DOCSLIB.ORG

Category Theory by Example

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Category Theory by Example Category Theory by Example Ivan Murashko October 28, 2018 2 Contents 1 Base denitions9 1.1 Denitions.............................9 1.1.1 Object...........................9 1.1.2 Morphism......................... 10 1.1.3 Category.......................... 12 1.2 Set category example....................... 14 1.3 Programming languages examples................ 18 1.3.1 Hask toy category.................... 19 1.3.2 C++ toy category.................... 20 1.3.3 Scala toy category.................... 21 1.4 Quantum mechanics examples.................. 22 2 Objects and morphisms 27 2.1 Equality.............................. 27 2.2 Initial and terminal objects................... 28 2.3 Product and sum......................... 30 2.4 Category as a monoid....................... 31 2.5 Exponential............................ 32 2.6 Type algebra and Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence... 34 2.6.1 Proof category...................... 34 2.6.2 Hask category...................... 36 2.6.3 C++ category...................... 38 2.6.4 Scala category...................... 39 2.7 Quantum mechanics....................... 40 3 Functors 41 3.1 Denitions............................. 41 3.2 Cat category........................... 43 3.3 Bifunctors............................. 44 3 4 CONTENTS 4 Natural transformation 47 4.1 Denitions............................. 47 4.2 Operations with natural transformations............ 49 4.3 Polymorphism and natural transformation........... 52 4.3.1 Hask category...................... 52 5 Monads 55 5.1 Monoid in Set category..................... 55 5.2 Monoidal category........................ 59 5.3 Category of endofunctors..................... 60 5.4 Monads in programming languages............... 62 5.4.1 Haskell........................... 62 5.4.2 C++............................ 63 5.4.3 Scala............................ 63 5.5 Kleisli category.......................... 63 5.5.1 Partiality and Exception................. 65 5.5.2 Non-Determinism..................... 67 5.5.3 Side eects and interactive input/output........ 68 5.5.4 Continuation....................... 68 5.6 Examples............................. 68 5.6.1 Quantum mechanics................... 68 6 Yoneda's lemma 69 6.1 Examples............................. 69 6.1.1 Quantum mechanics................... 69 Index 71 Notations [C; D] Fun category(Example 4.2) α ◦ β Vertical composition of natural transformations (circle dot) α ? β Horizontal composition of natural transformations (star dot) αH Left whiskering α; β Natural transformation (Greek small letters) α : F −!: G Natural transformation (arrow with dot) CM Kleisli category C Category (bold capital Latin letter) Cop Opposite category cod f Codomain dom f Domain hom(a; b) set of Morphisms between a and b homC(a; b) Set of morphisms 1C)C Identity functor 1a!a Identity morphism : Identity natural transformation 1F −!F hM; µ, ηi Monad Hn nite dimensional Hilbert space ∼ a =f b there is an Isomorphism f between a and b 5 6 CONTENTS a; b Objects (Latin small letters) ab Exponential F ◦ G Functor composition (circle dot) f ◦ g Morphism composition (circle dot) F; G Functor (capital Latin letter) f; g; h Morphism (Latin small letter) F : C ) D Functor (double arrow) f : a ! b Morphism (simple arrow) Hα Right whiskering TBD To Be Dened (later) Introduction You just looked at yet another introduction to Category Theory. The subject mostly consists of a lot of denitions that are related each others and I wrote the book to collect all of them in one place to be easy checked and updated in future when I decide to refresh my knowledge about the eld of math. Therefore the book was written mostly for my category theory studying purposes but I will appreciate if somebody else nd it useful. The topics(chapters) cover the base denitions (Object, Morphism and Category), Functor, Natural transformation, Monad and also include impor- tant results from the category theory such as Yoneda's lemma (see chapter6) and Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence (see section 2.6). There are a lot of examples in each chapter. The examples cover dierent category theory application areas. I assume that the reader is familiar with the corresponding area and the example(s) can be passed if not. I.e. anyone can choose the suitable example(s) for (s)he. The most important examples are related to the set theory. The set theory and category theory are very close related. Each one can be considered as an alternative view to another one. There are a lot of examples from programming languages which include Haskell, Scala, C++. The source les for programming languages examples (Haskell, C++, Scala) can be found on github repository [8]. The examples from physics are related to quantum mechanics that is the most known for me. For the examples I am inspired by the Bob Coecke article [1]. The text is distributed under Creative Common Public License (see the text of the license at the end of the book) i.e. any reader has right to copy, store, modify, distribute or build upon the book until the original author is pointed in the derivative products. 