DOCSLIB.ORG

Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality by Dmitry Vagner Department of Mathematics Duke University Date: Approved: Ezra Miller, Supervisor Lenhard Ng Sayan Mukherjee Paul Bendich Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mathematics in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 ABSTRACT Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality by Dmitry Vagner Department of Mathematics Duke University Date: Approved: Ezra Miller, Supervisor Lenhard Ng Sayan Mukherjee Paul Bendich An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mathematics in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 Copyright c 2019 by Dmitry Vagner All rights reserved Abstract In the present work, I explore the theme of diagrammatics and their capacity to shed insight on two trends|categorification and compositionality|in and around contemporary category theory. The work begins with an introduction of these meta- phenomena in the context of elementary sets and maps. Towards generalizing their study to more complicated domains, we provide a self-contained treatment|from a pedagogically novel perspective that introduces almost all concepts via diagrammatic language|of the categorical machinery with which we may express the broader no- tions found in the sequel. The work then branches into two seemingly unrelated disciplines: dynamical systems and knot theory. In particular, the former research defines what it means to compose dynamical systems in a manner analogous to how one composes simple maps. The latter work concerns the categorification of the slN link invariant. In particular, we use a virtual filtration to give a more diagrammatic reconstruction of Khovanov-Rozansky homology via a smooth TQFT. Finally, the work culminates in a manifesto on the philosophical place of category theory. iv Acknowledgements I am grateful to the following institutions • The city of Durham: for being a both cozy and exciting place to live. • Duke University: for being my intellectual incubator and patron. • Cocoa Cinnamon: for being my second home during graduate school. I am grateful to the following academic relationships • My meta-advisor Ezra Miller: for providing me with both guidance and free- dom, for welcoming me into your home and family, and for being simultaneously a mentor and friend. • My research mentor and kindred spirit David Spivak: for opening my mind to new dimensions of thought, shepherding me into the world of category theory, and taking me on some of the most exciting conversational joy rides. • My collaborator and friend Michael Abel: for thoroughly answering any ques- tion, be it silly or far afield, making doctoral research an experience equal parts exciting and warm. • Lenny Ng: for helping me become a more sophisticated mathematician and for introducing me to the world of knot theory as a context for my categorical ambitions. • Sayan Mukherjee: for facilitating my becoming-computer-scientist and open- ing my eyes to the (slightly) more concrete applications of my extravagantly abstract interests. v • Paul Bendich: for providing a spark of cultural vibrancy in the Duke mathe- matics culture, helping me get deeper exposure into data science, and serving on my defense committee. • Andrew Janiak: for giving me the opportunity to formally study philosophy while allowing me to roam freely in its deep end. • Michael Hardt and Frederic Jameson: for introducing me to mind bending ideas that a mathematics graduate student rarely has the opportunity to encounter. • John Baez: for sharing ideas that furnished my mind with new architectural possibility and sparked a rennaisance in my interest for pursuing mathematics • Mike Shulman and Aleks Kissinger: for respectively mentoring me during the deeply influential homotopy type theory and applied category research schools. • Aaron Mazel-Gee, Saul Glasman, and Patrick Schultz: for teaching me various notions of higher category theory. • Radmila Sazdanovic, Tye Lidman, Lev Rozansky, Dave Rose and the broader Triangle Topology community: for providing valuable mentorship. • Bjorn Sandstede: for being my mathematical guide throughout college and maintianing my interest in the field. • Tom Goodwillie: for introducing me to the kind of psychedelic math to which I would dedicate my graduate career. • Richard Piccirillo: for supporting my mathematical ambition and for living up to your reputation as Ranney's most respected faculty member. vi I am grateful to my loved ones • my friends: for enriching my life with both companionship and adventure • my non-human companions: Chansey, Umka, Loloz, and Theory: for bringing me so much joy and warmth. • my darling Thu. c Anh: for creating a home together with me and making