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 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 connection constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus 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 history homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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 subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJul 17th 2013
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexAdded some examples to [[comonadic functor]]. Prompted by this [MO discussion](http://mathoverflow.net/questions/136851/iterating-monad-comonads-structures/136937#136937) (does anyone know how such monadic-comonadic iterations are referred to in the literature?).

   Added some examples to comonadic functor. Prompted by this MO discussion (does anyone know how such monadic-comonadic iterations are referred to in the literature?).

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeSep 16th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexI added an example concerning modalities. We should also be able to tell a similar story for the [[jet comonad]]. I should think the trio -- [[monadic functor]], [[comonadic functor]], [[monadicity theorem]] -- could be integrated better.

   I added an example concerning modalities. We should also be able to tell a similar story for the jet comonad.

   I should think the trio – monadic functor, comonadic functor, monadicity theorem – could be integrated better.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 16th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks David. I have added to the [section](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/comonadic+functor#Necessity) statements that are at least sufficient to conclude that $EM(\Box_W) \simeq \mathbf{H}_{/\ast}$, namely that $\mathbf{H}$ is a topos and $W$ is inhabited.

   Thanks David. I have added to the section statements that are at least sufficient to conclude that $EM(\Box_W) \simeq \mathbf{H}_{/\ast}$, namely that $\mathbf{H}$ is a topos and $W$ is inhabited.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 16th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexand then I have edited the text a little, trying to polish a bit more, please check if you agree.

   and then I have edited the text a little, trying to polish a bit more, please check if you agree.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeSep 16th 2015
   • (edited Sep 16th 2015)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexLooking good. So the PDE case should go through in a similar way? Perhaps in explicit terms of SDG infinitesimals. Instead of the $$ \prod_W (Q) = \Gamma_W(Q) $$ we need something like sections of the infinitesimal neighborhood of a point. Then base change that back. I guess that requires the language of jets. And then the coalgebras are the ones that come from base change of bundles on $\Im(X)$? That seems to be multiplying points by infinitesimal neighborhoods.

   Looking good.

   So the PDE case should go through in a similar way? Perhaps in explicit terms of SDG infinitesimals. Instead of the

   $$\prod_W (Q) = \Gamma_W(Q)$$

   we need something like sections of the infinitesimal neighborhood of a point. Then base change that back. I guess that requires the language of jets.

   And then the coalgebras are the ones that come from base change of bundles on $\Im(X)$? That seems to be multiplying points by infinitesimal neighborhoods.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeSep 16th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexYes, dependent product along a general morphism $X \longrightarrow Y$ produces "spaces-of-sections-pointwise-over-$Y$". And, yes, since the de Rham stack projectiuon $\Sigma \to \Im \Sigma$ is a 1-epi, jet coalgebras over $\Sigma$ are equivalently objects in the slice over $\Im \Sigma$. (In algebraic geometry these are the [[D-modules]]).

   Yes, dependent product along a general morphism $X \longrightarrow Y$ produces “spaces-of-sections-pointwise-over-$Y$”. And, yes, since the de Rham stack projectiuon $\Sigma \to \Im \Sigma$ is a 1-epi, jet coalgebras over $\Sigma$ are equivalently objects in the slice over $\Im \Sigma$. (In algebraic geometry these are the D-modules).

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeSep 27th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexAccording to Todd [here](https://mathoverflow.net/a/275588/447), when a monad is left adjoint to a comonad, then the algebras of the former are equivalent to the coalgebras of the latter. So the jet coalgebras in #6 are the same as 'infinitesimal neighborhood' algebras, necessity coalgebras (#3) as possibility algebras, etc., right?

   According to Todd here, when a monad is left adjoint to a comonad, then the algebras of the former are equivalent to the coalgebras of the latter. So the jet coalgebras in #6 are the same as ’infinitesimal neighborhood’ algebras, necessity coalgebras (#3) as possibility algebras, etc., right?

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeSep 27th 2018
   • (edited Sep 27th 2018)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexThis is quite a nice way to picture things: A possibility algebra/necessity coalgebra, $A \in \mathbf{H}/W$, requires a map, $\sum_W A \to \prod_W A$. Given a point in the total space, we need a section through that point.

   This is quite a nice way to picture things: A possibility algebra/necessity coalgebra, $A \in \mathbf{H}/W$, requires a map, $\sum_W A \to \prod_W A$. Given a point in the total space, we need a section through that point.