Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
  
  
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group 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 integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages 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 stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeNov 25th 2019
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexMinor edit to trigger a discussion thread. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/intensive+or+extensive+quantity/14">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/intensive+or+extensive+quantity/14">v14</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/intensive+or+extensive+quantity">current</a>

   Minor edit to trigger a discussion thread.

   diff, v14, current

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeNov 25th 2019
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexPrevious discussion, [here](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/5517/intensive-and-extensive/) and [here](https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/5341/examples-of-quality-types-in-cohesion/).

   Previous discussion, here and here.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorGuest
   • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Guest
   Format: MarkdownItexwhoever before has wondered about the elusive integral notation for the coend, your time has come :) Consider this example: let $C$ be the category of finite dimensional vector spaces over a field $k$. Let $F : C \times C^{op} \rightarrow C$ be the functor sending $(V, W)$ to $V \otimes W^*$. Then $\int^{V \in C} F(V, V) \cong k$. The structure maps $\epsilon_V$ in the coend are $\text{ev} : V \otimes V^* \rightarrow k$ sending $v \otimes f$ to $f(v)$. In this case, and others, the recipient of the integration pairing is canonically a coend of $\text{Hom}(W, V) \cong V^* \otimes W$. What I am (hesitantly) suggesting is that the coend $$\int^{V \in C} V^* \otimes V$$ and its structure maps $$ \epsilon_X : V^* \otimes V \rightarrow k$$ are the universal construction by which the intensives and the extensives are integrated against each other. Note: the coend $\int^C \text{Hom}(W, V)$ is far more general than the integration pairing, but seems to match it in many cases. Little conjecture: Let $D$ be the category of Banach spaces with short maps as morphisms. Let $F : D \times D^{op} \rightarrow D$ be the functor sending $(V, W)$ to $V \hat{\otimes} W^*$. Then $\int^{V \in D} F(V, V) \cong \mathbb{R}$.The structure maps $\epsilon_V$ are $\text{ev} : V \hat{\otimes} V^* \rightarrow k$ sending $v \otimes f$ to $f(v)$. Let CH be the category of compact hausdorff spaces and let $X$ be an object in CH. Let $V = [X, \mathbb{R}]_{\text{CH}}$, an object in $D$. An element in $V^*$ is a choice of integral (a choice of which extensive property to integrate against), and for $\phi \in V^*$ and $f \in V$, $$\phi(v) = \text{ev} (v \otimes \phi) =: \int v d \phi$$ Your thoughts?

   whoever before has wondered about the elusive integral notation for the coend, your time has come :)

   Consider this example: let be the category of finite dimensional vector spaces over a field . Let be the functor sending to . Then . The structure maps in the coend are sending to .

   In this case, and others, the recipient of the integration pairing is canonically a coend of . What I am (hesitantly) suggesting is that the coend

   and its structure maps

   are the universal construction by which the intensives and the extensives are integrated against each other.

   Note: the coend is far more general than the integration pairing, but seems to match it in many cases.

   Little conjecture: Let be the category of Banach spaces with short maps as morphisms. Let be the functor sending to . Then .The structure maps are sending to . Let CH be the category of compact hausdorff spaces and let be an object in CH. Let , an object in . An element in is a choice of integral (a choice of which extensive property to integrate against), and for and ,

   Your thoughts?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorDean
   • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dean
   Format: MarkdownItex(P.S. I wrote the last post, but I wasn't signed in.)

   (P.S. I wrote the last post, but I wasn’t signed in.)

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorGuest
   • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Guest
   Format: TextOh, and in the above little conjecture, the dual spaces are spaces of bounded maps.

   Oh, and in the above little conjecture, the dual spaces are spaces of bounded maps.
6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexLoregian's [book](https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.02503) on coends opens with this kind of comparison. Hmm, with the end as 'subspace of invariants for the action' and coend as 'the space of orbits of said action' is a HoTT rendition possible? I guess a starting point is: > In complete analogy to how limits are right adjoint functors to the diagonal functor, ends are right adjoint functors to the hom functor.

