DOCSLIB.ORG

Dagger Symmetric Monoidal Category

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dagger Symmetric Monoidal Category Tutorial on dagger categories Peter Selinger Dalhousie University Halifax, Canada FMCS 2018 1 Part I: Quantum Computing 2 Quantum computing: States α state of one qubit: = 0. • β ! 6 α β state of two qubits: . • γ δ ac a c ad separable: = . • b ! ⊗ d ! bc bd otherwise entangled. • 3 Notation 1 0 |0 = , |1 = . • i 0 ! i 1 ! |ij = |i |j etc. • i i⊗ i 4 Quantum computing: Operations unitary transformation • measurement • 5 Some standard unitary gates 0 1 0 −i 1 0 X = , Y = , Z = , 1 0 ! i 0 ! 0 −1 ! 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 H = , S = , T = , √2 1 −1 ! 0 i ! 0 √i ! 1 0 0 0 I 0 0 1 0 0 CNOT = = 0 X ! 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 Measurement α|0 + β|1 i i 0 1 |α|2 |β|2 α|0 β|1 i i 7 Mixed states A mixed state is a (classical) probability distribution on quantum states. Ad hoc notation: 1 α 1 α + ′ 2 β ! 2 β′ ! Note: A mixed state is a description of our knowledge of a state. An actual closed quantum system is always in a (possibly unknown) “pure” (= non-mixed) state. 8 Density matrices (von Neumann) α Represent the pure state v = C2 by the matrix β ! ∈ αα¯ αβ¯ 2 2 vv† = C × . βα¯ ββ¯ ! ∈ Represent the mixed state λ1 {v1} + ... + λn {vn} by λ1v1v1† + ... + λnvnvn† . This representation is not one-to-one, e.g. 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 .5 0 + = + = 2 0 ! 2 1 ! 2 0 0 ! 2 0 1 ! 0 .5 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .5 .5 1 .5 −.5 .5 0 + = + = 2 √2 1 ! 2 √2 −1 ! 2 .5 .5 ! 2 −.5 .5 ! 0 .5 ! But these two mixed states are indistinguishable. 9 Quantum operations on density matrices Unitary: v Uv vv Uvv U A UAU 7 † 7 † † 7 † → → → Measurement: α αα¯ αβ¯ a b β ! βα¯ ββ¯ ! c d ! 0 1 0 1 0 1 |α|2 |β|2 αα¯ ββ¯ a d α 0 αα¯ 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 ! β ! 0 0 ! 0 ββ¯ ! 0 0 ! 0 d ! 10 Quantum operations A quantum operation is a map from mixed states to mixed states that is physically possible. Mathematically, it is a function from density matrices to density matrices that is: (1) linear (2) positive: A positive F(A) positive (3) completely positive: ⇒F idn positive for all n ⊗ (4) trace non-increasing: A positive tr F(A) tr(A) ≤ ⇒ Theorem: The above conditions are necessary and sufficient for F to be physically possible. In particular, unitary transformations and measurements are both special cases. 11 Characterization of completely positive maps Cn n Cm m Let F : × × be a linear map. We define its characteristic matrix as → F(E ) F(E ) 11 ··· 1n . χF = . .. F(En1) F(Enn) ··· Theorem (Characteristic matrix; Choi’s theorem). F is completely positive if and only if χF is positive. Another, better-known characterization is the following: Theorem (Kraus representation theorem): F is completely positive if and only if it can be written in the form F(A)= BiABi†, for some matrices Bi. Xi 12 Part II: Dagger categories 13 “Untyped” quantum mechanics All countably-based Hilbert spaces are isomorphic. Therefore, in physics, one often works in a single fixed Hilbert space . Let H f : . H H Then one also has: → f : (the adjoint) † H H f∗ : ∗ ∗ (the transpose) H → H f¯ : ∗ ∗ (the conjugate) H → H → 14 Objects Hilbert spaces form a category. Recognizing more than one object makes the notation much clearer. f : A B f† : B A (the adjoint) → f∗ : B∗ A∗ (the transpose) → f¯ : A∗ B∗ (the conjugate) → Examples: → a self-adjoint operator (f = f) must be of type A A • † a unitary operator (f = f−1) can be of type A B→ • † an idempotent (f f = f) must be of type A →A • ◦ → 15 Dagger categories Definition. A dagger category is a category C together with an involutive, identity-on-objects, contravariant functor : C C. † Concretely: → operation: • f : A B f† : B A → equations: → • id† = id , (g f) = f g , f = f A A ◦ † † ◦ † †† This notion has appeared in the literature many times, e.g., [Puppe 1962], [Doplicher and Roberts 1989]. More recently popularized by [Abramsky and Coecke 2004]. 