DOCSLIB.ORG

Adjoint and Representable Functors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

What underlies dual-process cognition? Adjoint and representable functors Steven Phillips ([email protected]) Mathematical Neuroinformatics Group, Human Informatics Research Institute, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8566 JAPAN Abstract & Stanovich, 2013, for the model and responses to the five criticisms). According to this model, cognition defaults to Despite a general recognition that there are two styles of think- ing: fast, reflexive and relatively effortless (Type 1) versus slow, Type 1 processes that can be intervened upon by Type 2 pro- reflective and effortful (Type 2), dual-process theories of cogni- cesses in response to task demands. However, this model is tion remain controversial, in particular, for their vagueness. To still far from the kinds of formal, computational explanations address this lack of formal precision, we take a mathematical category theory approach towards understanding what under- that prevail in cognitive science. lies the relationship between dual cognitive processes. From our category theory perspective, we show that distinguishing ID Criticism of dual-process theories features of Type 1 versus Type 2 processes are exhibited via adjoint and representable functors. These results suggest that C1 Theories are multitudinous and definitions vague category theory provides a useful formal framework for devel- C2 Type 1/2 distinctions do not reliably align oping dual-process theories of cognition. C3 Cognitive styles vary continuously, not discretely Keywords: dual-process; Type 1; Type 2; category theory; C4 Single-process theories provide better explanations category; functor; natural transformation; adjoint C5 Evidence for dual-processing is unconvincing Introduction Table 2: Five criticisms of dual-process theories (Evans & Intuitively, at least, human cognition involves two starkly dif- Stanovich, 2013). ferent styles of thinking: one style appears to be fast, reflexive and relatively effortless; the other slow, reflective and effortful We propose a category theory (Mac Lane, 1998) approach (Evans, 2003; Kahneman, 2011). The former is called Type 1 to understanding dual-process cognition. The attraction of and the latter Type 2 (Evans & Stanovich, 2013). Distinguish- this approach is the precise formalization of the relationships ing features are listed in Table 1. between cognitive processes that have some of the distinctive features of Type 1 versus Type 2 cognition. An intuitive basis ID Type 1 Type 2 for the category theory that supports this approach is given in D1 no working memory working memory the next section. Examples are sketched in the section that D2 autonomous decoupled, simulation follows, and this approach is discussed with regard to the five F1 fast slow criticisms in the final section. Technical support appears in F2 high capacity low capacity the appendix. F3 parallel serial F4 unconscious conscious Categories and functors F5 biased responses normative responses Here, we provide an intuitive overview of the supporting the- F6 contextualized abstract ory given in the appendix (see, e.g., Awodey, 2010; Mac Lane, F7 automatic controlled 1998, for introductions to category theory). To aid intuition, F8 associative rule-based formal concepts are interpreted in terms of the more familiar F9 experience-based consequence-based notion of an analogy between source and target domains. Our F10 ability-independent ability-dependent main interest is in adjoint and representable functors, which F11 evolved early evolved late depend on the concepts of category, functor and natural trans- F12 animal human formation. So, we proceed in that order. Some conceptual F13 implicit explicit correspondences are summarized in Table 3. F14 basic emotions complex emotions Category theory Cognitive science Table 1: Definitions/Features (D/F) of Type 1/2 processes category (sub)system, source/target (adapted from Evans & Stanovich, 2013, Table 1). functor construction, analogy natural transformation comparison (of analogies) Dual-process theories of such styles of thinking are con- adjoint (functor) inverse/obverse, Type 1 $ 2 troversial. Evans and Stanovich (2013) reviewed five general representable (functor) representation criticisms of dual-process theories, which are summarized in Table 2. Foremost is the acknowledgement that dual-process Table 3: Corresponding categorical and cognitive concepts. theories are multitudinous and vaguely defined. The Inter- vention model attempts to address this problem (see Evans A proportional analogy serves to bootstrap basic intuitions 2253 about categories, functors and natural transformations: Pre- of integers, thus avoiding a need for infinite precision. In decessor is to successor as one is to two; as Monday is to a cognitive