Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
S
sgdt
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Wiki
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Snippets
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Package registry
Model registry
Operate
Environments
Terraform modules
Monitor
Incidents
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
gradual-typing
sgdt
Commits
fea7db8c
Commit
fea7db8c
authored
6 years ago
by
Max New
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
define free freyd category, conjecture about preorder version
parent
8c22f2f6
Loading
Loading
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
freyd-multicategories.tex
+127
-6
127 additions, 6 deletions
freyd-multicategories.tex
with
127 additions
and
6 deletions
freyd-multicategories.tex
+
127
−
6
View file @
fea7db8c
...
...
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
\usepackage
{
amsmath,amssymb
}
\usepackage
{
tikz-cd
}
\usepackage
{
mathpartir
}
\newtheorem
{
theorem
}{
Theorem
}
\newtheorem
{
definition
}{
Definition
}
...
...
@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
\newcommand
{
\relto
}{
\to
}
\newcommand
{
\M
}{
\mathcal
{
M
}}
\newcommand
{
\sq
}{
\square
}
\newcommand
{
\lett
}{
\text
{
let
}
\,\,
}
\begin{document}
\title
{
Freyd Multicategories as Generalized Multicategories
}
...
...
@@ -96,19 +97,139 @@ C_l \times D_t \arrow[r] & (C \sq D)_l
\end{enumerate}
I checked on the board that it maps 2-cells, and it must be
functorial, right?
The unit of the funny tensor product is the terminal object:
$
1
\to
1
$
.
\end{definition}
By abstract nonsense, the funny tensor product on the equipment of
matrices becomes a monoidal product on the equipment of categories,
and then a planar premonoidal category is a monoid object wrt the
funny tensor product. In more pedestrian terms, a planar premonoidal
and then a
(
planar
)
premonoidal category is a monoid object wrt the
funny tensor product. In more pedestrian terms, a
(
planar
)
premonoidal
category has a monoidal category of tight morphisms, a premonoidal
category of loose morphisms and all tight morphisms are central.
A freyd category is then a
\emph
{
cartesian
}
premonoidal category:
i.e. a premonoidal category where the monoidal structure on the tight
morphisms is a cartesian product. I don't know how to describe this in
terms of adjoints.
i.e. a premonoidal category where the monoidal structure on the
\emph
{
tight
}
morphisms is a cartesian product. I don't know how to
describe this as an adjoint or something in the category of sierpinski
categories, but you can just use the functor to ordinary categories
that takes the tight category and say the monoidal structure is
cartesian.
\subsection
{
(Strict) Freyd Categories are Monadic
}
Next, we show that Freyd categories can be presented as algebras of a
monad.
%
This is also true of planar and symmetric premonoidal categories, but
we focus on the cartesian case here.
\begin{definition}
[Free Strict Freyd Category]
We define the free strict Freyd category
$
TC
$
of a Sierpinski
category
$
C
$
as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The objects are lists of objects of
$
C
$
:
$
(
TC
)
_
0
=
C
_
0
^
*
$
.
\item
The tight morphisms are given by the free cartesian category,
i.e. they are
\emph
{
substitutions
}
:
\[
TC
(
a
_
1
,
\ldots
,a
_
n;b
_
1
,
\ldots
,b
_
m
)
_
t
=
\sum
_{
\rho
:
[
m
]
\to
[
n
]
}
\prod
_{
0
< i
\leq
m
}
C
(
a
_{
\rho
i
}
,b
_
i
)
\]
\item
The loose morphisms are defined inductively as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
First we have the inclusion of tight morphisms: for every
substitution
$
\gamma
: TC
(
\Gamma
,
\Delta
)
_
t
$
there is a loose
morphism
$
i
(
\gamma
)
: TC
(
\Gamma
,
\Delta
)
_
l
$
.