16 In a dagger category: A morphism f : A B is called unitary if f f = id and • † ◦ A f f = id . ◦ † B → A morphism f : A A is called self-adjoint or hermitian if • f = f . † → A morphism f : A A is called positive if there exists C and • h : A C such that f = h h. → † ◦ → 17 Dagger symmetric monoidal categories Definition. A dagger symmetric monoidal category is a symmetric monoidal category with a dagger structure, satisfying the following additional equations: for all f : A B, g : B C, and h : C D: → → (f h)† =→f† h† : B D A C, ⊗ −1⊗ ⊗ ⊗ αA,B,C† = αA,B,C : A (B C) (A B) C, −1 ⊗ →⊗ ⊗ ⊗ λA† = λA : I A A, −1 ⊗ → σ† = σ : B A A B. A,B A,B ⊗ → ⊗ Examples: Sets and relations, Hilbert→ spaces and linear functions. 18 Dagger traced monoidal categories Definition. A dagger traced monoidal category is a dagger symmetric monoidal category with a natural family of trace operators TrX : (A X, B X) (A, B), ⊗ ⊗ satisfying the usual three trace axioms→ and: X X Tr (f†) = (Tr f)†. Examples: Sets and relations; Hilbert spaces and linear functions. 19 Compact closed categories A compact closed category is a symmetric monoidal category with the following additional structure: a new operations on objects: • A∗ additional morphisms: • η : I A A (unit) A ∗ ⊗ ǫA : A A∗ I (counit) →⊗ equations: → • −1 −1 λA (ǫA idA) αA,A ,A (idA ηA) ρA = idA −1 ◦ ⊗ ◦ ∗ ◦ ⊗ ◦ ρ (idA ǫA) αA ,A,A (ηA idA ) λA = idA . A∗ ◦ ∗ ⊗ ◦ ∗ ∗ ◦ ⊗ ∗ ◦ ∗ From this, one can define: f∗ : B∗ A∗, given f : A B. 20 → → Dagger compact closed categories Definition. A dagger compact closed category is a compact closed, dagger symmetric monoidal category also satisfying ǫ† I A A A ⊗ ∗ σ ηA A,A∗ A A. ∗ ⊗ Examples: Sets and relations, Hilbert spaces and linear functions. Theorem (essentially Joyal, Street, and Verity): every dagger traced monoidal category can be fully and faithfully embedded in a dagger compact closed category. Conversely, any full an faithful subcategory of a dagger compact closed category is dagger traced monoidal. 21 Categorical quantum mechanics A surprising amount of quantum mechanics can be done from the axioms of a dagger compact closed category (i.e., without assuming anything a priori about the complex numbers). One can express e.g. scalars and vectors, inner products, projections, unitary maps, and self-adjoint operators, measurement and the Born rule, quantum protocols, and much more. 22 Graphical language of dagger traced monoidal categories A Object A A B Morphism f : A B f → A Identity idA : A A → A B C Composition g f f g ◦ B A Dagger f† : B A f → In the graphical language, the adjoint is the “mirror image” of a box (or diagram). 23 Graphical language, continued C g D Tensor product f g ⊗ A B f B A Symmetry σ A,B A B X X Trace TrX f A f B 24 A Dual A∗ A Unit ηA : I A∗ A ⊗ A → A Counit ǫA : A A∗ I ⊗ A → 25 If f : A B, then f, f† : B A, f : A∗ B∗, and f∗ : B∗ A∗ are ∗ graphically represented as follows: → → → → A B B A f = f f† = f A B B A f = f∗ = ∗ f f Here f = (f†)∗ = (f∗)†. ∗ 26 Theorem [Kelly/Laplaza 1980, Joyal/Street/Verity 1996, Selinger 2005]. A well-typed equation between morphisms in the language of dagger traced monoidal (or dagger compact closed) categories follows from the axioms if and only if it holds, up to graph isomorphism, in the graphical language. 27 Quantum mechanics, graphically Let C be a dagger compact closed category. Scalars. a scalar is a morphism φ : I I, graphically φ . Note that for scalars, → φ φ ψ = = ψ φ ψ Vectors. A vector of type A is a morphism f : I A, graphically A f . → Inner product. Given two vectors f, g : I A, their inner product f | g is the scalar f† g: h i ◦ → A g f 28 Matrices An (A B-)matrix is a morphism I A B. × ∗ ⊗ → The matrix of a map f : A B is pfq : I A B, defined as ∗ ⊗ follows: → → A B f pfq = A 29 Positive maps and matrices A morphism f : A A is positive if it is of the form f = g g, for † ◦ some B and g : A B. → → A g B g A A positive matrix is the matrix of a positive map, i.e., it is of the form B A k A g B g A = A B A k where k = g†. 30 Completely positive map By Choi’s theorem, a morphism f : A A B B in Hilbert ∗ ⊗ ∗ ⊗ spaces is completely positive if it is of the form → A B C k f = . C A k B In an arbitrary dagger compact closed category, Choi’s theorem becomes a definition. 31 Remark A completely positive map A B C k C A k B applied to a positive matrix B A h B A h yields a positive matrix. 32 The CPM contruction Definition. Let C be a dagger compact closed category. The category CPM(C) of completely positive maps over C has: the same objects as C, • a morphism f : A B in CPM(C) is a completely positive • map f : A A B B in C.