my life far more joyous, meaningful, and cozy • my parents, Anna and Leon: for their unconditional love, deep connection, and unwavering commitment, both spiritual and material, to my upbringing and education • my grandpa Boris: for instilling in me an early love of doing mathematics and taking long walks • my late grandmother Yelena, to whom I dedicate this thesis: for an influence on my life that is so profound I haven't the language to articulate it. vii Contents Abstract iv Acknowledgementsv 1 Introduction: Aesthetics of Abstraction1 2 Compositionality, Categorification in Sets4 2.1 Compositionality of Maps........................6 2.1.1 Composites............................6 2.1.2 Compositions...........................6 2.1.3 Inverses.............................. 10 2.1.4 Products.............................. 12 2.1.5 Swaps............................... 13 2.1.6 Flows............................... 15 2.1.7 Forks................................ 18 2.1.8 Algebras.............................. 24 2.2 Categorification of Counting....................... 27 2.2.1 Equality.............................. 28 2.2.2 Multiplication........................... 28 viii 2.2.3 Exponentiation.......................... 30 2.2.4 Addition.............................. 31 2.2.5 Combinatorics........................... 36 3 Categorical Technology 38 3.1 Classical Category Theory........................ 38 3.1.1 Categories............................. 38 3.1.2 Functors.............................. 41 3.1.3 Naturality............................. 43 3.1.4 Universality............................ 44 3.1.5 Exponentials........................... 48 3.1.6 Theories.............................. 49 3.2 Monoidal Category Theory........................ 53 3.2.1 Tensors.............................. 53 3.2.2 Braids............................... 59 3.2.3 Strength.............................. 62 3.2.4 Monoids.............................. 65 3.2.5 Scarcity.............................. 69 3.2.6 Bimonoids............................. 78 ix 3.2.7 Closure.............................. 79 3.2.8 Duals............................... 87 4 Compositional Systems 90 4.1 Open Dynamical Systems Preliminaries................. 90 4.1.1 Motivation............................. 90 4.1.2 Motivating example........................ 92 4.1.3 Preliminary Notions....................... 93 4.1.4 Monoidal categories and operads................ 93 4.1.5 Typed sets............................. 95 4.1.6 Open systems........................... 98 4.2 Compositionality with Wiring Diagrams................ 102 4.2.1 Chains............................... 102 4.2.2 Flows............................... 105 4.2.3 The Operad of Wiring Diagrams................ 110 4.3 Compositional Dynamical Systems................... 122 4.3.1 The Algebra of Open Dynamical Systems............ 122 4.3.2 The Subalgebra of Open Linear Systems............ 126 5 Categorified Invariants 134 x 5.1 Quantum Link Invariants Preliminaries................. 134 5.1.1 Isotopy Types........................... 134 5.1.2 Resolution Cubes......................... 136 5.2 Categorification with Linear Structures................. 138 5.2.1 Categorifying Natural Numbers................. 138 5.2.2 Categorifying Polynomials.................... 140 5.2.3 DG Categories and Twisted Complexes............. 143 5.3 Categorified Link Invariants....................... 153 5.3.1 Khovanov Homology....................... 153 5.3.2 Khovanov-Rozansky Homology................. 155 5.3.3 Matrix factorizations....................... 157 5.3.4 Smooth Resolutions for MOY Graphs.............. 168 5.3.5 Smooth Resolution Meta-Cube................. 186 5.3.6 Recovering Khovanov-Rozansky Homology........... 204 6 Conclusion: Broader Cosmologies of Structure 212 6.1 The Notionographic Perspective..................... 212 6.2 The Role of Mathematics in Notionography.............. 214 6.3 The Prismatic Notionography of Categories.............. 217 xi Bibliography 228 Biography 231 xii Chapter 1 Introduction: Aesthetics of Abstraction The present work is obsessed with the visual language used to to render and manip- ulate mathematical notions. This yoga, which we call diagrammatics, was formally introduced in [JS91] by Joyal and Street to mechanize reasoning within monoidal cat- egories. In departure from tradition, we develop from the ground up the entire theory of categories with diagrammatics as first principles. Diagrammatics are in some sense a higher-dimensional|typically, given the dimensionality of our communication me- dia, planar|notation for formal symbolics in place of the traditional one-dimensional notation for mathematical expressions. Such
Recommended publications
  • Finite Sum – Product Logic