context, the infinite real-world is represented by Tuesday. Analogy is generally recognized as a map of entities finite resources. This example also shows how representable in a source domain to entities in a target domain that pre- functors convey a second-order isomorphism even though a serves their relations (Gentner, 1983): e.g., next(predecessor, first-order isomorphism does not exist. successor) in the order domain maps to next(one, two) in the number domain; likewise, next(Monday, Tuesday) in the Categorical perspective on dual-processes days-of-the-week domain. In this context, we can interpret: Type 1 and Type 2 processes are distinguished by counter- posed features, suggesting adjoint and representable functors • a category (definition 1) as a source/target domain, which as the formal connection. We sketch cases centred on pairs of consists of a collection of objects (e.g., predecessor, suc- adjoint functors. In each case, we lead with an aspect of cog- cessor), a collection of morphisms (e.g., next) between nition that motivates a particular adjunction, which suggests objects, and a composition operation for combining mor- related distinctions that follow, phisms (e.g., next of next); Whole/part: diagonal-product functors • a functor (definition 3) as an analogy (e.g., days-of-the- One commonly held distinction is whether cognitive processes week) from one category (source) to another category (tar- operate on cognitive representations wholistically or compo- get) that “preserves structure” (e.g., next of next in the order nentially (whole/part). For example, kicked the bucket can domain maps to next of next in the number domain); and be interpreted wholistically (idiomatically) as died, or com- • a natural transformation (definition 4) as a comparison of ponentially as an act of kicking. The first interpretation is analogies (e.g., next number and next day) so that the result characteristically associative and the second rule-based (F8). of applying a relation to a transformation is the same as the This whole/part distinction is expressed by functors that transformation of the result of applying a relation (e.g. the pertain to a componential object called a product. Products day after the first day is the same as the second day). are constructed by the product functor, which is right adjoint to the diagonal functor (example 6(c)). This case is a conceptual Natural transformations also appear to be like analogies, but inverse in the sense of combining parts to form wholes in the appearance belies an important distinction: natural trans- one direction (product functor) and contextualizing wholes as formations are maps between functors, whereas functors are parts in the other direction (diagonal functor). maps between categories: 2nd-order contra 1st-order analogy. This adjoint situation was tested in a paired-associates task: With these concepts we can proceed to adjunction, re- subjects learned to associate pairs of letters to coloured shapes, garded as the centrepiece of ordinary category theory (Mac where say first letters were associated with colours and second Lane, 1998), and the related notion of representable func- letters to shapes (Phillips, Takeda, & Sugimoto, 2016). In this tor. Our motivation is the observation that Type 1/2 processes situation, the dual processes are a map of letter pairs versus are distinguished by counterposing features and immediacy of pair of letter maps. Performance on generalization (novel) (e.g., autonomous versus simulated). To illustrate, consider trials indicated associative versus rule-based processes, which approximation and precision as conceptual inverses, though correlated with conscious awareness (F4) of the underlying not actual inverses since approximation discards information: rule. Unaware subjects did not show correct responses to cues e.g., reals are approximated by integers, but their sets are not beyond the context of those seen in training trials: did not isomorphic. Yet, there is a “second-order isomorphism” be- infer an abstract rule that extended to novel letter pairs (F6). tween their orders affording comparisons with reals in terms Thus, the diagonal-product functor expresses three distinctive of integers without loss of precision. We can interpret: features of Type 1/2 processes: F4, F6 and F8. • an adjunction (definition 5) as an “inverse” (obverse) rela- Parallel/serial: product-exponential functors tion between two “anti-parallel” functors: e.g., one functor A second common distinction is between parallel versus serial 7! sends each real to its ceiling (approximation: e.g., 2:3 3) cognitive process (F3). Visual search, for example, is clas- and the other functor sends each integer to its corresponding sically regarded as
Recommended publications
  • Nearly Locally Presentable Categories Are Locally Presentable Is Equivalent to Vopˇenka’S Principle