7 8 CONTENTS Chapter 1 Base denitions 1.1 Denitions 1.1.1 Object Denition 1.1 (Class). A class is a collection of sets (or sometimes other mathematical objects) that can be unambiguously dened by a property that all its members share. Denition 1.2 (Object). In category theory object is considered as some- thing that does not have internal structure (aka point) but has a property that makes dierent objects belong to the same Class Remark 1.3 (Class of Objects). The Class of Objects will be marked as ob(C) (see g. 1.1). C c a d b Figure 1.1: Class of objects ob(C) = fa; b; c; dg 9 10 CHAPTER 1. BASE DEFINITIONS 1.1.2 Morphism Morphism is a kind of relation between 2 Objects. Denition 1.4 (Morphism). A relation between two Objects a and b fab : a ! b is called morphism. Morphism assumes a direction i.e. one Object( a) is called source and another one (b) target. The Set of all morphisms between objects a and b is denoted as hom (a; b). The important remark about morphisms is below Remark 1.5 (Morphism). The morphism has to be considered as a relation between objects. We will avoid standard (from set theory) notation for mor- phisms: f(a) = b. The reason for this is the following. Let f1 : a ! b and f2 : a ! b are 2 dierent morphisms. The notation f1(a) = b; f2(a) = b leads to incorrect conclusion that f1 = f2. For instance if then 2 functions set 2 a = b = R f1(x) = x; f2(x) = −x dierent ordering on R and as result have not to be considered as the same functions. Denition 1.6 (Domain). Given a Morphism f : a ! b, the Object a is called domain and denoted as dom f. Denition 1.7 (Codomain). Given a Morphism f : a ! b, the Object b is called codomain and denoted as cod f. Morphisms have several properties. 1 Axiom 1.8 (Composition). If we have 3 Objects a; b and c and 2 Morphisms fab : a ! b and fbc : b ! c then there exists Morphism fac : a ! c such that fac = fbc ◦ fab 1The properties don't have any proof and postulated as axioms 1.1. DEFINITIONS 11 Remark 1.9 (Composition). The equation fac = fbc ◦ fab means that we apply fab rst and then we apply fbc to the result of the application i.e. if our objects are sets and x 2 a then fac(x) = fbc(fab(x)); where fab(x) 2 b. Axiom 1.10 (Associativity). The Morphisms Composition(Axiom 1.8) s should follow associativity property: fce ◦ (fbc ◦ fab) = (fce ◦ fbc) ◦ fab = fce ◦ fbc ◦ fab: Denition 1.11 (Identity morphism). For every Object a we dene a special Morphism 1a!a : a ! a with the following properties: 8fab : a ! b 1a!a ◦ fab = fab (1.1) and 8fba : b ! a fba ◦ 1a!a = fba: (1.2) This morphism is called as identity morphism. Note that Identity morphism is unique, see Identity is unique(Theo- rem 2.3) below. Denition 1.12 (Commutative diagram). A commutative diagram is a di- agram of Objects (also known as vertices) and Morphisms (also known as arrows or edges) such that all directed paths in the diagram with the same start and endpoint lead to the same result by composition The following diagram commutes if fab = fcb ◦ fac. a fab b fac fcb c Remark 1.13 (Class of Morphisms). The Class of Morphisms will be marked as hom(C) (see g. 1.2) 12 CHAPTER 1. BASE DEFINITIONS C f a c g h b d Figure 1.2: Class of morphisms hom(C) = ff; g; hg, where h = f ◦ g Denition 1.14 (Monomorphism). If 8g1; g2 the equation f ◦ g1 = f ◦ g2 leads to g1 = g2 then f is called monomorphism. Denition 1.15 (Epimorphism). If 8g1; g2 the equation g1 ◦ f = g2 ◦ f leads to g1 = g2 then f is called epimorphism. Denition 1.16 (Isomorphism). A Morphism f : a ! b is called isomor- phism if 9g : b ! a such that f ◦ g = 1a!a and g ◦ f = 1b!b. If there is an ∼ isomorphism f between objects a and b then it is denoted as a =f b. Remark 1.17 (Isomorphism). There are can be many dierent Isomor- phisms between 2 Objects. If there is an unique isomorphism between 2 objects then the objects can be treated as the same object. 1.1.3 Category Denition 1.18 (Category). A category C consists of Class of Objects ob(C) 1.1. DEFINITIONS 13 C 1a!a 1c!c f a c g h b d 1b!b 1d!d Figure 1.3: Category C. It consists of 4 objects ob(C) = fa; b; c; dg and 7 morphisms ob(C) = ff; g; h = f ◦ g; 1a!a; 1b!b; 1c!c; 1d!dg Class of Morphisms hom(C) dened for ob(C), i.e.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction
    Pr´e-Publica¸c~oesdo Departamento de Matem´atica Universidade de Coimbra Preprint Number 19{32 CATEGORICAL ASPECTS OF CONGRUENCE DISTRIBUTIVITY MARINO GRAN, DIANA RODELO AND IDRISS TCHOFFO NGUEFEU Abstract: We give new characterisations of regular Mal'tsev categories with dis- tributive lattice of equivalence relations through variations of the so-called Tri- angular Lemma and Trapezoid Lemma in universal algebra. We then give new characterisations of equivalence distributive Goursat categories (which extend 3- permutable varieties) through variations of the Triangular and Trapezoid Lemmas involving reflexive and positive (compatible) relations. Keywords: Mal'tsev categories, Goursat categories, congruence modular varieties, congruence distributive varieties, Shifting Lemma, Triangular Lemma, Trapezoid Lemma. Math. Subject Classification (2010): 08C05, 08B05, 08A30, 08B10, 18C05, 18B99, 18E10. Introduction Regular Mal'tsev categories [7] extend 2-permutable varieties of univer- sal algebras, also including many examples which are not necessarily vari- etal, such as topological groups, compact groups, torsion-free groups and C∗-algebras, for instance. These categories have the property that any pair of (internal) equivalence relations R and S on the same object permute: RS = SR (see [6], for instance, and the references therein). It is well known that regular Mal'tsev categories have the property that the lattice of equiva- lence relations on any object is modular, so that they satisfy (the categorical version of) Gumm's Shifting Lemma [16]. More generally, this is the case for Goursat categories [8], which are those regular categories for which the composition of equivalence relations on the same object is 3-permutable: RSR = SRS. In [13] we proved that, for a regular category, the property of being a Mal'tsev category, or of being a Goursat category, can be both characterised Received 23rd September 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometric Modality and Weak Exponentials
    Geometric Modality and Weak Exponentials Amirhossein Akbar Tabatabai ∗ Institute of Mathematics Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic [email protected] Abstract The intuitionistic implication and hence the notion of function space in constructive disciplines is both non-geometric and impred- icative. In this paper we try to solve both of these problems by first introducing weak exponential objects as a formalization for predica- tive function spaces and then by proposing modal spaces as a way to introduce a natural family of geometric predicative implications based on the interplay between the concepts of time and space. This combination then leads to a brand new family of modal propositional logics with predicative implications and then to topological semantics for these logics and some weak modal and sub-intuitionistic logics, as well. Finally, we will lift these notions and the corresponding relations to a higher and more structured level of modal topoi and modal type theory. 1 Introduction Intuitionistic logic appears in different many branches of mathematics with arXiv:1711.01736v1 [math.LO] 6 Nov 2017 many different and interesting incarnations. In geometrical world it plays the role of the language of a topological space via topological semantics and in a higher and more structured level, it becomes the internal logic of any elementary topoi. On the other hand and in the theory of computations, the intuitionistic logic shows its computational aspects as a method to describe the behavior of computations using realizability interpretations and in cate- gory theory it becomes the syntax of the very central class of Cartesian closed categories.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets
    On the Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets Aruchchunan Surendran Ludwig-Maximilians-University Supervision: Dr. I. Petrakis August 14, 2019 1 Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Elements of basic Category Theory 3 2.1 The category Set ................................3 2.2 Basic definitions . .4 2.3 Basic properties of Set .............................6 2.3.1 Epis and monos . .6 2.3.2 Elements as arrows . .8 2.3.3 Binary relations as monic arrows . .9 2.3.4 Coequalizers as quotient sets . 10 2.4 Membership of elements . 12 2.5 Partial and total arrows . 14 2.6 Cartesian closed categories (CCC) . 16 2.6.1 Products of objects . 16 2.6.2 Application: λ-Calculus . 18 2.6.3 Exponentials . 21 3 Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets (CETCS) 26 3.1 Constructivism . 26 3.2 Axioms of ETCS . 27 3.3 Axioms of CETCS . 28 3.4 Π-Axiom . 29 3.5 Set-theoretic consequences . 32 3.5.1 Quotient Sets . 32 3.5.2 Induction . 34 3.5.3 Constructing new relations with logical operations . 35 3.6 Correspondence to standard categorical formulations . 42 1 1 Introduction The Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets (ETCS) was first introduced by William Lawvere in [4] in 1964 to give an axiomatization of sets. The goal of this thesis is to describe the Constructive Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets (CETCS), following its presentation by Erik Palmgren in [2]. In chapter 2. we discuss basic elements of Category Theory. Category Theory was first formulated in the year 1945 by Eilenberg and Mac Lane in their paper \General theory of natural equivalences" and is the study of generalized functions, called arrows, in an abstract algebra.
