes of certain Frobenius algebras in the category of finite-dimensional representations of the quantum automorphism algebra of that graph. We show that such a Frobenius algebra may be constructed from a central type subgroup of the classical automorphism group, whose action on the graph has coisotropic vertex stabilisers. In particular, if the original graph has no quantum symmetries, quantum isomorphic graphs are classified by such subgroups. We show that all quantum isomorphic graph pairs corresponding to a well-known family of binary constraint systems arise from this group-theoretical construction. We use our classification to show that, of the small order vertex-transitive graphs with no quantum symmetry, none is quantum isomorphic to a non-isomorphic graph. We show that this is in fact asymptotically almost surely true of all graphs. Contents 1. Introduction ................................. 2. Background ................................. 2.1 String diagrams, Frobenius monoids and Gelfand duality ......
    [Show full text]
  • Categories of Quantum and Classical Channels (Extended Abstract)
    Categories of Quantum and Classical Channels (extended abstract) Bob Coecke∗ Chris Heunen† Aleks Kissinger∗ University of Oxford, Department of Computer Science fcoecke,heunen,[email protected] We introduce the CP*–construction on a dagger compact closed category as a generalisation of Selinger’s CPM–construction. While the latter takes a dagger compact closed category and forms its category of “abstract matrix algebras” and completely positive maps, the CP*–construction forms its category of “abstract C*-algebras” and completely positive maps. This analogy is justified by the case of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, where the CP*–construction yields the category of finite-dimensional C*-algebras and completely positive maps. The CP*–construction fully embeds Selinger’s CPM–construction in such a way that the objects in the image of the embedding can be thought of as “purely quantum” state spaces. It also embeds the category of classical stochastic maps, whose image consists of “purely classical” state spaces. By allowing classical and quantum data to coexist, this provides elegant abstract notions of preparation, measurement, and more general quantum channels. 1 Introduction One of the motivations driving categorical treatments of quantum mechanics is to place classical and quantum systems on an equal footing in a single category, so that one can study their interactions. The main idea of categorical quantum mechanics [1] is to fix a category (usually dagger compact) whose ob- jects are thought of as state spaces and whose morphisms are evolutions. There are two main variations. • “Dirac style”: Objects form pure state spaces, and isometric morphisms form pure state evolutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Compact Inverse Categories 11
    COMPACT INVERSE CATEGORIES ROBIN COCKETT AND CHRIS HEUNEN Abstract. The Ehresmann-Schein-Nambooripad theorem gives a structure theorem for inverse monoids: they are inductive groupoids. A particularly nice case due to Jarek is that commutative inverse monoids become semilattices of abelian groups. It has also been categorified by DeWolf-Pronk to a structure theorem for inverse categories as locally complete inductive groupoids. We show that in the case of compact inverse categories, this takes the particularly nice form of a semilattice of compact groupoids. Moreover, one-object com- pact inverse categories are exactly commutative inverse monoids. Compact groupoids, in turn, are determined in particularly simple terms of 3-cocycles by Baez-Lauda. 1. Introduction Inverse monoids model partial symmetry [24], and arise naturally in many com- binatorial constructions [8]. The easiest example of an inverse monoid is perhaps a group. There is a structure theorem for inverse monoids, due to Ehresmann-Schein- Nambooripad [9, 10, 27, 26], that exhibits them as inductive groupoids. The latter are groupoids internal to the category of partially ordered sets with certain ex- tra requirements. By a result of Jarek [19], the inductive groupoids corresponding to commutative inverse monoids can equivalently be described as semilattices of abelian groups. A natural typed version of an inverse monoid is an inverse category [22, 6]. This notion can for example model partial reversible functional programs [12]. The eas- iest example of an inverse category is perhaps a groupoid. DeWolf-Pronk have generalised the ESN theorem to inverse categories, exhibiting them as locally com- plete inductive groupoids. This paper investigates `the commutative case', thus fitting in the bottom right cell of Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Trace Factorisation of Stable Functors
    The Trace Factorisation of Stable Functors Paul Taylor 1998 Abstract A functor is stable if it has a left adjoint on each slice. Such functors arise as forgetful functors from categories of models of disjunctive theories. A stable functor factorises as a functor with a (global) left adjoint followed by a fibration of groupoids; Diers [D79] showed that in many cases the corresponding indexation is a well-known spectrum. Independently, Berry [B78,B79] constructed a cartesian closed category of posets and stable functors, which Girard [G85] developed into a model of polymorphism; the proof of cartesian closure implicitly makes use of this factorisation. Girard [G81] had earlier developed a technique in proof theory involving dilators (stable endofunctors of the category of ordinals), also using the factorisation. Although Diers [D81] knew of the existence of this factorisation system, his work used an additional assumption of preserving equalisers. However Lamarche [L88] observed that examples such as algebraically closed fields can be incorporated if this assumption is dropped, and also that (in the the search for cartesian closed categories) evaluation does not preserve equalisers. We find that Diers' definitions can be modified in a simple and elegant way which also throws light on the General Adjoint Functor Theorem and on factorisation systems. In this paper the factorisation system is constructed in detail and related back to Girard's examples; following him we call the intermediate category the trace. We also consider nat- ural and cartesian transformations between stable functors. We find that the latter (which must be the morphisms of the \stable functor category") have a simple connection with the factorisation, and induce a rigid adjunction (whose unit and counit are cartesian) between traces.