   Loregian’s book on coends opens with this kind of comparison.

   Hmm, with the end as ’subspace of invariants for the action’ and coend as ’the space of orbits of said action’ is a HoTT rendition possible? I guess a starting point is:

   In complete analogy to how limits are right adjoint functors to the diagonal functor, ends are right adjoint functors to the hom functor.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMar 3rd 2020
   • (edited Mar 3rd 2020)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexI see there's section 2.2.2 of [Combinatorial species and labelled structures](https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~sweirich/papers/yorgey-thesis.pdf) on 'Coends in HoTT'. [Right, I see the Haskell community write as homotopy (co)limits: exists x. p x x, forall x. p x x.]

   I see there’s section 2.2.2 of Combinatorial species and labelled structures on ’Coends in HoTT’. [Right, I see the Haskell community write as homotopy (co)limits: exists x. p x x, forall x. p x x.]

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorGuest
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Guest
   Format: MarkdownItex**Proposition:** Let $V$ be a monoidal closed category with tensor $\otimes_V$ and internal hom $[X, Y]_V$. Suppose that the Kan extension $\text{Lan}_{\text{Id}_V} (\text{Id}_V)$ exists and is pointwise. Then $$X \cong \text{Id}_V (X) \cong \text{Lan}_{\text{Id}_V} (\text{Id}_V) (X) \cong \int^{Y \in V} [Y, X]_V \otimes_V Y$$ Let $\text{Ban}_1$ be the category of Banach spaces and short maps. $\text{Ban}_1$ has an internal Hom consisting of bounded maps (Write $[-, -]$ for external Hom and $\text{Hom}(-, -)$ for internal Hom). Internal Hom has a left adjoint, projective tensor product. **Theorem:** $\text{Lan}_{\text{Id}_{\text{Ban}_1}}(\text{Id}_{\text{Ban}_1})$ exists and is pointwise, so that $$\mathbb{R} \cong \text{Id}_D (\mathbb{R}) \cong \text{Lan}_{\text{Id}_D} (\text{Id}_D) \cong \int^{V \in D} [V, \mathbb{R}] \otimes_D V$$ where $\otimes_D$ is projective tensor product.

   Proposition: Let be a monoidal closed category with tensor and internal hom . Suppose that the Kan extension exists and is pointwise. Then

   Let be the category of Banach spaces and short maps. has an internal Hom consisting of bounded maps (Write for external Hom and for internal Hom). Internal Hom has a left adjoint, projective tensor product.

   Theorem: exists and is pointwise, so that

   where is projective tensor product.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorGuest
   • CommentTimeMar 4th 2020
   • PermaLink
   Author: Guest
   Format: TextThat should be $\int^{V \in D} \text{Hom}(V, \mathbb{R}) \otimes_D V$. I will add this and its proof -- is that ok?

   That should be $\int^{V \in D} \text{Hom}(V, \mathbb{R}) \otimes_D V$.
   
   I will add this and its proof -- is that ok?
10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthornLab edit announcer
    • CommentTimeMar 4th 2020
    • PermaLink
    Author: nLab edit announcer
    Format: MarkdownItexI have added the coend-integral comparison to section 3 of the intensive/extensive property page. This includes the theorem mentioned in (8) in our nform discussion here. I wrote it in terms of Lawvere metrics instead of metrics. edeany@umich.edu <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/intensive+or+extensive+quantity/15">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/intensive+or+extensive+quantity/15">v15</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/intensive+or+extensive+quantity">current</a>

    I have added the coend-integral comparison to section 3 of the intensive/extensive property page.

    This includes the theorem mentioned in (8) in our nform discussion here.

    I wrote it in terms of Lawvere metrics instead of metrics.

    edeany@umich.edu

    diff, v15, current