    Nearly Locally Presentable Categories Are Locally Presentable Is Equivalent to Vopˇenka’S Principle

    NEARLY LOCALLY PRESENTABLE CATEGORIES L. POSITSELSKI AND J. ROSICKY´ Abstract. We introduce a new class of categories generalizing locally presentable ones. The distinction does not manifest in the abelian case and, assuming Vopˇenka’s principle, the same happens in the regular case. The category of complete partial orders is the natural example of a nearly locally finitely presentable category which is not locally presentable. 1. Introduction Locally presentable categories were introduced by P. Gabriel and F. Ulmer in [6]. A category K is locally λ-presentable if it is cocomplete and has a strong generator consisting of λ-presentable objects. Here, λ is a regular cardinal and an object A is λ-presentable if its hom-functor K(A, −): K → Set preserves λ-directed colimits. A category is locally presentable if it is locally λ-presentable for some λ. This con- cept of presentability formalizes the usual practice – for instance, finitely presentable groups are precisely groups given by finitely many generators and finitely many re- lations. Locally presentable categories have many nice properties, in particular they are complete and co-wellpowered. Gabriel and Ulmer [6] also showed that one can define locally presentable categories by using just monomorphisms instead all morphisms. They defined λ-generated ob- jects as those whose hom-functor K(A, −) preserves λ-directed colimits of monomor- phisms. Again, this concept formalizes the usual practice – finitely generated groups are precisely groups admitting a finite set of generators. This leads to locally gener- ated categories, where a cocomplete category K is locally λ-generated if it has a strong arXiv:1710.10476v2 [math.CT] 2 Apr 2018 generator consisting of λ-generated objects and every object of K has only a set of strong quotients.
  • AN INTRODUCTION to CATEGORY THEORY and the YONEDA LEMMA Contents Introduction 1 1. Categories 2 2. Functors 3 3. Natural Transfo

    AN INTRODUCTION to CATEGORY THEORY and the YONEDA LEMMA Contents Introduction 1 1. Categories 2 2. Functors 3 3. Natural Transfo

    AN INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY THEORY AND THE YONEDA LEMMA SHU-NAN JUSTIN CHANG Abstract. We begin this introduction to category theory with definitions of categories, functors, and natural transformations. We provide many examples of each construct and discuss interesting relations between them. We proceed to prove the Yoneda Lemma, a central concept in category theory, and motivate its significance. We conclude with some results and applications of the Yoneda Lemma. Contents Introduction 1 1. Categories 2 2. Functors 3 3. Natural Transformations 6 4. The Yoneda Lemma 9 5. Corollaries and Applications 10 Acknowledgments 12 References 13 Introduction Category theory is an interdisciplinary field of mathematics which takes on a new perspective to understanding mathematical phenomena. Unlike most other branches of mathematics, category theory is rather uninterested in the objects be- ing considered themselves. Instead, it focuses on the relations between objects of the same type and objects of different types. Its abstract and broad nature allows it to reach into and connect several different branches of mathematics: algebra, geometry, topology, analysis, etc. A central theme of category theory is abstraction, understanding objects by gen- eralizing rather than focusing on them individually. Similar to taxonomy, category theory offers a way for mathematical concepts to be abstracted and unified. What makes category theory more than just an organizational system, however, is its abil- ity to generate information about these abstract objects by studying their relations to each other. This ability comes from what Emily Riehl calls \arguably the most important result in category theory"[4], the Yoneda Lemma. The Yoneda Lemma allows us to formally define an object by its relations to other objects, which is central to the relation-oriented perspective taken by category theory.
  • Introduction to Category Theory (Notes for Course Taught at HUJI, Fall 2020-2021) (UNPOLISHED DRAFT)

    Introduction to Category Theory (Notes for Course Taught at HUJI, Fall 2020-2021) (UNPOLISHED DRAFT)