    [Show full text]
  • The Category of Sheaves Is a Topos Part 2
    The category of sheaves is a topos part 2 Patrick Elliott Recall from the last talk that for a small category C, the category PSh(C) of presheaves on C is an elementary topos. Explicitly, PSh(C) has the following structure: • Given two presheaves F and G on C, the exponential GF is the presheaf defined on objects C 2 obC by F G (C) = Hom(hC × F; G); where hC = Hom(−;C) is the representable functor associated to C, and the product × is defined object-wise. • Writing 1 for the constant presheaf of the one object set, the subobject classifier true : 1 ! Ω in PSh(C) is defined on objects by Ω(C) := fS j S is a sieve on C in Cg; and trueC : ∗ ! Ω(C) sends ∗ to the maximal sieve t(C). The goal of this talk is to refine this structure to show that the category Shτ (C) of sheaves on a site (C; τ) is also an elementary topos. To do this we must make use of the sheafification functor defined at the end of the first talk: Theorem 0.1. The inclusion functor i : Shτ (C) ! PSh(C) has a left adjoint a : PSh(C) ! Shτ (C); called sheafification, or the associated sheaf functor. Moreover, this functor commutes with finite limits. Explicitly, a(F) = (F +)+, where + F (C) := colimS2τ(C)Match(S; F); where Match(S; F) is the set of matching families for the cover S of C, and the colimit is taken over all covering sieves of C, ordered by reverse inclusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Most Human Things Go in Pairs. Alcmaeon, ∼ 450 BC
    Most human things go in pairs. Alcmaeon, 450 BC ∼ true false good bad right left up down front back future past light dark hot cold matter antimatter boson fermion How can we formalize a general concept of duality? The Chinese tried yin-yang theory, which inspired Leibniz to develop binary notation, which in turn underlies digital computation! But what's the state of the art now? In category theory the fundamental duality is the act of reversing an arrow: • ! • • • We use this to model switching past and future, false and true, small and big... Every category has an opposite op, where the arrows are C C reversed. This is a symmetry of the category of categories: op : Cat Cat ! and indeed the only nontrivial one: Aut(Cat) = Z=2 In logic, the simplest duality is negation. It's order-reversing: if P implies Q then Q implies P : : and|ignoring intuitionism!|it's an involution: P = P :: Thus if is a category of propositions and proofs, we C expect a functor: : op : C ! C with a natural isomorphism: 2 = 1 : ∼ C This has two analogues in quantum theory. One shows up already in the category of finite-dimensional vector spaces, FinVect. Every vector space V has a dual V ∗. Taking the dual is contravariant: if f : V W then f : W V ! ∗ ∗ ! ∗ and|ignoring infinite-dimensional spaces!|it's an involution: V ∗∗ ∼= V This kind of duality is captured by the idea of a -autonomous ∗ category. Recall that a symmetric monoidal category is roughly a category with a unit object I and a tensor product C 2 C : ⊗ C × C ! C that is unital, associative and commutative up to coherent natural isomorphisms.