\item
Next, we need to include the loose generators, so for every
$
f : C
(
a,a'
)
_
t
$
, we have a rule
\begin{mathpar}
\inferrule
{
f : C
_
t(a
_
i,b)
\and
p : TC(a
_
1,
\ldots
,a
_
n;
\Gamma
)
}
{
\lett
n+1 = f(i); p : TC(a
_
1,
\ldots
,a
_
n,b;
\Gamma
)
}
\end{mathpar}
\item
Next, we define composition in two steps. First, we define
composition of a loose morphism with a tight morphism by
induction on the (output) loose morphism. Then we define
composition of loose morphisms by induction on the input
morphism.
\begin{mathpar}
\begin{array}
{
rcl
}
(
\lett
n+1 = f(i);p)
\circ
(
\rho
,
\gamma
: TC(
\Gamma
, a
_
1,
\ldots
,a
_
n))
&
=
&
\lett
|
\Gamma
|+1 = (f
\circ
\gamma
(i))(
\rho
(i)); (p
\circ
(
\rho
,
\gamma
)[|
\Gamma
|+1/|
\Gamma
|+1])
\\
(
\rho
,
\gamma
)
\circ
(
\rho
',
\gamma
')
&
=
&
\cdots
\end{array}
\begin{array}
{
rcl
}
(
\lett
n+1 = f(i);p);q
&
=
&
\lett
n+1 = f(i); (p;q)
\\
(
\rho
,
\gamma
);q
&
=
&
q
\circ
(
\rho
,
\gamma
)
\end{array}
\end{mathpar}
\item
First, there are two ways to include a tight generator: in a
substitution and using the inclusion of loose generators, so we
add an axiom that those are equal:
\[
(
\lett
2
=
i
(
v
)(
1
)
;
(
1
,
2
))
\cong
(
1
,v
(
1
))
\]
which we can write in a more reduction rule style:
\[
(
\lett
n
+
1
=
i
(
v
)(
j
)
; p
)
\cong
p
\circ
v
(
j
)/
n
+
1
\]
\item
Finally, to ensure functoriality of the inclusion of loose
generators, we add in a functoriality axiom.
\[
(
\lett
2
=
f
(
1
)
;
\lett
3
=
g
(
2
)
;
(
3
))
\cong
(
\lett
2
=
(
g
\circ
f
)(
1
)
;
(
2
))
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
I claim that that's a monad, its strict algebras are strict freyd
categories and its pseudo-algebras are freyd categories.
\section
{
Freyd Multicategories from the Free Freyd Category Monad
}
A Freyd Multicategory is then a normalized T-monoid, following
Crutwell-Shulman.
%
Instead, we will use
\emph
{
discrete
}
T-monoids, those whose underlying
object category is a set, though I don't think the theorem in
Crutwell-Shulman here applies.
\begin{definition}
[Freyd Multicategory]
A Freyd Multicategory
$
M
$
consists of
\begin{enumerate}
\item
A set of objects
$
M
_
0
$
\item
For every object
$
A
\in
M
_
0
$
and list of objects
$
\Gamma
\in
M
_
0
^
*
$
, a set of tight morphisms
$
M
(
\Gamma
;A
)
_
t
$
and loose
morphisms
$
M
(
\Gamma
;A
)
_
l
$
.
\item
Tight composition
\item
Loose composition
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\subsection
{
Free Freyd Multicategory
}
\section
{
Preordered Freyd Categories and Multicategories
}
Now we want to combine Freyd (multi)categories with preordered
categories to get preorderd Freyd (multi)categories.
%
The difficulty is that preordered categories are a type of
\emph
{
internal
}
category, but Freyd categories are a type of
\emph
{
enriched
}
category.
Thinking heuristically, we probably want our version of a Mono
preorder category to be equivalent to a full embedding of preorder
categories: there are types, a preorder category modeling effectful
terms and ordinary type precision, and a wide (and tall?)
sub-double-category of pure terms and pure type precision.
Conjecture: a Mono preorder category is a preorder internal to Mono
categories.
\end{document}
...
...
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment