Not signed in (Sign In)

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-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundle 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 deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 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

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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2023

    brief category:disambiguation page

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2023

    Isn’t what is described here usually called a “monad morphism”? I’m familiar with the term “monad transformation” being used for a 2-cell in the 2-category of monads, rather than a 1-cell (e.g. this is the usage in The formal theory of monads II).

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2023

    Thanks. True. Okay, I’ll edit the entry.

    (But I find it’s a shame… :-)

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2023

    added a table listing authors against their terminology,

    and some more commentary

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2023

    Incidentally, the best reason to say “transformation” for the 1-morphisms of monads (besides them having underlying natural transformations) is that the very word “monad” refers to their incarnation as lax 2-functors *Cat\ast \to Cat and that the default name for morphisms of such beasts, of course, lax natural transformations. Hence default verbiage would suggest to speak of the 2-category of monads, transformations and modifications.

    Besides mentioning this now in the entry, I have added pointer to

    (here and at monad)

    and to:

    diff, v3, current

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2023

    I think one could also say that the word “monad” refers to their incarnation as monoids in categories of endofunctors (e.g. as in the quote in the article monad: “It suggested “monoid” of course and it is a monoid in a functor category.”), and the default name for morphisms of such is monoid homomorphisms or simply monoid morphisms.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2023
    • (edited Sep 18th 2023)

    It’s tautological that they are morphisms, the question is what particular term they want to carry:

    We want to non-tautologically say: “The morphisms in the category of monads are the xyz”.

    \,

    Incidentally, for what it’s worth, I am doubtful of the relevance of that quote, given that it shows no sign of interacting with Bénabou’s text or thinking.

    Bénabou’s Def. 5.4.1 is quite unmistakably introducing the term monad for lax functors out of the unit 11 – which even in modern Greek is still called: monad.

    (The one time I saw Bénabou in person at Topos à l’IHES I was surprised – despite previous hearsay – at just how grumpy he really was towards the community. Meanwhile I am getting a sense of how that came about. Despite the general praise, there is an immense reluctancy in the community to engage with, let alone reference, his contributions: I have now about half a dozen authors listed at monad transformation who all introduce this concept, all well after Bénabou 1967, and none of them even hints that the definition that they are presenting is already implicit in Bénabou’s definition of monads literally as monads(units) 1𝒦1 \to \mathcal{K}.)

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeSep 18th 2023
    • (edited Sep 18th 2023)

    It’s tautological that they are morphisms, the question is what particular term they want to carry:

    I don’t think it’s tautological. It’s an assertion that there is a canonical choice of morphism between monoids. Prefixing “homo-” isn’t any more enlightening. It’s the same convention as when most authors write MonMon for the category of monoids and monoid homomorphisms, even though the choice of morphism is not explicit in the name.

    Incidentally, for what it’s worth, I am doubtful of the relevance of that quote, given that it shows no sign of interacting with Bénabou’s text or thinking.

    In the footnote on page 40 of Introduction to Bicategories, Bénabou writes:

    Our choice of “monad” comes from this example and the definition (5.5).

    where “this example” refers to the characterisation of monoids in monoidal categories as monads in one-object bicategories. (5.5) is where Bénabou introduces “polyads”, and so the footnote suggests that “monad” is chosen both because of its similarity with the word “monoid”, and also by following the “polyad” naming convention (though this latter choice of terminology does not appear to be explained).

    Despite the general praise, there is an immense reluctancy in the community to engage with, let alone reference, his contributions

    Yes, I have the same impression. It is a great pity.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 19th 2023

    Thanks for pointing out that footnote, I had missed that. Will make a corresponding edit at “monad”…