DOCSLIB.ORG

Relation Lifting

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Relation Lifting Relation Lifting Alexander Kurz University of Leicester with thanks to my coauthors Adriana Balan, Marta Bilkova, Clemens Kupke, Daniela Petrisan, Jiri Velebil, Yde Venema 30. 4. 2014 Overview Topic: Some elements of the category theory of relations 1. Introduction. (Why functors instead of signatures?) 2. Relation lifting over Set, universal property of Rel 3. Monotone relations 4. Many-valued (fuzzy) relations 5. Application: Bisimulation 6. Application: Simulation 7. Application: Coalgebraic logic 8. Conclusion 1 Chapter 1 Why functors instead of signatures? 2 Algebras for a functor One can replace signatures by functors, for example a constant 1 ! X and a binary operation X × X ! X can be assembled into 1 + X × X ! X or, FX ! X An algebra morphism is simply a function f : X ! X0 such that FX / X F f f FX0 / X0 3 Are functors more general than signatures? Example: The powerset functor P takes f : X ! X0 to Pf : PX !PX0 X ⊇ a 7! f[a] P! takes finite subsets only What are powerset algebras? List(X) −! P!X −! X More generally, for every functor T : Set ! Set there is a signature Σ such that a T -algebra TX ! X is an FΣ algebra FΣ ! TX ! X, where FΣ is the functor corresponding to the signature Σ. 4 Coalgebras for a functor A coalgebra is an arrow X ! TX mapping a state to its set of successors. Morphisms are given as X / TX f T f X0 / TX0 and induce a notion of bisimilarity or behavioural equivalence x ' x0 , 9f; f 0 : f(x) = f(x0) The definition of coalgebra is parametric in the category and the functor 5 Example: Tranisition systems ξ X / PX f Pf X0 / PX0 ξ0 8y 2 ξ(x) : 9y0 2 ξ0(x0) : f(y) = y0 8y0 2 ξ0(x0) : 9y 2 ξ(x) : f(y) = y0 6 Initial algebras and final coalgebras TX initial algebra final coalgebra P (well-founded) sets non-well-founded sets 1 + X N N [ f1g A × X ; streams (=infinite lists) 1 + A × X lists over A finite and infinite lists over A 1 + X × X finite binary trees non-well founded binary trees ::: For every functor T : Set ! Set the final coalgebra exists and consists of states up to behavioural equivalence 7 Chapter 2 Relation lifting Aim: Extend (or lift) a functor T : Set ! Set to a functor T¯ : Rel ! Rel (Notation “bar T ” in honour of the construction’s inventer Michael Barr) 8 The category Rel Given relations A R / B and B S / C there is the composition A S·R / C which is defined by having the graph G(S · R) = f(a; c) j 9b 2 B: (a; b) 2 R ^ (b; c) 2 Sg: Relations form a Pos-category: They are partially ordered by inclusion ⊆ 9 Fact 1: Recognise Set inside Rel f : A ! B gives rise to two relations f A ∗ / B has the graph f(a; f(a) j a 2 Ag. f ∗ B / A has the graph f(f(a); a) j a 2 Ag. A relation R is of the form f∗ for some map f iff R is left-adjoint: Id ⊆ S · RR · S ⊆ Id Moreover, S = f ∗. 10 Fact 2: Recover relations from maps Every relation R : A / B can be ‘tabulated as a span’ of maps GR dR cR } ! AB and one recovers the relation from the maps: ∗ R = cR∗ · dR (−)∗ : Set ! Rel together with Facts 1 and 2 provides a very tight relationship between maps and relations 11 Lifting a relation A ! B to a relation TA ! TB Tabulate R as GR dR cR } ! AB and apply T T (GR) T (dR) T (cR) z % TATB ∗ and then reconstruct a relation using (−)∗ and (−) in order to obtain ∗ TR¯ = T (cR)∗ · T (dR) 12 Example T (GR) T (dR) T (cR) z % TATB ∗ TR¯ = T (cR)∗ · T (dR) leads to the explicit formula GTR¯ = f(t; s) 2 TA × TB j 9w 2 T GR : T π1(w) = t; T π2(w) = sg; which can be used to calculate concrete examples: aP¯b , 9w 2 P(GR) : π1[w] = a & π2[w] = b; aP¯b , (8x 2 a : 9y 2 b : xRy)& (8y 2 b : 9x 2 a : xRy) 13 Relation lifting does not need to preserve graphs Important: The last example does not satisfy G(TR¯ ) =∼ T (GR) Solution: Factor spans through an epi e and a mono-span: T GR e T (dR) T (cR) GTR¯ } v dTR¯ cTR¯ ( ! TXTY 14 Fact 3: Lifting is independent of choice of span A relation can be represented by different spans. W e f g R p q XYw ' ∗ ∗ ∗ q∗ · p = g∗ · f iff e epi iff e∗ · e = Id. ∗ ∗ (T g)∗ · (T f) = (T q ◦ T e)∗ · (T p ◦ T e) ∗ ∗ = (T q)∗ · (T e)∗ · (T e) · (T p) ∗ = (T q)∗ · (T p) 15 Fact 4: Preservation of exact squares/weak pullbacks W p q ~ ! A B (1) g f } C ∗ ∗ is exact iff q∗ · p = g · f∗ ∗ ∗ q∗ · p ⊆ g · f∗ iff (1) commutes. ∗ ∗ q∗ · p = g · f∗ iff (1) is a weak pullback. 