    Introduction to category theory (notes for course taught at HUJI, Fall 2020-2021) (UNPOLISHED DRAFT) Alexander Yom Din February 10, 2021 It is never true that two substances are entirely alike, differing only in being two rather than one1. G. W. Leibniz, Discourse on metaphysics 1This can be imagined to be related to at least two of our themes: the imperative of considering a contractible groupoid of objects as an one single object, and also the ideology around Yoneda's lemma ("no two different things have all their properties being exactly the same"). 1 Contents 1 The basic language 3 1.1 Categories . .3 1.2 Functors . .7 1.3 Natural transformations . .9 2 Equivalence of categories 11 2.1 Contractible groupoids . 11 2.2 Fibers . 12 2.3 Fibers and fully faithfulness . 12 2.4 A lemma on fully faithfulness in families . 13 2.5 Definition of equivalence of categories . 14 2.6 Simple examples of equivalence of categories . 17 2.7 Theory of the fundamental groupoid and covering spaces . 18 2.8 Affine algebraic varieties . 23 2.9 The Gelfand transform . 26 2.10 Galois theory . 27 3 Yoneda's lemma, representing objects, limits 27 3.1 Yoneda's lemma . 27 3.2 Representing objects . 29 3.3 The definition of a limit . 33 3.4 Examples of limits . 34 3.5 Dualizing everything . 39 3.6 Examples of colimits . 39 3.7 General colimits in terms of special ones . 41 4 Adjoint functors 42 4.1 Bifunctors . 42 4.2 The definition of adjoint functors . 43 4.3 Some examples of adjoint functors .
  • Arxiv:1005.0156V3

    Arxiv:1005.0156V3

    FOUR PROBLEMS REGARDING REPRESENTABLE FUNCTORS G. MILITARU C Abstract. Let R, S be two rings, C an R-coring and RM the category of left C- C C comodules. The category Rep (RM, SM) of all representable functors RM→ S M is C shown to be equivalent to the opposite of the category RMS . For U an (S, R)-bimodule C we give necessary and sufficient conditions for the induction functor U ⊗R − : RM→ SM to be: a representable functor, an equivalence of categories, a separable or a Frobenius functor. The latter results generalize and unify the classical theorems of Morita for categories of modules over rings and the more recent theorems obtained by Brezinski, Caenepeel et al. for categories of comodules over corings. Introduction Let C be a category and V a variety of algebras in the sense of universal algebras. A functor F : C →V is called representable [1] if γ ◦ F : C → Set is representable in the classical sense, where γ : V → Set is the forgetful functor. Four general problems concerning representable functors have been identified: Problem A: Describe the category Rep (C, V) of all representable functors F : C→V. Problem B: Give a necessary and sufficient condition for a given functor F : C→V to be representable (possibly predefining the object of representability). Problem C: When is a composition of two representable functors a representable functor? Problem D: Give a necessary and sufficient condition for a representable functor F : C → V and for its left adjoint to be separable or Frobenius. The pioneer of studying problem A was Kan [10] who described all representable functors from semigroups to semigroups.
  • Friday September 20 Lecture Notes

    Friday September 20 Lecture Notes

    Friday September 20 Lecture Notes 1 Functors Definition Let C and D be categories. A functor (or covariant) F is a function that assigns each C 2 Obj(C) an object F (C) 2 Obj(D) and to each f : A ! B in C, a morphism F (f): F (A) ! F (B) in D, satisfying: For all A 2 Obj(C), F (1A) = 1FA. Whenever fg is defined, F (fg) = F (f)F (g). e.g. If C is a category, then there exists an identity functor 1C s.t. 1C(C) = C for C 2 Obj(C) and for every morphism f of C, 1C(f) = f. For any category from universal algebra we have \forgetful" functors. e.g. Take F : Grp ! Cat of monoids (·; 1). Then F (G) is a group viewed as a monoid and F (f) is a group homomorphism f viewed as a monoid homomor- phism. e.g. If C is any universal algebra category, then F : C! Sets F (C) is the underlying sets of C F (f) is a morphism e.g. Let C be a category. Take A 2 Obj(C). Then if we define a covariant Hom functor, Hom(A; ): C! Sets, defined by Hom(A; )(B) = Hom(A; B) for all B 2 Obj(C) and f : B ! C, then Hom(A; )(f) : Hom(A; B) ! Hom(A; C) with g 7! fg (we denote Hom(A; ) by f∗). Let us check if f∗ is a functor: Take B 2 Obj(C). Then Hom(A; )(1B) = (1B)∗ : Hom(A; B) ! Hom(A; B) and for g 2 Hom(A; B), (1B)∗(g) = 1Bg = g.
  • 1 Category Theory