    Finite Sum – Product Logic

    Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 63–99. FINITE SUM – PRODUCT LOGIC J.R.B. COCKETT1 AND R.A.G. SEELY2 ABSTRACT. In this paper we describe a deductive system for categories with finite products and coproducts, prove decidability of equality of morphisms via cut elimina- tion, and prove a “Whitman theorem” for the free such categories over arbitrary base categories. This result provides a nice illustration of some basic techniques in categorical proof theory, and also seems to have slipped past unproved in previous work in this field. Furthermore, it suggests a type-theoretic approach to 2–player input–output games. Introduction In the late 1960’s Lambekintroduced the notion of a “deductive system”, by which he meant the presentation of a sequent calculus for a logic as a category, whose objects were formulas of the logic, and whose arrows were (equivalence classes of) sequent deriva- tions. He noticed that “doctrines” of categories corresponded under this construction to certain logics. The classic example of this was cartesian closed categories, which could then be regarded as the “proof theory” for the ∧ – ⇒ fragment of intuitionistic propo- sitional logic. (An excellent account of this may be found in the classic monograph [Lambek–Scott 1986].) Since his original work, many categorical doctrines have been given similar analyses, but it seems one simple case has been overlooked, viz. the doctrine of categories with finite products and coproducts (without any closed structure and with- out any extra assumptions concerning distributivity of the one over the other). We began looking at this case with the thought that it would provide a nice simple introduction to some techniques in categorical proof theory, particularly the idea of rewriting systems modulo equations, which we have found useful in investigating categorical structures with two tensor products (“linearly distributive categories” [Blute et al.
  • Double Categories of Open Dynamical Systems (Extended Abstract)

    Double Categories of Open Dynamical Systems (Extended Abstract)

    Double Categories of Open Dynamical Systems (Extended Abstract) David Jaz Myers Johns Hopkins University A (closed) dynamical system is a notion of how things can be, together with a notion of how they may change given how they are. The idea and mathematics of closed dynamical systems has proven incredibly useful in those sciences that can isolate their object of study from its environment. But many changing situations in the world cannot be meaningfully isolated from their environment – a cell will die if it is removed from everything beyond its walls. To study systems that interact with their environment, and to design such systems in a modular way, we need a robust theory of open dynamical systems. In this extended abstract, we put forward a general definition of open dynamical system. We define two general sorts of morphisms between these systems: covariant morphisms which include trajectories, steady states, and periodic orbits; and contravariant morphisms which allow for plugging variables of some systems into parameters of other systems. We define an indexed double category of open dynamical systems indexed by their interface and use a double Grothendieck construction to construct a double category of open dynamical systems. In our main theorem, we construct covariantly representable indexed double functors from the indexed double category of dynamical systems to an indexed double category of spans. This shows that all covariantly representable structures of dynamical systems — including trajectories, steady states, and periodic orbits — compose according to the laws of matrix arithmetic. 1 Open Dynamical Systems The notion of a dynamical system pervades mathematical modeling in the sciences.
  • Applied Category Theory for Genomics – an Initiative