16 Relation lifting T¯ preserves composition G(RS) O e P dP cP dRS cRS x & GS GR dS cS dR cR | ' w # Thm (Barr, Trnkova, Carboni-Kelly-Wood, Hermida) The relation lifting T¯ satisfies T¯(R · S) ⊆ (TR¯ ) · (TS¯ ) and T¯(R · S) = (TR¯ ) · (TS¯ ) if and only if T preserves weak pullbacks. 17 The facts summarized The functor (−)∗ : Set ! Rel has the following three properties: ∗ 1. (−)∗ preserves maps, that is, every f∗ has a right-adjoint (denoted f ). 2. For every weak pullback (=exact square) W p q ~ ! A B (2) g f } C ∗ ∗ it holds q∗ · p = g · f∗ ∗ 3. It holds e∗ · e = Id for every epi e. 18 Universal property of Rel H / RelO > K The functor (−)∗ is universal: (−) ∗ F Set If K is any Pos-category, to give a locally monotone functor H : Rel !K is the same as to give a functor F : Set !K with the following three properties: 1. Every F f has a right adjoint, denoted by (F f)r. 2. For every weak pullback (2) the equality F q · (F p)r = (F g)r · F f holds. 3. For every epi e it holds F e · (F e)r = Id. Intuitively, Rel is obtained from Set by freely adding adjoints of maps. Works not only for Set but for all regular categories. 19 Chapter 3 Monotone relations 20 Monotone relations Relations R : X ! Y are monotone functions op X × Y ! 2 where X; Y are posets (or preorders) and 2 is the two-chain. Examples: Any relation that is weakening-closed: 0 0 x ≤ x x y y ≤ y x0 y0 the order of a lattice, the turnstile in a sequent calculus, ... 21 Rel(Pos): Composition and Identity A R / B and B S / C gives A S·R / C defined by _ S · R(a; c) = R(a; b) ^ S(b; c) b where W and ^ are taken in the lattice 2. The identity on a poset (preorder) A is given by the order relation and written variously as 0 0 0 Id(a; a ) = A(a; a )= a ≤A a 22 (−)∗ : Pos ! Rel(Pos) co (−)∗ : Pos ! Rel(Pos) A 7! B f : A ! B 7! λa, b :B (fa; b): A ! B f ≤ g 7! g∗ ≤ f∗ co where the indicates that the order between relations gets reversed and op (−)∗ : Pos ! Rel(Pos) A 7! B f : A ! B 7! λa, b :B (b; fa): B ! A f ≤ g 7! f ∗ ≤ g∗ op where the indicates that the order of the relations gets reversed. 23 Maps are adjoints We want to show that _ A(a; a0) ≤ R(a; b) ^ S(b; a0) b and _ S(b; a) ^ R(a; b0) ≤ B(b; b0) a only if R(a; b) = B(fa; b) for some f : A ! B. First consider the special case where A is the one element set. Then R is an upset, S is a downset, and the two inequalities ensure that there is f 2 B such that S = #f and R = "f, or, in our notation, S(b; a) = B(b; f) and R(a; b) = B(f; b). In the general case, the same reasoning gives an fa for each a 2 A with S(b; a) = B(b; fa) and R(a; b) = B(fa; b). 24 Theorem The relation lifting T¯ satisfies T¯(R · S) ⊆ (TR¯ ) · (TS¯ ) if T preserves epis and is functorial T¯(R · S) = (TR¯ ) · (TS¯ ) if and only if T preserves exact squares. The proof follows the same lines as for the discrete case (although some of the details are more intricate). The universal property is also stated and proved similarly. 25 Chapter 4 Many-valued (fuzzy) relations 26 Generalise from 2 to a lattice V of truth values Interesting example (Lawvere) op (lattice of truth values) = (lattice of distances) V = (([0; 1]; ≥R); +; 0) 0 is top, 1 is bottom, join is inf, meet is sup, implication is truncated minus − Instead of Pos or Preord one obtains generalised metric spaces (gms) A gms is a metric space, but distances need not be symmetric. A gms comes equipped with order: x ≤ y , X(x; y) = 0 Example: Finite and infinite words with metric and prefix order in one structure 27 Main idea Tabulate relations R : A ! B as cospans A B " | C(R) where the ‘collage’ C(R) is defined as A + B with homs C(R)(a; a0) = A(a; a0) C(R)(b; b0) = B(b; b0) C(R)(a; b) = R(a; b) C(R)(b; a) = ? 