    1 Category Theory

    {-# LANGUAGE RankNTypes #-} module AbstractNonsense where import Control.Monad 1 Category theory Definition 1. A category consists of • a collection of objects • and a collection of morphisms between those objects. We write f : A → B for the morphism f connecting the object A to B. • Morphisms are closed under composition, i.e. for morphisms f : A → B and g : B → C there exists the composed morphism h = f ◦ g : A → C1. Furthermore we require that • Composition is associative, i.e. f ◦ (g ◦ h) = (f ◦ g) ◦ h • and for each object A there exists an identity morphism idA such that for all morphisms f : A → B: f ◦ idB = idA ◦ f = f Many mathematical structures form catgeories and thus the theorems and con- structions of category theory apply to them. As an example consider the cate- gories • Set whose objects are sets and morphisms are functions between those sets. • Grp whose objects are groups and morphisms are group homomorphisms, i.e. structure preserving functions, between those groups. 1.1 Functors Category theory is mainly interested in relationships between different kinds of mathematical structures. Therefore the fundamental notion of a functor is introduced: 1The order of the composition is to be read from left to right in contrast to standard mathematical notation. 1 Definition 2. A functor F : C → D is a transformation between categories C and D. It is defined by its action on objects F (A) and morphisms F (f) and has to preserve the categorical structure, i.e. for any morphism f : A → B: F (f(A)) = F (f)(F (A)) which can also be stated graphically as the commutativity of the following dia- gram: F (f) F (A) F (B) f A B Alternatively we can state that functors preserve the categorical structure by the requirement to respect the composition of morphisms: F (idC) = idD F (f) ◦ F (g) = F (f ◦ g) 1.2 Natural transformations Taking the construction a step further we can ask for transformations between functors.
  • Groupoids and Homotopy Types Cahiers De Topologie Et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques, Tome 32, No 1 (1991), P

    Groupoids and Homotopy Types Cahiers De Topologie Et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques, Tome 32, No 1 (1991), P

    CAHIERS DE TOPOLOGIE ET GÉOMÉTRIE DIFFÉRENTIELLE CATÉGORIQUES M. M. KAPRANOV V. A. VOEVODSKY ∞-groupoids and homotopy types Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle catégoriques, tome 32, no 1 (1991), p. 29-46. <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=CTGDC_1991__32_1_29_0> © Andrée C. Ehresmann et les auteurs, 1991, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la revue « Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle catégoriques » implique l’accord avec les conditions générales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam.org/legal.php). Toute uti- lisation commerciale ou impression systématique est constitutive d’une infraction pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ CAHIERS DE TOPOLOGIE VOL. XXXII-1 (1991) ET CEOMETRIE DIFFERENTIELLE ~-GROUPOIDS AND HOMOTOPY TYPES by M.M. KAPRANOV and V.A. VOEVODSKY RESUME. Nous pr6sentons une description de la categorie homotopique des CW-complexes en termes des oo-groupoïdes. La possibilit6 d’une telle description a dt6 suggeree par A. Grothendieck dans son memoire "A la poursuite des champs". It is well-known [GZ] that CW-complexes X such that ni(X,x) =0 for all i z 2 , x E X , are described, at the homotopy level, by groupoids. A. Grothendieck suggested, in his unpublished memoir [Gr], that this connection should have a higher-dimensional generalisation involving polycategories. viz. polycategorical analogues of groupoids. It is the pur- pose of this paper to establish such a generalisation. To do this we deal with the globular version of the notion of a polycategory [Sl], [MS], [BH2], where a p- morphism has the "shape" of a p-globe i.e.
  • Categories and Functors, the Zariski Topology, and the Functor Spec