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]
  • Reasoning About Meaning in Natural Language with Compact Closed Categories and Frobenius Algebras ∗
    Reasoning about Meaning in Natural Language with Compact Closed Categories and Frobenius Algebras ∗ Authors: Dimitri Kartsaklis, Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh, Stephen Pulman, Bob Coecke y Affiliation: Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford Address: Wolfson Building, Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3QD Emails: [email protected] Abstract Compact closed categories have found applications in modeling quantum information pro- tocols by Abramsky-Coecke. They also provide semantics for Lambek's pregroup algebras, applied to formalizing the grammatical structure of natural language, and are implicit in a distributional model of word meaning based on vector spaces. Specifically, in previous work Coecke-Clark-Sadrzadeh used the product category of pregroups with vector spaces and provided a distributional model of meaning for sentences. We recast this theory in terms of strongly monoidal functors and advance it via Frobenius algebras over vector spaces. The former are used to formalize topological quantum field theories by Atiyah and Baez-Dolan, and the latter are used to model classical data in quantum protocols by Coecke-Pavlovic- Vicary. The Frobenius algebras enable us to work in a single space in which meanings of words, phrases, and sentences of any structure live. Hence we can compare meanings of different language constructs and enhance the applicability of the theory. We report on experimental results on a number of language tasks and verify the theoretical predictions. 1 Introduction Compact closed categories were first introduced by Kelly [21] in early 1970's. Some thirty years later they found applications in quantum mechanics [1], whereby the vector space foundations of quantum mechanics were recasted in a higher order language and quantum protocols such as teleportation found succinct conceptual proofs.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • A Survey of Graphical Languages for Monoidal Categories
    5 Traced categories 32 5.1 Righttracedcategories . 33 5.2 Planartracedcategories. 34 5.3 Sphericaltracedcategories . 35 A survey of graphical languages for monoidal 5.4 Spacialtracedcategories . 36 categories 5.5 Braidedtracedcategories . 36 5.6 Balancedtracedcategories . 39 5.7 Symmetrictracedcategories . 40 Peter Selinger 6 Products, coproducts, and biproducts 41 Dalhousie University 6.1 Products................................. 41 6.2 Coproducts ............................... 43 6.3 Biproducts................................ 44 Abstract 6.4 Traced product, coproduct, and biproduct categories . ........ 45 This article is intended as a reference guide to various notions of monoidal cat- 6.5 Uniformityandregulartrees . 47 egories and their associated string diagrams. It is hoped that this will be useful not 6.6 Cartesiancenter............................. 48 just to mathematicians, but also to physicists, computer scientists, and others who use diagrammatic reasoning. We have opted for a somewhat informal treatment of 7 Dagger categories 48 topological notions, and have omitted most proofs. Nevertheless, the exposition 7.1 Daggermonoidalcategories . 50 is sufficiently detailed to make it clear what is presently known, and to serve as 7.2 Otherprogressivedaggermonoidalnotions . ... 50 a starting place for more in-depth study. Where possible, we provide pointers to 7.3 Daggerpivotalcategories. 51 more rigorous treatments in the literature. Where we include results that have only 7.4 Otherdaggerpivotalnotions . 54 been proved in special cases, we indicate this in the form of caveats. 7.5 Daggertracedcategories . 55 7.6 Daggerbiproducts............................ 56 Contents 8 Bicategories 57 1 Introduction 2 9 Beyond a single tensor product 58 2 Categories 5 10 Summary 59 3 Monoidal categories 8 3.1 (Planar)monoidalcategories . 9 1 Introduction 3.2 Spacialmonoidalcategories .