28 Chapter 5 Application: Bisimulation 29 Bisimulation X o R / X0 Aczel-Mendler ξ ρ ξ0 TXTRo / TX0 X o R X0 Relation lifting ξ ⊆ ξ0 ¯ TXTXo TR 0 Post-fixed point R ⊆ (ξ × ξ0)−1T¯(R) 30 Bisimulation Coinduction theorem: If x; x0 are related by some bisimulation, then x = x0 in the semantics.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Formalization of Logic in Diagonal-Free Cylindric Algebras Andrew John Ylvisaker Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2012 A formalization of logic in diagonal-free cylindric algebras Andrew John Ylvisaker Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Ylvisaker, Andrew John, "A formalization of logic in diagonal-free cylindric algebras" (2012). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 12536. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/12536 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A formalization of logic in diagonal-free cylindric algebras by Andrew John Ylvisaker A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: Mathematics Program of Study Committee: Roger D. Maddux, Major Professor Maria Axenovich Cliff Bergman Bill Robinson Paul Sacks Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2012 Copyright c Andrew John Ylvisaker, 2012. All rights reserved. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . iii LIST OF FIGURES . iv CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND MATERIAL . 1 1.1 Introduction . .1 1.2 First-order logic . .4 1.3 General algebra and Boolean algebras with operators . .6 1.4 Relation algebras . 11 1.5 Cylindric algebras . 17 CHAPTER 2. RELATION ALGEBRAIC REDUCTS . 21 2.1 Definitions . 21 2.2 Preliminary lemmas . 27 + 2.3 Q RA reducts in Df3 .....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Weak Representation Theory in the Calculus of Relations Jeremy F
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2006 Weak representation theory in the calculus of relations Jeremy F. Alm Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Alm, Jeremy F., "Weak representation theory in the calculus of relations " (2006). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 1795. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/1795 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Weak representation theory in the calculus of relations by Jeremy F. Aim A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: Mathematics Program of Study Committee: Roger Maddux, Major Professor Maria Axenovich Paul Sacks Jonathan Smith William Robinson Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2006 Copyright © Jeremy F. Aim, 2006. All rights reserved. UMI Number: 3217250 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
    [Show full text]
  • On String Topology Operations and Algebraic Structures on Hochschild Complexes
    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2015 On String Topology Operations and Algebraic Structures on Hochschild Complexes Manuel Rivera Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1107 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] On String Topology Operations and Algebraic Structures on Hochschild Complexes by Manuel Rivera A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Mathematics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2015 c 2015 Manuel Rivera All Rights Reserved ii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Mathematics in sat- isfaction of the dissertation requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Dennis Sullivan, Chair of Examining Committee Date Linda Keen, Executive Officer Date Martin Bendersky Thomas Tradler John Terilla Scott Wilson Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii Abstract On string topology operations and algebraic structures on Hochschild complexes by Manuel Rivera Adviser: Professor Dennis Sullivan The field of string topology is concerned with the algebraic structure of spaces of paths and loops on a manifold. It was born with Chas and Sullivan’s observation of the fact that the in- tersection product on the homology of a smooth manifold M can be combined with the con- catenation product on the homology of the based loop space on M to obtain a new product on the homology of LM , the space of free loops on M .