    Applied Category Theory for Genomics – an Initiative

    Applied Category Theory for Genomics { An Initiative Yanying Wu1,2 1Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour, University of Oxford, UK 2Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, UK 06 Sept, 2020 Abstract The ultimate secret of all lives on earth is hidden in their genomes { a totality of DNA sequences. We currently know the whole genome sequence of many organisms, while our understanding of the genome architecture on a systematic level remains rudimentary. Applied category theory opens a promising way to integrate the humongous amount of heterogeneous informations in genomics, to advance our knowledge regarding genome organization, and to provide us with a deep and holistic view of our own genomes. In this work we explain why applied category theory carries such a hope, and we move on to show how it could actually do so, albeit in baby steps. The manuscript intends to be readable to both mathematicians and biologists, therefore no prior knowledge is required from either side. arXiv:2009.02822v1 [q-bio.GN] 6 Sep 2020 1 Introduction DNA, the genetic material of all living beings on this planet, holds the secret of life. The complete set of DNA sequences in an organism constitutes its genome { the blueprint and instruction manual of that organism, be it a human or fly [1]. Therefore, genomics, which studies the contents and meaning of genomes, has been standing in the central stage of scientific research since its birth. The twentieth century witnessed three milestones of genomics research [1]. It began with the discovery of Mendel's laws of inheritance [2], sparked a climax in the middle with the reveal of DNA double helix structure [3], and ended with the accomplishment of a first draft of complete human genome sequences [4].
  • Chapter 2 of Concrete Abstractions: an Introduction to Computer

    Chapter 2 of Concrete Abstractions: an Introduction to Computer

    Out of print; full text available for free at http://www.gustavus.edu/+max/concrete-abstractions.html CHAPTER TWO Recursion and Induction 2.1 Recursion We have used Scheme to write procedures that describe how certain computational processes can be carried out. All the procedures we've discussed so far generate processes of a ®xed size. For example, the process generated by the procedure square always does exactly one multiplication no matter how big or how small the number we're squaring is. Similarly, the procedure pinwheel generates a process that will do exactly the same number of stack and turn operations when we use it on a basic block as it will when we use it on a huge quilt that's 128 basic blocks long and 128 basic blocks wide. Furthermore, the size of the procedure (that is, the size of the procedure's text) is a good indicator of the size of the processes it generates: Small procedures generate small processes and large procedures generate large processes. On the other hand, there are procedures of a ®xed size that generate computa- tional processes of varying sizes, depending on the values of their parameters, using a technique called recursion. To illustrate this, the following is a small, ®xed-size procedure for making paper chains that can still make chains of arbitrary lengthÐ it has a parameter n for the desired length. You'll need a bunch of long, thin strips of paper and some way of joining the ends of a strip to make a loop. You can use tape, a stapler, or if you use slitted strips of cardstock that look like this , you can just slip the slits together.
  • Elements of -Category Theory Joint with Dominic Verity

    Elements of -Category Theory Joint with Dominic Verity

    Emily Riehl Johns Hopkins University Elements of ∞-Category Theory joint with Dominic Verity MATRIX seminar ∞-categories in the wild A recent phenomenon in certain areas of mathematics is the use of ∞-categories to state and prove theorems: • 푛-jets correspond to 푛-excisive functors in the Goodwillie tangent structure on the ∞-category of differentiable ∞-categories — Bauer–Burke–Ching, “Tangent ∞-categories and Goodwillie calculus” • 푆1-equivariant quasicoherent sheaves on the loop space of a smooth scheme correspond to sheaves with a flat connection as an equivalence of ∞-categories — Ben-Zvi–Nadler, “Loop spaces and connections” • the factorization homology of an 푛-cobordism with coefficients in an 푛-disk algebra is linearly dual to the factorization homology valued in the formal moduli functor as a natural equivalence between functors between ∞-categories — Ayala–Francis, “Poincaré/Koszul duality” Here “∞-category” is a nickname for (∞, 1)-category, a special case of an (∞, 푛)-category, a weak infinite dimensional category in which all morphisms above dimension 푛 are invertible (for fixed 0 ≤ 푛 ≤ ∞). What are ∞-categories and what are they for? It frames a possible template for any mathematical theory: the theory should have nouns and verbs, i.e., objects, and morphisms, and there should be an explicit notion of composition related to the morphisms; the theory should, in brief, be packaged by a category. —Barry Mazur, “When is one thing equal to some other thing?” An ∞-category frames a template with nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections,… which has: • objects • and 1-morphisms between them • • • • composition witnessed by invertible 2-morphisms 푓 푔 훼≃ ℎ∘푔∘푓 • • • • 푔∘푓 푓 ℎ∘푔 훾≃ witnessed by • associativity • ≃ 푔∘푓 훼≃ 훽 ℎ invertible 3-morphisms 푔 • with these witnesses coherent up to invertible morphisms all the way up.
  • Arxiv:1811.04966V3 [Math.NT]

    Arxiv:1811.04966V3 [Math.NT]

    Descartes’ rule of signs, Newton polygons, and polynomials over hyperfields Matthew Baker and Oliver Lorscheid Abstract. In this note, we develop a theory of multiplicities of roots for polynomials over hyperfields and use this to provide a unified and conceptual proof of both Descartes’ rule of signs and Newton’s “polygon rule”. Introduction Given a real polynomial p ∈ R[T ], Descartes’ rule of signs provides an upper bound for the number of positive (resp. negative) real roots of p in terms of the signs of the coeffi- cients of p. Specifically, the number of positive real roots of p (counting multiplicities) is bounded above by the number of sign changes in the coefficients of p(T ), and the number of negative roots is bounded above by the number of sign changes in the coefficients of p(−T ). Another classical “rule”, which is less well known to mathematicians in general but is used quite often in number theory, is Newton’s polygon rule. This rule concerns polynomi- als over fields equipped with a valuation, which is a function v : K → R ∪{∞} satisfying • v(a) = ∞ if and only if a = 0 • v(ab) = v(a) + v(b) • v(a + b) > min{v(a),v(b)}, with equality if v(a) 6= v(b) for all a,b ∈ K. An example is the p-adic valuation vp on Q, where p is a prime number, given by the formula vp(s/t) = ordp(s) − ordp(t), where ordp(n) is the maximum power of p dividing a nonzero integer n. Another example is the T -adic valuation v on k(T), for any field k, given by v ( f /g) = arXiv:1811.04966v3 [math.NT] 26 May 2020 T T ordT ( f )−ordT (g), where ordT ( f ) is the maximum power of T dividing a nonzero polyno- mial f ∈ k[T].
  • The ACT Pipeline from Abstraction to Application

    The ACT Pipeline from Abstraction to Application

    Addressing hypercomplexity: The ACT pipeline from abstraction to application David I. Spivak (Joint with Brendan Fong, Paolo Perrone, Evan Patterson) Department of Mathematics Massachusetts Institute of Technology 0 / 25 Introduction Outline 1 Introduction Why? How? What? Plan of the talk 2 Some new applications 3 Catlab.jl 4 Conclusion 0 / 25 Introduction Why? What's wrong? As problem complexity increases, good organization becomes crucial. (Courtesy of Spencer Breiner, NIST) 1 / 25 Introduction Why? The problem is hypercomplexity The world is becoming more complex. We need to deal with more and more diverse sorts of interaction. Rather than closed dynamical systems, everything is open. The state of one system affects those of systems in its environment. Examples are everywhere. Designing anything requires input from more diverse stakeholders. Software is developed by larger teams, touching a common codebase. Scientists need to use experimental data obtained by their peers. (But the data structure and assumptions don't simply line up.) We need to handle this new complexity; traditional methods are faltering. 2 / 25 Introduction How? How might we deal with hypercomplexity? Organize the problem spaces effectively, as objects in their own right. Find commonalities in the various problems we work on. Consider the ways we build complex problems out of simple ones. Think of problem spaces and solutions as mathematical entities. With that in hand, how do you solve a hypercomplex problem? Migrating subproblems to groups who can solve them. Take the returned solutions and fit them together. Ensure in advance that these solutions will compose. Do this according the mathematical problem-space structure.
  • Duality and Traces for Indexed Monoidal Categories