    Categories and Functors, the Zariski Topology, and the Functor Spec

    Categories and functors, the Zariski topology, and the functor Spec We do not want to dwell too much on set-theoretic issues but they arise naturally here. We shall allow a class of all sets. Typically, classes are very large and are not allowed to be elements. The objects of a category are allowed to be a class, but morphisms between two objects are required to be a set. A category C consists of a class Ob (C) called the objects of C and, for each pair of objects X; Y 2 Ob (C) a set Mor (X; Y ) called the morphisms from X to Y with the following additional structure: for any three given objects X; Y and Z there is a map Mor (X; Y ) × Mor (Y; Z) ! Mor (X; Z) called composition such that three axioms given below hold. One writes f : X ! Y or f X −! Y to mean that f 2 Mor (X; Y ). If f : X ! Y and g : Y ! Z then the composition is denoted g ◦ f or gf. The axioms are as follows: (0) Mor (X; Y ) and Mor (X0;Y 0) are disjoint unless X = X0 and Y = Y 0. (1) For every object X there is an element denoted 1X or idX in Mor (X; X) such that if g : W ! X then 1X ◦ g = g while if h : X ! Y then h ◦ 1X = h. (2) If f : W ! X, g : X ! Y , and h : Y ! Z then h ◦ (g ◦ f) = (h ◦ g) ◦ f (associativity of composition). The morphism 1X is called the identity morphism on X and one can show that it is unique.
  • Introduction to Categories

    Introduction to Categories

    6 Introduction to categories 6.1 The definition of a category We have now seen many examples of representation theories and of operations with representations (direct sum, tensor product, induction, restriction, reflection functors, etc.) A context in which one can systematically talk about this is provided by Category Theory. Category theory was founded by Saunders MacLane and Samuel Eilenberg around 1940. It is a fairly abstract theory which seemingly has no content, for which reason it was christened “abstract nonsense”. Nevertheless, it is a very flexible and powerful language, which has become totally indispensable in many areas of mathematics, such as algebraic geometry, topology, representation theory, and many others. We will now give a very short introduction to Category theory, highlighting its relevance to the topics in representation theory we have discussed. For a serious acquaintance with category theory, the reader should use the classical book [McL]. Definition 6.1. A category is the following data: C (i) a class of objects Ob( ); C (ii) for every objects X; Y Ob( ), the class Hom (X; Y ) = Hom(X; Y ) of morphisms (or 2 C C arrows) from X; Y (for f Hom(X; Y ), one may write f : X Y ); 2 ! (iii) For any objects X; Y; Z Ob( ), a composition map Hom(Y; Z) Hom(X; Y ) Hom(X; Z), 2 C × ! (f; g) f g, 7! ∞ which satisfy the following axioms: 1. The composition is associative, i.e., (f g) h = f (g h); ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ 2. For each X Ob( ), there is a morphism 1 Hom(X; X), called the unit morphism, such 2 C X 2 that 1 f = f and g 1 = g for any f; g for which compositions make sense.
  • Combinatorial Species and Labelled Structures Brent Yorgey University of Pennsylvania, Byorgey@Gmail.Com

    Combinatorial Species and Labelled Structures Brent Yorgey University of Pennsylvania, [email protected]