    [Show full text]
  • Categories with Fuzzy Sets and Relations
    Categories with Fuzzy Sets and Relations John Harding, Carol Walker, Elbert Walker Department of Mathematical Sciences New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA jhardingfhardy,[email protected] Abstract We define a 2-category whose objects are fuzzy sets and whose maps are relations subject to certain natural conditions. We enrich this category with additional monoidal and involutive structure coming from t-norms and negations on the unit interval. We develop the basic properties of this category and consider its relation to other familiar categories. A discussion is made of extending these results to the setting of type-2 fuzzy sets. 1 Introduction A fuzzy set is a map A : X ! I from a set X to the unit interval I. Several authors [2, 6, 7, 20, 22] have considered fuzzy sets as a category, which we will call FSet, where a morphism from A : X ! I to B : Y ! I is a function f : X ! Y that satisfies A(x) ≤ (B◦f)(x) for each x 2 X. Here we continue this path of investigation. The underlying idea is to lift additional structure from the unit interval, such as t-norms, t-conorms, and negations, to provide additional structure on the category. Our eventual aim is to provide a setting where processes used in fuzzy control can be abstractly studied, much in the spirit of recent categorical approaches to processes used in quantum computation [1]. Order preserving structure on I, such as t-norms and conorms, lifts to provide additional covariant structure on FSet. In fact, each t-norm T lifts to provide a symmetric monoidal tensor ⊗T on FSet.
    [Show full text]
  • Hypergraph Categories
    Hypergraph Categories Brendan Fong and David I. Spivak Abstract Hypergraph categories have been rediscovered at least five times, under vari- ous names, including well-supported compact closed categories, dgs-monoidal cat- egories, and dungeon categories. Perhaps the reason they keep being reinvented is two-fold: there are many applications—including to automata, databases, circuits, linear relations, graph rewriting, and belief propagation—and yet the standard def- inition is so involved and ornate as to be difficult to find in the literature. Indeed, a hypergraph category is, roughly speaking, a “symmetric monoidal category in which each object is equipped with the structure of a special commutative Frobenius monoid, satisfying certain coherence conditions”. Fortunately, this description can be simplified a great deal: a hypergraph cate- gory is simply a “cospan-algebra,” roughly a lax monoidal functor from cospans to sets. The goal of this paper is to remove the scare-quotes and make the previous statement precise. We prove two main theorems. First is a coherence theorem for hypergraph categories, which says that every hypergraph category is equivalent to an objectwise-free hypergraph category. Second, we prove that the category of objectwise- free hypergraph categories is equivalent to the category of cospan-algebras. Keywords: Hypergraph categories, compact closed categories, Frobenius algebras, cospan, wiring diagram. 1 Introduction arXiv:1806.08304v3 [math.CT] 18 Jan 2019 Suppose you wish to specify the following picture: g (1) f h This picture might represent, for example, an electrical circuit, a tensor network, or a pattern of shared variables between logical formulas. 1 One way to specify the picture in Eq.
    [Show full text]
  • Categories of Mackey Functors
    Categories of Mackey Functors Elango Panchadcharam M ∗(p1s1) M (t2p2) M(U) / M(P) ∗ / M(W ) 8 C 8 C 88 ÖÖ 88 ÖÖ 88 ÖÖ 88 ÖÖ 8 M ∗(p1) Ö 8 M (p2) Ö 88 ÖÖ 88 ∗ ÖÖ M ∗(s1) 8 Ö 8 Ö M (t2) 8 Ö 8 Ö ∗ 88 ÖÖ 88 ÖÖ 8 ÖÖ 8 ÖÖ M(S) M(T ) 88 Mackey ÖC 88 ÖÖ 88 ÖÖ 88 ÖÖ M (s2) 8 Ö M ∗(t1) ∗ 8 Ö 88 ÖÖ 8 ÖÖ M(V ) This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Mathematics Division of Information and Communication Sciences Macquarie University New South Wales, Australia December 2006 (Revised March 2007) ii This thesis is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except where specifically indicated in the text. This work has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or institution. Elango Panchadcharam In memory of my Father, T. Panchadcharam 1939 - 1991. iii iv Summary The thesis studies the theory of Mackey functors as an application of enriched category theory and highlights the notions of lax braiding and lax centre for monoidal categories and more generally for promonoidal categories. The notion of Mackey functor was first defined by Dress [Dr1] and Green [Gr] in the early 1970’s as a tool for studying representations of finite groups. The first contribution of this thesis is the study of Mackey functors on a com- pact closed category T . We define the Mackey functors on a compact closed category T and investigate the properties of the category Mky of Mackey func- tors on T .
    [Show full text]