    [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]
  • Categories for Me, and You?
    Categories for Me, and You?∗ Cl´ement Aubert† October 16, 2019 arXiv:1910.05172v2 [math.CT] 15 Oct 2019 ∗The title echoes the notes of Olivier Laurent, available at https://perso.ens-lyon.fr/olivier.laurent/categories.pdf. †e-mail: [email protected]. Some of this work was done when I was sup- ported by the NSF grant 1420175 and collaborating with Patricia Johann, http://www.cs.appstate.edu/~johannp/. This result is folklore, which is a technical term for a method of publication in category theory. It means that someone sketched it on the back of an envelope, mimeographed it (whatever that means) and showed it to three people in a seminar in Chicago in 1973, except that the only evidence that we have of these events is a comment that was overheard in another seminar at Columbia in 1976. Nevertheless, if some younger person is so presumptuous as to write out a proper proof and attempt to publish it, they will get shot down in flames. Paul Taylor 2 Contents 1. On Categories, Functors and Natural Transformations 6 1.1. BasicDefinitions ................................ 6 1.2. Properties of Morphisms, Objects, Functors, and Categories . .. .. 7 1.3. Constructions over Categories and Functors . ......... 15 2. On Fibrations 18 3. On Slice Categories 21 3.1. PreliminariesonSlices . .... 21 3.2. CartesianStructure. 24 4. On Monads, Kleisli Category and Eilenberg–Moore Category 29 4.1. Monads ...................................... 29 4.2. KleisliCategories . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 30 4.3. Eilenberg–Moore Categories . ..... 31 Bibliography 41 A. Cheat Sheets 43 A.1. CartesianStructure. 43 A.2.MonadicStructure ............................... 44 3 Disclaimers Purpose Those notes are an expansion of a document whose first purpose was to remind myself the following two equations:1 Mono = injective = faithful Epi = surjective = full I am not an expert in category theory, and those notes should not be trusted2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Profunctorial Scott Semantics Zeinab Galal Université De Paris, IRIF, CNRS, Paris, France [email protected]
    A Profunctorial Scott Semantics Zeinab Galal Université de Paris, IRIF, CNRS, Paris, France [email protected] Abstract In this paper, we study the bicategory of profunctors with the free finite coproduct pseudo-comonad and show that it constitutes a model of linear logic that generalizes the Scott model. We formalize the connection between the two models as a change of base for enriched categories which induces a pseudo-functor that preserves all the linear logic structure. We prove that morphisms in the co-Kleisli bicategory correspond to the concept of strongly finitary functors (sifted colimits preserving functors) between presheaf categories. We further show that this model provides solutions of recursive type equations which provides 2-dimensional models of the pure lambda calculus and we also exhibit a fixed point operator on terms. 2012 ACM Subject Classification Theory of computation → Linear logic; Theory of computation → Categorical semantics Keywords and phrases Linear Logic, Scott Semantics, Profunctors Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs.FSCD.2020.16 Acknowledgements I thank Thomas Ehrhard, Marcelo Fiore, Chaitanya Leena Subramaniam and Christine Tasson for helpful discussions on this article and the referees for their valuable feedback. 1 Introduction 1.1 Scott semantics and linear logic Domain theory provides a mathematical structure to study computability with a notion of approximation of information. The elements of a domain represent partial stages of computation and the order relation represents increasing computational information. Among the desired properties of the interpretation of a program are monotonicity and continuity, i.e. the more a function has information on its input, the more it will provide information on its output and any finite part of the output can be attained through a finite computation.