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 1-1-2014 Combinatorial Species and Labelled Structures Brent Yorgey University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Computer Sciences Commons, and the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Yorgey, Brent, "Combinatorial Species and Labelled Structures" (2014). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 1512. http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1512 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1512 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Combinatorial Species and Labelled Structures Abstract The theory of combinatorial species was developed in the 1980s as part of the mathematical subfield of enumerative combinatorics, unifying and putting on a firmer theoretical basis a collection of techniques centered around generating functions. The theory of algebraic data types was developed, around the same time, in functional programming languages such as Hope and Miranda, and is still used today in languages such as Haskell, the ML family, and Scala. Despite their disparate origins, the two theories have striking similarities. In particular, both constitute algebraic frameworks in which to construct structures of interest. Though the similarity has not gone unnoticed, a link between combinatorial species and algebraic data types has never been systematically explored. This dissertation lays the theoretical groundwork for a precise—and, hopefully, useful—bridge bewteen the two theories. One of the key contributions is to port the theory of species from a classical, untyped set theory to a constructive type theory. This porting process is nontrivial, and involves fundamental issues related to equality and finiteness; the recently developed homotopy type theory is put to good use formalizing these issues in a satisfactory way.
  • Ends and Coends

    Ends and Coends

    THIS IS THE (CO)END, MY ONLY (CO)FRIEND FOSCO LOREGIAN† Abstract. The present note is a recollection of the most striking and use- ful applications of co/end calculus. We put a considerable effort in making arguments and constructions rather explicit: after having given a series of preliminary definitions, we characterize co/ends as particular co/limits; then we derive a number of results directly from this characterization. The last sections discuss the most interesting examples where co/end calculus serves as a powerful abstract way to do explicit computations in diverse fields like Algebra, Algebraic Topology and Category Theory. The appendices serve to sketch a number of results in theories heavily relying on co/end calculus; the reader who dares to arrive at this point, being completely introduced to the mysteries of co/end fu, can regard basically every statement as a guided exercise. Contents Introduction. 1 1. Dinaturality, extranaturality, co/wedges. 3 2. Yoneda reduction, Kan extensions. 13 3. The nerve and realization paradigm. 16 4. Weighted limits 21 5. Profunctors. 27 6. Operads. 33 Appendix A. Promonoidal categories 39 Appendix B. Fourier transforms via coends. 40 References 41 Introduction. The purpose of this survey is to familiarize the reader with the so-called co/end calculus, gathering a series of examples of its application; the author would like to stress clearly, from the very beginning, that the material presented here makes arXiv:1501.02503v2 [math.CT] 9 Feb 2015 no claim of originality: indeed, we put a special care in acknowledging carefully, where possible, each of the many authors whose work was an indispensable source in compiling this note.
  • Notes/Exercises on the Functor of Points. Due Monday, Febrary 8 in Class. for a More Careful Treatment of This Material, Consult

    Notes/Exercises on the Functor of Points. Due Monday, Febrary 8 in Class. for a More Careful Treatment of This Material, Consult

    Notes/exercises on the functor of points. Due Monday, Febrary 8 in class. For a more careful treatment of this material, consult the last chapter of Eisenbud and Harris' book, The Geometry of Schemes, or Section 9.1.6 in Vakil's notes, although I would encourage you to try to work all this out for yourself. Let C be a category. For each object X 2 Ob(C), define a contravariant functor FX : C!Sets by setting FX (S) = Hom(S; X) and for each morphism in C, f : S ! T define FX (f) : Hom(S; X) ! Hom(T;X) by composition with f. Given a morphism g : X ! Y , we get a natural transformation of functors, FX ! FY defined by mapping Hom(S; X) ! Hom(S; Y ) using composition with g. Lemma 1 (Yoneda's Lemma). Every natural transformation φ : FX ! FY is induced by a unique morphism f : X ! Y . Proof: Given a natural transformation φ, set fφ = φX (id). Exercise 1. Check that φ is the natural transformation induced by fφ. This implies that the functor F that takes an object X of C to the functor FX and takes a morphism in C to the corresponding natural transformation of functors defines a fully faithful functor from C to the category whose objects are functors from C to Sets and whose morphisms are natural transformations of functors. In particular, X is uniquely determined by FX . However, not all functors are of the form FX . Definition 1. A contravariant functor F : C!Sets is set to be representable if ∼ there exists an object X in C such that F = FX .