    [Show full text]
  • On Projective Lift and Orbit Spaces T.K
    BULL. AUSTRAL. MATH. SOC. 54GO5, 54H15 VOL. 50 (1994) [445-449] ON PROJECTIVE LIFT AND ORBIT SPACES T.K. DAS By constructing the projective lift of a dp-epimorphism, we find a covariant functor E from the category d of regular Hausdorff spaces and continuous dp- epimorphisms to its coreflective subcategory £d consisting of projective objects of Cd • We use E to show that E(X/G) is homeomorphic to EX/G whenever G is a properly discontinuous group of homeomorphisms of a locally compact Hausdorff space X and X/G is an object of Cd • 1. INTRODUCTION Throughout the paper all spaces are regular HausdorfF and maps are continuous epimorphisms. By X, Y we denote spaces and for A C X, Cl A and Int A mean the closure of A and the interior of A in X respectively. The complete Boolean algebra of regular closed sets of a space X is denoted by R(X) and the Stone space of R(X) by S(R(X)). The pair (EX, hx) is the projective cover of X, where EX is the subspace of S(R(X)) having convergent ultrafilters as its members and hx is the natural map from EX to X, sending T to its point of convergence ^\T (a singleton is identified with its member). We recall here that {fl(F) \ F £ R(X)} is an open base for the topology on EX, where d(F) = {T £ EX \ F G T} [8]. The projective lift of a map /: X —> Y (if it exists) is the unique map Ef: EX —> EY satisfying hy o Ef = f o hx • In [4], Henriksen and Jerison showed that when X , Y are compact spaces, then the projective lift Ef of / exists if and only if / satisfies the following condition, hereafter called the H J - condition, holds: Clint/-1(F) = Cl f-^IntF), for each F in R(Y).
    [Show full text]
  • Parametrized Higher Category Theory
    Parametrized higher category theory Jay Shah MIT May 1, 2017 Jay Shah (MIT) Parametrized higher category theory May 1, 2017 1 / 32 Answer: depends on the class of weak equivalences one inverts in the larger category of G-spaces. Inverting the class of maps that induce a weak equivalence of underlying spaces, X ; the homotopy type of the underlying space X , together with the homotopy coherent G-action. Can extract homotopy fixed points and hG orbits X , XhG from this. Equivariant homotopy theory Let G be a finite group and let X be a topological space with G-action (e.g. G = C2 and X = U(n) with the complex conjugation action). What is the \homotopy type" of X ? Jay Shah (MIT) Parametrized higher category theory May 1, 2017 2 / 32 Inverting the class of maps that induce a weak equivalence of underlying spaces, X ; the homotopy type of the underlying space X , together with the homotopy coherent G-action. Can extract homotopy fixed points and hG orbits X , XhG from this. Equivariant homotopy theory Let G be a finite group and let X be a topological space with G-action (e.g. G = C2 and X = U(n) with the complex conjugation action). What is the \homotopy type" of X ? Answer: depends on the class of weak equivalences one inverts in the larger category of G-spaces. Jay Shah (MIT) Parametrized higher category theory May 1, 2017 2 / 32 Equivariant homotopy theory Let G be a finite group and let X be a topological space with G-action (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Lifting Grothendieck Universes
    Lifting Grothendieck Universes Martin HOFMANN, Thomas STREICHER Fachbereich 4 Mathematik, TU Darmstadt Schlossgartenstr. 7, D-64289 Darmstadt mh|[email protected] Spring 1997 Both in set theory and constructive type theory universes are a useful and necessary tool for formulating abstract mathematics, e.g. when one wants to quantify over all structures of a certain kind. Structures of a certain kind living in universe U are usually referred to as \small structures" (of that kind). Prominent examples are \small monoids", \small groups" . and last, but not least \small sets". For (classical) set theory an appropriate notion of universe was introduced by A. Grothendieck for the purposes of his development of Grothendieck toposes (of sheaves over a (small) site). Most concisely, a Grothendieck universe can be defined as a transitive set U such that (U; 2 U×U ) itself constitutes a model of set theory.1 In (constructive) type theory a universe (in the sense of Martin–L¨of) is a type U of types that is closed under the usual type forming operations as e.g. Π, Σ and Id. More precisely, it is a type U together with a family of types ( El(A) j A 2 U ) assigning its type El(A) to every A 2 U. Of course, El(A) = El(B) iff A = B 2 U. For the purposes of Synthetic Domain Theory (see [6, 3]) or Semantic Nor- malisations Proofs (see [1]) it turns out to be necessary to organise (pre)sheaf toposes into models of type theory admitting a universe. In this note we show how a Grothendieck universe U gives rise to a type-theoretic universe in the presheaf topos Cb where C is a small category (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Coll041-Endmatter.Pdf