    [Show full text]
  • ROTA-BAXTER CATEGORIES Edmundo Castillo and Rafael Dıaz
    International Electronic Journal of Algebra Volume 5 (2009) 27-57 ROTA-BAXTER CATEGORIES Edmundo Castillo and Rafael D´ıaz Received: 11 March 2008; Revised: 12 October 2008 Communicated by A. C¸i˘gdem Ozcan¨ Abstract. We introduce Rota-Baxter categories and construct examples of such structures. Mathematics Subject Classification (2000): 05A30, 18A99, 81Q30 Keywords: Rota-Baxter algebras, categorification of rings, categorical inte- gration. 1. Introduction This work takes part in the efforts to understand the categorification of rings and other related algebraic structures. The idea of categorification of algebraic structures has been around for several decades and has gradually become better appreciated and understood. The expanding scope and applications of the notion of categorification has been greatly influenced by the works of Baez-Dolan [2,3], Crane-Frenkel [10], Crane-Yetter [11], Khovanov [24], among others. The basic idea is that it is worthwhile to look at the categorical foundations of set theoretical structures. Often sets arise as the equivalences classes of objects in a category. Going from a category to the set of equivalences classes of its objects is the pro- cess of decategorification. Categorification goes in the reverse direction, uncovering categories whose set of equivalences classes of objects reproduces a given set. Cat- egorifications always exist but are no unique. Thus two general problems arise: the classification of categorifications and the extraction of information regarding a given set theoretical construction from its categorical counterpart. Our approach to the categorification of rings, reviewed in Section 2, was first discussed in [17] with a view towards the categorification of the ring of functions on non-commutative spaces and the categorification of the algebra of annihilation and creation operators.
    [Show full text]
  • Locally Cartesian Closed Categories, Coalgebras, and Containers
    U.U.D.M. Project Report 2013:5 Locally cartesian closed categories, coalgebras, and containers Tilo Wiklund Examensarbete i matematik, 15 hp Handledare: Erik Palmgren, Stockholms universitet Examinator: Vera Koponen Mars 2013 Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Contents 1 Algebras and Coalgebras 1 1.1 Morphisms .................................... 2 1.2 Initial and terminal structures ........................... 4 1.3 Functoriality .................................... 6 1.4 (Co)recursion ................................... 7 1.5 Building final coalgebras ............................. 9 2 Bundles 13 2.1 Sums and products ................................ 14 2.2 Exponentials, fibre-wise ............................. 18 2.3 Bundles, fibre-wise ................................ 19 2.4 Lifting functors .................................. 21 2.5 A choice theorem ................................. 22 3 Enriching bundles 25 3.1 Enriched categories ................................ 26 3.2 Underlying categories ............................... 29 3.3 Enriched functors ................................. 31 3.4 Convenient strengths ............................... 33 3.5 Natural transformations .............................. 41 4 Containers 45 4.1 Container functors ................................ 45 4.2 Natural transformations .............................. 47 4.3 Strengths, revisited ................................ 50 4.4 Using shapes ................................... 53 4.5 Final remarks ................................... 56 i Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Coexponentiability and Projectivity: Rigs, Rings, and Quantales
    Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 32, No. 36, 2017, pp. 1222{1228. COEXPONENTIABILITY AND PROJECTIVITY: RIGS, RINGS, AND QUANTALES S.B. NIEFIELD AND R.J. WOOD Abstract. We show that a commutative monoid A is coexponentiable in CMon(V) if and only if −⊗A: V /V has a left adjoint, when V is a cocomplete symmetric monoidal closed category with finite biproducts and in which every object is a quotient of a free. Using a general characterization of the latter, we show that an algebra over a rig or ring R is coexponentiable if and only if it is finitely generated and projective as an R-module. Omitting the finiteness condition, the same result (and proof) is obtained for algebras over a quantale. 1. Introduction Recall that an object A of a category A with finite products is exponentiable if and only if − × A: A / A has a right adjoint. In [Niefield, 1982], the first author showed that for an algebra A over a commutative ring R, the spectrum Spec(A) is exponentiable in the category of affine schemes over Spec(R) if and only if A is finitely generated and projective as an R-module, and later showed in [Niefield, 2016] that essentially the same proof gave a characterization of coexponentiable morphisms of quantales (with the finiteness condition omitted). After a presentation of the latter, Lawvere and Menni asked if this characterization also generalized to rigs and, in particular, idempotent rigs. A rig (or \ring without negatives") is another name for a commutative semiring, and an idempotent rig is one in which 1+1 = 1.