    [Show full text]
  • E(6,<F>) = {Geg1:(,(G) = <L>(G)}
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 42, Number 1, January 1974 THE FIRST DERIVED EQUALISER OF A PAIR OF ABELIAN GROUP HOMOMORPHISMS TIM PORTER Abstract. In this note we attack the problem of classifying a pair of abelian group homomorphisms by introducing a con- struction which we call "the derived equaliser". After developing fairly simple methods for the calculation of these objects, we work an example in a simple case. Introduction. The simplicity of the classification, up to isomorphism, of group homomorphisms by their kernels and cokernels tends to over- shadow the problem for two or more homomorphisms. Recall that the First Isomorphism Theorem allows one to write any homomorphism as a composite of an epimorphism and an inclusion of a subgroup; the epi- morphism is determined (up to isomorphism of group homomorphisms) by its kernel, and the inclusion can either be regarded as an invariant itself or it can be determined by its cokernel. The diagram (1) Gi=*G* where d and <f>have isomorphic kernels and cokernels, may be very different indeed from the diagram, (2) <?i=*Gt where the two maps also have isomorphic kernels and cokernels. A first approximation to a classification of such pairs of homomorphisms is via their "equaliser" or "difference kernel" [1] which measures how much they differ. The equaliser of 6 and <f>in (1) is the subgroup E(6,<f>)= {geG1:(,(g)= <l>(g)}. This is by no means a complete invariant, but in this paper we will in- vestigate certain "derived invariants" of this for the case that Gr and G2 are abelian groups.
    [Show full text]
  • The Way of the Dagger
    The Way of the Dagger Martti Karvonen I V N E R U S E I T H Y T O H F G E R D I N B U Doctor of Philosophy Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science School of Informatics University of Edinburgh 2018 (Graduation date: July 2019) Abstract A dagger category is a category equipped with a functorial way of reversing morph- isms, i.e. a contravariant involutive identity-on-objects endofunctor. Dagger categor- ies with additional structure have been studied under different names in categorical quantum mechanics, algebraic field theory and homological algebra, amongst others. In this thesis we study the dagger in its own right and show how basic category theory adapts to dagger categories. We develop a notion of a dagger limit that we show is suitable in the following ways: it subsumes special cases known from the literature; dagger limits are unique up to unitary isomorphism; a wide class of dagger limits can be built from a small selection of them; dagger limits of a fixed shape can be phrased as dagger adjoints to a diagonal functor; dagger limits can be built from ordinary limits in the presence of polar decomposition; dagger limits commute with dagger colimits in many cases. Using cofree dagger categories, the theory of dagger limits can be leveraged to provide an enrichment-free understanding of limit-colimit coincidences in ordinary category theory. We formalize the concept of an ambilimit, and show that it captures known cases. As a special case, we show how to define biproducts up to isomorphism in an arbitrary category without assuming any enrichment.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Questions for Mathematics Teachers
    Teaching strategies Cognitive activation Lessons drawn Classroom climate Students’ attitudes Memorisation Pure & applied maths Control Socio-economic status Elaboration strategies Ten Questions for Mathematics Teachers ... and how PISA can help answer them PISA Ten Questions for Mathematics Teachers ... and how PISA can help answer them This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and the arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD member countries. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Please cite this publication as: OECD (2016), Ten Questions for Mathematics Teachers ... and how PISA can help answer them, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.or /10.1787/9789264265387-en. ISBN 978-9264-26537-0 (print) ISBN 978-9264-26538-7 (online) Series: PISA ISSN 1990-85 39 (print) ISSN 1996-3777 (online) The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. Latvia was not an OECD member at the time of preparation of this publication. Accordingly, Latvia is not included in the OECD average. Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda. © OECD 2016 You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given.
    [Show full text]
  • Categories of Relations As Models of Quantum Theory
    Categories of relations as models of quantum theory Chris Heunen∗ and Sean Tull† fheunen,[email protected] University of Oxford, Department of Computer Science Categories of relations over a regular category form a family of models of quantum theory. Using regular logic, many properties of relations over sets lift to these models, including the correspon- dence between Frobenius structures and internal groupoids. Over compact Hausdorff spaces, this lifting gives continuous symmetric encryption. Over a regular Mal’cev category, this correspondence gives a characterization of categories of completely positive maps, enabling the formulation of quan- tum features. These models are closer to Hilbert spaces than relations over sets in several respects: Heisenberg uncertainty, impossibility of broadcasting, and behavedness of rank one morphisms. 1 Introduction Many features of quantum theory can be abstracted to arbitrary compact dagger categories [1]. Thus we can compare models of quantum theory in a unified setting, and look for features that distinguish the category FHilb of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces that forms the traditional model. The category Rel of sets and relations is an alternative model. It exhibits many features considered typical of quantum theory [2], but also refutes presumed correspondences between them [15, 21]. However, apart from Rel and its subcategory corresponding to Spekkens’ toy model [14], few alternative models have been studied in detail. We consider a new family of models by generalizing to categories Rel(C) of relations over an arbi- trary regular category C, including any algebraic category like that of groups, any abelian category like that of vector spaces, and any topos like that of sets.
    [Show full text]