    Duality and Traces for Indexed Monoidal Categories

    DUALITY AND TRACES FOR INDEXED MONOIDAL CATEGORIES KATE PONTO AND MICHAEL SHULMAN Abstract. By the Lefschetz fixed point theorem, if an endomorphism of a topological space is fixed-point-free, then its Lefschetz number vanishes. This necessary condition is not usually sufficient, however; for that we need a re- finement of the Lefschetz number called the Reidemeister trace. Abstractly, the Lefschetz number is a trace in a symmetric monoidal cate- gory, while the Reidemeister trace is a trace in a bicategory. In this paper, we show that for any symmetric monoidal category with an associated indexed symmetric monoidal category, there is an associated bicategory which produces refinements of trace analogous to the Reidemeister trace. This bicategory also produces a new notion of trace for parametrized spaces with dualizable fibers, which refines the obvious “fiberwise" traces by incorporating the action of the fundamental group of the base space. Our abstract framework lays the foundation for generalizations of these ideas to other contexts. Contents 1. Introduction2 2. Indexed monoidal categories5 3. Indexed coproducts8 4. Symmetric monoidal traces 12 5. Shadows from indexed monoidal categories 15 6. Fiberwise duality 22 7. Base change objects 27 8. Total duality 29 9. String diagrams for objects 39 10. String diagrams for morphisms 42 11. Proofs for fiberwise duality and trace 49 12. Proofs for total duality and trace 63 References 65 Date: Version of October 31, 2011. Both authors were supported by National Science Foundation postdoctoral fellowships during the writing of this paper. This version of this paper contains diagrams that use dots and dashes to distinguish different features, and is intended for printing on a black and white printer.
  • 2019 AMS Prize Announcements

    2019 AMS Prize Announcements

    FROM THE AMS SECRETARY 2019 Leroy P. Steele Prizes The 2019 Leroy P. Steele Prizes were presented at the 125th Annual Meeting of the AMS in Baltimore, Maryland, in January 2019. The Steele Prizes were awarded to HARUZO HIDA for Seminal Contribution to Research, to PHILIppE FLAJOLET and ROBERT SEDGEWICK for Mathematical Exposition, and to JEFF CHEEGER for Lifetime Achievement. Haruzo Hida Philippe Flajolet Robert Sedgewick Jeff Cheeger Citation for Seminal Contribution to Research: Hamadera (presently, Sakai West-ward), Japan, he received Haruzo Hida an MA (1977) and Doctor of Science (1980) from Kyoto The 2019 Leroy P. Steele Prize for Seminal Contribution to University. He did not have a thesis advisor. He held po- Research is awarded to Haruzo Hida of the University of sitions at Hokkaido University (Japan) from 1977–1987 California, Los Angeles, for his highly original paper “Ga- up to an associate professorship. He visited the Institute for Advanced Study for two years (1979–1981), though he lois representations into GL2(Zp[[X ]]) attached to ordinary cusp forms,” published in 1986 in Inventiones Mathematicae. did not have a doctoral degree in the first year there, and In this paper, Hida made the fundamental discovery the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques and Université that ordinary cusp forms occur in p-adic analytic families. de Paris Sud from 1984–1986. Since 1987, he has held a J.-P. Serre had observed this for Eisenstein series, but there full professorship at UCLA (and was promoted to Distin- the situation is completely explicit. The methods and per- guished Professor in 1998).
  • The Hecke Bicategory