    [Show full text]
  • AUTONOMOUS CATEGORIES 1. Introduction
    COHERENCE OF THE DOUBLE INVOLUTION ON ∗-AUTONOMOUS CATEGORIES J.R.B. COCKETT, M. HASEGAWA AND R.A.G. SEELY ABSTRACT. We show that any free ∗-autonomous category is strictly equivalent to a free ∗-autonomous category in which the double-involution (−)∗∗ is the identity functor and the canonical isomorphism A A∗∗ is an identity arrow for all A. 1. Introduction Many formulations of proof nets and sequent calculi for Classical Linear Logic (CLL) [9, 10] take it for granted that a type A is identical to its double negation A⊥⊥.Onthe other hand, since Seely [16], it has been assumed that ∗-autonomous categories [1,2]are the appropriate semantic models of (the multiplicative fragment of) CLL. However, in general, in a ∗-autonomous category an object A is only canonically isomorphic to its double involution A∗∗. For instance, in the category of finite dimensional vector spaces and linear maps, a vector space V is only isomorphic to its double dual V ∗∗. This raises the questions whether ∗-autonomous categories do not, after all, provide an accurate semantic model for these proof nets and whether there could be semantically non-identical proofs (or morphisms), which must be identified in any system which assumes a type is identical to its double negation. Whether this can happen is not completely obvious even when one examines purely syntactic descriptions of proofs with the isomorphism between A and A⊥⊥ present such as [14, 11] or the alternative proof net systems of [5] which are faithful to the categorical semantics. Fortunately, there is no such semantic gap: in this paper we provide a coherence theorem for the double involution on ∗-autonomous categories, which tells us that there is no difference between the up-to-identity approach and the up-to-isomorphism approach, as far as this double-negation problem is concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • A Type Theory for Cartesian Closed Bicategories
    A type theory for cartesian closed bicategories Marcelo Fiore Philip Saville Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge Index Terms x,Ñ —typed lambda calculus, higher category theory, We construct an internal language Λps for cartesian closed Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence, cartesian closed bicate- bicategories (where ‘ps’ stands for pseudo), thus reducing gories the problem of coherence for cartesian closed bicategories Abstract—We construct an internal language for cartesian x,Ñ to a property of Λps . This type theory provides a practical closed bicategories. Precisely, we introduce a type theory mod- calculus for reasoning in such settings and directly generalises elling the structure of a cartesian closed bicategory and show that its syntactic model satisfies an appropriate universal property, the STLC (Simply-Typed Lambda Calculus) [19]. thereby lifting the Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence to the Our work is motivated by the complexities of calculating in bicategorical setting. Our approach is principled and practical. the cartesian closed bicategories of generalised species [7] and Weak substitution structure is constructed using a bicategori- of cartesian distributors [9], specifically for their application to fication of the notion of abstract clone from universal algebra, higher-dimensional category theory [20]. However, the internal and the rules for products and exponentials are synthesised from semantic considerations. The result is a type theory that employs language we present applies to other examples: cartesian a novel combination of 2-dimensional type theory and explicit closed bicategories also appear in categorical algebra [10] and substitution, and directly generalises the Simply-Typed Lambda game semantics [21]. Calculus. This work is the first step in a programme aimed at proving coherence for cartesian closed bicategories.
    [Show full text]
  • Category Theory
    Category theory Helen Broome and Heather Macbeth Supervisor: Andre Nies June 2009 1 Introduction The contrast between set theory and categories is instructive for the different motivations they provide. Set theory says encouragingly that it’s what’s inside that counts. By contrast, category theory proclaims that it’s what you do that really matters. Category theory is the study of mathematical structures by means of the re- lationships between them. It provides a framework for considering the diverse contents of mathematics from the logical to the topological. Consequently we present numerous examples to explicate and contextualize the abstract notions in category theory. Category theory was developed by Saunders Mac Lane and Samuel Eilenberg in the 1940s. Initially it was associated with algebraic topology and geometry and proved particularly fertile for the Grothendieck school. In recent years category theory has been associated with areas as diverse as computability, algebra and quantum mechanics. Sections 2 to 3 outline the basic grammar of category theory. The major refer- ence is the expository essay [Sch01]. Sections 4 to 8 deal with toposes, a family of categories which permit a large number of useful constructions. The primary references are the general category theory book [Bar90] and the more specialised book on topoi, [Mac82]. Before defining a topos we expand on the discussion of limits above and describe exponential objects and the subobject classifier. Once the notion of a topos is established we look at some constructions possible in a topos: in particular, the ability to construct an integer and rational object from a natural number object.
    [Show full text]