Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2019

    A stub.

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2019

    Do I have this generalisation right for graded monads in any 2-category?

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2019

    Added an example.

    diff, v4, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 4th 2019

    Looks good.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2019

    I see Paolo Perrone was speaking here of a colimit of graded monads. With the formulation via lax 2-functors, BMK\mathbf{B} M \to K, is there a slick way of speaking of some 2-categorical Kan extension along BM1\mathbf{B} M \to 1?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorPaoloPerrone
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2019

    If you refer to a way of obtaining a non-graded monad from a graded monad via a Kan extension in the 2-category of monoidal categories and lax monoidal functors, the answer is yes - we do it for example in the paper presented in that blog post (link here), Theorems 4.14 and B.1. The idea of a “monoidal Kan extension” is not due to us – we review some of the approaches in the literature here.

    However, those are Kan extensions in the 2-category of monoidal categories. In that approach, a graded monad is a lax monoidal functor from a monoidal category MM (the grading) into an endofunctor category [C,C][C,C]. If instead we view the graded monad as a lax 2-functor BMK\mathbf{B}M\to K into a bicategory KK, I don’t know how to obtain a monad (lax 2-functor 1K1\to K) via a (2-dimensional?) Kan extension. Naively I would say that if we tried to do that, then the functor BMK\mathbf{B}M\to K and its Kan extension 1K1\to K (along BM1\mathbf{B}M\to 1) could have different image objects in KK, only related by a universal 1-cell which is not necessarily (pseudo)invertible. If K=CatK=\mathbf{Cat}, that would mean that the graded monad and the resulting monad would be potentially on different categories.

    (I hope I’m understanding your question correctly though.)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 5th 2019
    • (edited Jul 5th 2019)

    Ok, thanks. I wonder what the benefits of the second (lax 2-functor) approach are. A few months ago I was wondering about factorization of monads in that setting. It seems you can’t generate the Kleisli and Eilenberg-Moore adjunctions as you can through the inclusions of the walking monad into the walking adjoint as here.

    What does one gain in thinking of monads as lax 2-functors from 11?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2019

    One thing is that lax and colax monad morphisms (between monads with varying base categories) are lax and colax natural transformations between such lax 2-functors.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 6th 2019

    Looking at the entry, currently it doesn’t make clear why one should care about the concept. What use have people put this to?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2019

    I added a general way to produce graded monads. Perhaps that begins to answer Urs’s question. But it would be good to include some concrete examples.

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2019

    Should we be heeding Mike’s advice?

    My personal conclusion is that whenever we start seeing lax functors appearing, it’s a good bet that our 2-categories are really double categories.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2019

    Is that a good bet even when thinking of monads as lax functors?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2019

    I don’t think so. There I was talking about the question of lax functors forming the morphisms in a category, i.e. composing them with each other and so on. Here we’re looking instead at lax functors mainly as “diagrams”, i.e. as being the objects of a category rather than the morphisms in one. And of course we’re interested in monads in plenty of 2-categories that aren’t double categories in any nontrivial way, like CatCat for instance.

    If I were trying to answer #9, I would probably start by looking at the references.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2019

    It may be more of a computer science thing, such as modalities in bounded linear logic and the graded state monad.

    I’m looking into this a little since philosophers have devised graded modalities for degrees of necessity, obligation, and so on.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 7th 2019

    Added another example.

    diff, v9, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorTobias Fritz
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2019

    Expanded on the utility of graded monads, and modified the grading of the graded list monad to include zero (since the list monad should contain the empty list).

    diff, v11, current

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorTobias Fritz
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2019

    corrected & clarified previous edits

    diff, v11, current

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2019

    Great, thanks!

    I added annotation so we know the authors of theorems within the text.

    Strangely here we have to separate letters in math mode, so mnm n rather than mnmn.

    diff, v12, current

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorTobias Fritz
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2019

    Thanks! I’ll keep these things in mind for future edits.

    By the way, one reason for restricting to monoidal categories as opposed to general 2-categories is that monoidal categories with lax monoidal functors can easily be treated as a 2-category, while arguably the collection of all 2-categories ought to be considered a 3-category. So it’s a technical simplification to consider merely deloopings.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)