    The Hecke Bicategory

    Axioms 2012, 1, 291-323; doi:10.3390/axioms1030291 OPEN ACCESS axioms ISSN 2075-1680 www.mdpi.com/journal/axioms Communication The Hecke Bicategory Alexander E. Hoffnung Department of Mathematics, Temple University, 1805 N. Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA; E-Mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +215-204-7841; Fax: +215-204-6433 Received: 19 July 2012; in revised form: 4 September 2012 / Accepted: 5 September 2012 / Published: 9 October 2012 Abstract: We present an application of the program of groupoidification leading up to a sketch of a categorification of the Hecke algebroid—the category of permutation representations of a finite group. As an immediate consequence, we obtain a categorification of the Hecke algebra. We suggest an explicit connection to new higher isomorphisms arising from incidence geometries, which are solutions of the Zamolodchikov tetrahedron equation. This paper is expository in style and is meant as a companion to Higher Dimensional Algebra VII: Groupoidification and an exploration of structures arising in the work in progress, Higher Dimensional Algebra VIII: The Hecke Bicategory, which introduces the Hecke bicategory in detail. Keywords: Hecke algebras; categorification; groupoidification; Yang–Baxter equations; Zamalodchikov tetrahedron equations; spans; enriched bicategories; buildings; incidence geometries 1. Introduction Categorification is, in part, the attempt to shed new light on familiar mathematical notions by replacing a set-theoretic interpretation with a category-theoretic analogue. Loosely speaking, categorification replaces sets, or more generally n-categories, with categories, or more generally (n + 1)-categories, and functions with functors. By replacing interesting equations by isomorphisms, or more generally equivalences, this process often brings to light a new layer of structure previously hidden from view.
  • Category Theory Cheat Sheet

    Category Theory Cheat Sheet

    Musa Al-hassy https://github.com/alhassy/CatsCheatSheet July 5, 2019 Even when morphisms are functions, the objects need not be sets: Sometimes the objects . are operations —with an appropriate definition of typing for the functions. The categories Reference Sheet for Elementary Category Theory of F -algebras are an example of this. “Gluing” Morphisms Together Categories Traditional function application is replaced by the more generic concept of functional A category C consists of a collection of “objects” Obj C, a collection of “(homo)morphisms” composition suggested by morphism-arrow chaining: HomC(a; b) for any a; b : Obj C —also denoted “a !C b”—, an operation Id associating Whenever we have two morphisms such that the target type of one of them, say g : B A a morphism Ida : Hom(a; a) to each object a, and a dependently-typed “composition” is the same as the source type of the other, say f : C B then “f after g”, their composite operation _ ◦ _ : 8fABC : Objg ! Hom(B; C) ! Hom(A; B) ! Hom(A; C) that is morphism, f ◦ g : C A can be defined. It “glues” f and g together, “sequentially”: required to be associative with Id as identity. It is convenient to define a pair of operations src; tgt from morphisms to objects as follows: f g f◦g C − B − A ) C − A composition-Type f : X !C Y ≡ src f = X ^ tgt f = Y src; tgt-Definition Composition is the basis for gluing morphisms together to build more complex morphisms. Instead of HomC we can instead assume primitive a ternary relation _ : _ !C _ and However, not every two morphisms can be glued together by composition.
  • The Joy of String Diagrams Pierre-Louis Curien

    The Joy of String Diagrams Pierre-Louis Curien

    The joy of string diagrams Pierre-Louis Curien To cite this version: Pierre-Louis Curien. The joy of string diagrams. Computer Science Logic, Sep 2008, Bertinoro, Italy. pp.15-22. hal-00697115 HAL Id: hal-00697115 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00697115 Submitted on 14 May 2012 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The Joy of String Diagrams Pierre-Louis Curien Preuves, Programmes et Syst`emes,CNRS and University Paris 7 May 14, 2012 Abstract In the past recent years, I have been using string diagrams to teach basic category theory (adjunctions, Kan extensions, but also limits and Yoneda embedding). Us- ing graphical notations is undoubtedly joyful, and brings us close to other graphical syntaxes of circuits, interaction nets, etc... It saves us from laborious verifications of naturality, which is built-in in string diagrams. On the other hand, the language of string diagrams is more demanding in terms of typing: one may need to introduce explicit coercions for equalities of functors, or for distinguishing a morphism from a point in the corresponding internal homset. So that in some sense, string diagrams look more like a language ”`ala Church", while the usual mathematics of, say, Mac Lane's "Categories for the working mathematician" are more ”`ala Curry".