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/coll/041 AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY COLLOQUIUM PUBLICATIONS VOLUME 41 A FORMALIZATION OF SET THEORY WITHOUT VARIABLES BY ALFRED TARSKI and STEVEN GIVANT AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 1985 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primar y 03B; Secondary 03B30 , 03C05, 03E30, 03G15. Library o f Congres s Cataloging-in-Publicatio n Dat a Tarski, Alfred . A formalization o f se t theor y withou t variables . (Colloquium publications , ISS N 0065-9258; v. 41) Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Se t theory. 2 . Logic , Symboli c an d mathematical . I . Givant, Steve n R . II. Title. III. Series: Colloquium publications (American Mathematical Society) ; v. 41. QA248.T37 198 7 511.3'2 2 86-2216 8 ISBN 0-8218-1041-3 (alk . paper ) Copyright © 198 7 b y th e America n Mathematica l Societ y Reprinted wit h correction s 198 8 All rights reserve d excep t thos e grante d t o th e Unite d State s Governmen t This boo k ma y no t b e reproduce d i n an y for m withou t th e permissio n o f th e publishe r The pape r use d i n thi s boo k i s acid-fre e an d fall s withi n th e guideline s established t o ensur e permanenc e an d durability . @ Contents Section interdependenc e diagram s vii Preface x i Chapter 1 . Th e Formalis m £ o f Predicate Logi c 1 1.1. Preliminarie s 1 1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1709.06839V3 [Math.AT] 8 Jun 2021
    PRODUCT AND COPRODUCT IN STRING TOPOLOGY NANCY HINGSTON AND NATHALIE WAHL Abstract. Let M be a closed Riemannian manifold. We extend the product of Goresky- Hingston, on the cohomology of the free loop space of M relative to the constant loops, to a nonrelative product. It is graded associative and commutative, and compatible with the length filtration on the loop space, like the original product. We prove the following new geometric property of the dual homology coproduct: the nonvanishing of the k{th iterate of the coproduct on a homology class ensures the existence of a loop with a (k + 1){fold self-intersection in every representative of the class. For spheres and projective spaces, we show that this is sharp, in the sense that the k{th iterated coproduct vanishes precisely on those classes that have support in the loops with at most k{fold self-intersections. We study the interactions between this cohomology product and the more well-known Chas-Sullivan product. We give explicit integral chain level constructions of these loop products and coproduct, including a new construction of the Chas- Sullivan product, which avoid the technicalities of infinite dimensional tubular neighborhoods and delicate intersections of chains in loop spaces. Let M be a closed oriented manifold of dimension n, for which we pick a Riemannian metric, and let ΛM = Maps(S1;M) denote its free loop space. Goresky and the first author defined in [15] a ∗ product ~ on the cohomology H (ΛM; M), relative to the constant loops M ⊂ ΛM. They showed that this cohomology product behaves as a form of \dual" of the Chas-Sullivan product [8] on the homology H∗(ΛM), at least through the eyes of the energy functional.
    [Show full text]
  • An Application of First-Order Compactness in Canonicity Of
    An application of first-order compactness in canonicity of relation algebras Ian Hodkinson∗ June 17, 2019 Abstract The classical compactness theorem is a central theorem in first-order model theory. It sometimes appears in other areas of logic, and in per- haps surprising ways. In this paper, we survey one such appearance in algebraic logic. We show how first-order compactness can be used to sim- plify slightly the proof of Hodkinson and Venema (2005) that the variety of representable relation algebras, although canonical, has no canonical axiomatisation, and indeed every first-order axiomatisation of it has in- finitely many non-canonical sentences. 1 Introduction The compactness theorem is a fundamental result in first-order model theory. It says that every first-order theory (set of first-order sentences) that is consistent, in the sense that every finite subset of it has a model, has a model as a whole. Equivalently, if T;U are first-order theories, T j= U (meaning that every model of T is a model of U), and U is finite, then there is a finite subset T0 ⊆ T with T0 j= U. Though not nowadays the most sophisticated technique in model theory, compactness is still very powerful and has a firm place in my affections | as I believe it does in Mara's, since she devoted an entire chapter of her Model Theory book to it [26, chapter 5]. See [26, theorem 5.24] for the theorem itself. This paper was intended to be a short and snappy survey of a couple of applications of compactness in algebraic logic.
    [Show full text]
  • On Closed Categories of Functors
    ON CLOSED CATEGORIES OF FUNCTORS Brian Day Received November 7, 19~9 The purpose of the present paper is to develop in further detail the remarks, concerning the relationship of Kan functor extensions to closed structures on functor categories, made in "Enriched functor categories" | 1] §9. It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the basic results of closed category theory, including the representation theorem. Apart from some minor changes mentioned below, the terminology and notation employed are those of |i], |3], and |5]. Terminology A closed category V in the sense of Eilenberg and Kelly |B| will be called a normalised closed category, V: V o ÷ En6 being the normalisation. Throughout this paper V is taken to be a fixed normalised symmetric monoidal closed category (Vo, @, I, r, £, a, c, V, |-,-|, p) with V ° admitting all small limits (inverse limits) and colimits (direct limits). It is further supposed that if the limit or colimit in ~o of a functor (with possibly large domain) exists then a definite choice has been made of it. In short, we place on V those hypotheses which both allow it to replace the cartesian closed category of (small) sets Ens as a ground category and are satisfied by most "natural" closed categories. As in [i], an end in B of a V-functor T: A°P@A ÷ B is a Y-natural family mA: K ÷ T(AA) of morphisms in B o with the property that the family B(1,mA): B(BK) ÷ B(B,T(AA)) in V o is -2- universally V-natural in A for each B 6 B; then an end in V turns out to be simply a family sA: K ~ T(AA) of morphisms in V o which is universally V-natural in A.
    [Show full text]
  • Adjunctions of Higher Categories
    Adjunctions of Higher Categories Joseph Rennie 3/1/2017 Adjunctions arise very naturally in many diverse situations. Moreover, they are a primary way of studying equivalences of categories. The goal of todays talk is to discuss adjunctions in the context of higher category theories. We will give two definitions of an adjunctions and indicate how they have the same data. From there we will move on to discuss standard facts that hold in adjunctions of higher categories. Most of what we discuss can be found in section 5.2 of [Lu09], particularly subsection 5.2.2. Adjunctions of Categories Recall that for ordinary categories C and D we defined adjunctions as follows Definition 1.1. (Definition Section IV.1 Page 78 [Ml98]) Let F : C ! D and G : D ! C be functors. We say the pair (F; G) is an adjunction and denote it as F C D G if for each object C 2 C and D 2 D there exists an equivalence ∼ HomD(F C; D) = HomC(C; GD) This definition is not quite satisfying though as the determination of the iso- morphisms is not functorial here. So, let us give following equivalent definitions that are more satisfying: Theorem 1.2. (Parts of Theorem 2 Section IV.1 Page 81 [Ml98]) A pair (F; G) is an adjunction if and only if one of the following equivalent conditions hold: 1. There exists a natural transformation c : FG ! idD (the counit map) such that the natural map F (cC )∗ HomC(C; GD) −−! HomD(F C; F GD) −−−−−! HomD(F C; D) is an isomorphism 1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Short Proof of Representability of Fork Algebras
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Theoretical Computer Science ELSEVIER Theoretical Computer Science 188 ( 1997) 2 1l-220 A short proof of representability of fork algebras V&or Gyuris * Received June 1995; revised September IY96 Communicated by G. Mirkowska Abstract In this paper a strong relationship is demonstrated between fork algebras and quasi-projective relation algebras. With the help of Tarski’s classical representation theorem for quasi-projective relation algebras, a short proof is given for the representation theorem of fork algebras. As a by-product, we will discuss the difference between relative and absolute representation theorems. Fork algebras, due to their cxprcssive power and applicability in computer science, have been intensively studied in the last four years. Their literature is alive and pro- ductive. See e.g. Baum et al. [33,34.3,6-lo] and Sain-Simon [27]. As described in the textbook [15] 2.7.46, in algebra, there are two kinds of rep- resentation theorems: absolute and relative representation. For fork algebras absolute representation was proved almost impossible in [ l&27,26]. ’ However, relative repre- sentation is still possible and is quite useful (see e.g. [2]). The distinction between the two kinds of representation is not absolutely neces- sary for understanding the main contribution of this paper; therefore we postpone the description of this distinction to Remark 1 1 at the end of the paper. Several papers concentrate on giving a proof or an outline of proof for relative representability of fork algebras (e.g.
    [Show full text]