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 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 internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 10th 2012
   • (edited May 10th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have tidied up the entry _[[initial algebra]]_ and then made sure that it is cross-linked with _[[inductive type]]_ (which it wasn't!). We really need to rename this entry to _[[initial algebra for an endofunctor]]_. But since I would have to fight the cache bug if I did it now, I decide not to be responsible for that at the moment.

   I have tidied up the entry initial algebra and then made sure that it is cross-linked with inductive type (which it wasn’t!).

   We really need to rename this entry to initial algebra for an endofunctor. But since I would have to fight the cache bug if I did it now, I decide not to be responsible for that at the moment.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexat _[[initial algebra]]_ the archetypical example of the [[natural number object]] was missing. So I have now added it.

   at initial algebra the archetypical example of the natural number object was missing. So I have now added it.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2012
   • (edited May 11th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat's the good notion of "the category of initial $F$-algebras" as $F$ varies? Maybe: what is a good notion of a natural transformation $F \Rightarrow G$ between endofunctors to qualify as a morphism of the respective initial $F$-algebras. If you think this is not a good question to ask, do you see a roughly similar question that would be good to ask? Somehow from a category-theoretic viewpoint the notion of an algebra over an endofunctor is a funny thing, with so little structure there. Of course initiality makes the difference. But in order to understand what a bunch of objects means, here: initial algebras over endofunctors, I should try to understand the category they form. Therefore the question: what's a decent category of initial algebras of endofunctors on a given category?

   What’s the good notion of “the category of initial $F$-algebras” as $F$ varies?

   Maybe: what is a good notion of a natural transformation $F \Rightarrow G$ between endofunctors to qualify as a morphism of the respective initial $F$-algebras.

   If you think this is not a good question to ask, do you see a roughly similar question that would be good to ask?

   Somehow from a category-theoretic viewpoint the notion of an algebra over an endofunctor is a funny thing, with so little structure there. Of course initiality makes the difference. But in order to understand what a bunch of objects means, here: initial algebras over endofunctors, I should try to understand the category they form. Therefore the question: what’s a decent category of initial algebras of endofunctors on a given category?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI don't actually see any roughly similar question that I think would be good to ask. (-: Here is something that might be helpful, though. Rather than initial algebras for endofunctors, you can think about (algebraically-)[[free monads]] generated by endofunctors. The initial algebra of an endofunctor $F$ is the same as $T(\emptyset)$ where $T$ is the algebraically-free monad generated by $F$. Conversely, $T(A)$ is the initial algebra of the endofunctor $X\mapsto F(X) + A$. Thus being able to construct initial algebras for endofunctors is more or less equivalent to being able to construct algebraically-free monads on endofunctors.

   I don’t actually see any roughly similar question that I think would be good to ask. (-:

   Here is something that might be helpful, though. Rather than initial algebras for endofunctors, you can think about (algebraically-)free monads generated by endofunctors. The initial algebra of an endofunctor $F$ is the same as $T(\emptyset)$ where $T$ is the algebraically-free monad generated by $F$. Conversely, $T(A)$ is the initial algebra of the endofunctor $X\mapsto F(X) + A$. Thus being able to construct initial algebras for endofunctors is more or less equivalent to being able to construct algebraically-free monads on endofunctors.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeMay 11th 2012
   • (edited May 11th 2012)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexOkay, yes, it's that apparent absence of a monad structure from the definition of an "algebra over an endofunctor" that makes it feel a funny concept. But I see, of course one can just freely add that. Maybe I can tell you what I am really trying to figure out: in the context of the discussion at the $n$Café, I started wondering if somewhere in the higher geometry that I am looking at I can identify a naturally occuring (higher) inductive type. I am not sure where and why, but I thought maybe I can say "Look, this $\infty$-local system may be thought of as the interpretation of a higher inductive type" or the like. But the notion of an initial algebra over an endofunctor seems to be a bit alien to the constructions that I would naturally consider in higher geometry. Maybe I am wrong about that. But I started wondering if from the category-theoretic side there is maybe some more natural perspective on these beasts.

   Okay, yes, it’s that apparent absence of a monad structure from the definition of an “algebra over an endofunctor” that makes it feel a funny concept. But I see, of course one can just freely add that.

   Maybe I can tell you what I am really trying to figure out: in the context of the discussion at the $n$Café, I started wondering if somewhere in the higher geometry that I am looking at I can identify a naturally occuring (higher) inductive type. I am not sure where and why, but I thought maybe I can say “Look, this $\infty$-local system may be thought of as the interpretation of a higher inductive type” or the like.

   But the notion of an initial algebra over an endofunctor seems to be a bit alien to the constructions that I would naturally consider in higher geometry. Maybe I am wrong about that. But I started wondering if from the category-theoretic side there is maybe some more natural perspective on these beasts.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 12th 2012
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI [replied](http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2011/04/homotopy_type_theory_vi.html#c041358) to your Cafe comment with some thoughts that might be helpful.

   I replied to your Cafe comment with some thoughts that might be helpful.