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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeNov 21st 2013

    Added a reference of Robert Furber, Bart Jacobs at Giry monad.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2014
    • (edited May 20th 2014)

    I noticed that Giry monad used to jump into some details without really saying what’s going on first. I have now

    • added a minimum of an Idea-section;

    • split the “Outline” section into a Definition-section (and tried to make it read more like an actual definition) and a “Properties – Algebras”-section (which also deserves some streamlining, but I haven’t touched this);

    • touched the formatting of some of the references.

    Experts who care might want to polish this entry a bit more.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2014
    Kirk Sturtz has put 'The Giry monad as a codensity monad' ([pdf]( on the arXiv recently which I've added to reference section together with a link to Brendan Fong's paper on Bayesian networks. I guess Sturtz' results should be worked into the main text as well. There's also an unfortunate orthographic divergence occurring: the monad is called 'Giry monad' as well as 'Giry's monad' in the entry (title).
    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
    • CommentTimeOct 17th 2014

    I’ve added a reference to Tom Avery’s paper arxiv:1410.4432 and renamed the entry to ’Giry monad’ from ’Giry’s monad’.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2016

    Some of the literature on the Giry monad seems to be behind a paywall. Can anyone tell me whether the weak topology on the space P(X)P(X) of Borel probability measures is the same as the topology induced by the Prokhorov metric? I have just added the latter as an example to further examples at Polish space, and would like to add this material plus a reference to Giry monad as well, but would like to check up on that point first.

  1. Yes, at least for a complete separable metric space (that is to say Polish). Reference: Dudley, real analysis and probability.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 25th 2016

    Perfect; thank you Daniel. Is there a Theorem or page number where the statement is made?

  2. complete answer: The statement holds actually even for any separable metric space. Reference: Dudley, Real Analysis and Probability, 2002, Theorem 11.3.3 page 395. Note that Dudley defines Prokhorov metric not according to normal terminology but introduces it calling it simply ρ\rho. Anyway the cited theorem states the equivalence of all these notions of convergence, to roughly summarize the theorem: (almost) all reasonable notions of convergence of laws coincide on separable metric spaces (If you add even complete, I could not think of any reasonable notion that would not be equivalent to weak convergence).

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2016

    Thank you again, Daniel. This is very helpful indeed.

  3. Added a short history of the Giry monad, and updated reference to my published work.

    K. Sturtz

    diff, v23, current

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeOct 31st 2018

    I added in the first name of Elisabeth Burroni.

    diff, v25, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorEvan Patterson
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2019

    I’m curious about the work by Voevodsky mentioned in this page. Unfortunately, I don’t speak Russian so I can’t watch the Moscow lecture. Does anyone know of any English-language paper, notes, or recorded lecture on this work?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2019

    Hi Evan. I looked around at the time that was added, but I never found anything.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorAlizter
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2019

    Perhaps try contacting Zoran Skoda who wrote the part about Voevodsky.

  4. Somebody at the Miami lecture must have taken notes. Could we try contacting somebody there? Looking at the faculty list, it is not obvious who might have invited him/known him, though.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorAlizter
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2019

    Perhaps a good start is contacting Daniel Grayson?

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorspitters
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2019
    • (edited Feb 9th 2019)
    Vladimir send me a copy in 2014. Dan Grayson has now made it available [here](
    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2019

    You need to choose Markdown+Itex, so

    Dan Grayson has now made it available here

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorEvan Patterson
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2019

    Very nice. Thanks everyone for your help!

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorEvan Patterson
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2019

    Added a link to Voevodsky’s unfinished notes on categorical probability theory.

    diff, v28, current

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorSam Staton
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2019

    Hi, Someone just pointed out that, earlier this month, some claims were added by Kirk Sturtz about “super convex sets” and his recent arxiv preprint. I don’t entirely understand the preprint or the claims. Not sure how best to handle this here.

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2019

    Thanks for the alert!

    The additions by Sturtz are in rev 31, rev 32 and some reformatting of references in rev 33.

    Haven’t looked into the actual content, but it does seem strange that rev 31 effectively changes the previous content without further notice into the terminology apparently introduced in Sturtz’s article. At the very least it seems the original content should have been kept, and instead a remark be added that an alternative has been suggested.

    Not sure how best to handle this here.

    Since we haven’t seen Sturtz here, while you are a regular, and if, as you seem to say, you are familiar with the subject, have looked into the edits and the article, and find that it does not make sense, then the way to handle this is to roll back to before these edits, hence to rev 30.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2019

    Sturtz had made earlier edits to the page, including items which the new material addresses. It would be good to have some expert input. The page is probably due an overhaul anyway.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2019
    • (edited Jul 22nd 2019)

    If one looks at some of the earlier revisions which David mentions, it seems that Kirk has only either added material or modified bits which already referred to his work. Thus perhaps a reasonable step would be to send an email and invite him to join this discussion and perhaps give an overview of his contributions to the page thus far?

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorSam Staton
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2019

    Abbreviated bit about active research for now, as discussed on nforum.

    diff, v34, current

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorSam Staton
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2019
    • (edited Jul 24th 2019)

    Here is the bit I cut (for now).

    The results of Doberkat can be generalized to the Giry monad GG on all measurable spaces by using the factorization of the Giry monad through the category of super convex spaces SCvx\mathbf{SCvx}, by viewing the Giry monad itself as a functor into that category. (A super convex space is similar to a convex space except the structure requires that if {α i} i=1 \{\alpha_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty} is any countable partition of unity (so the limit of the sum is one), then for any sequence of points in a super convex space AA, the countable sum i=1 α ia i\sum_{i=1}^{\infty} \alpha_i a_i is also an element of the space. The morphisms in the category preserve the countable affine sums. The right adjoint of that functor assigns to each convex space the measurable space, defined on the underlying set, with the initial σ\sigma-algebra generated by all the countably affine maps into the one point extension of the real line \mathbb{R}_{\infty}. The construction of the counit amounts to using the fact that the full subcategory consisting of the single object \mathbb{R}_{\infty} is condense in SCvx\mathbf{SCvx}. This implies that every \mathbb{R}_{\infty}-generalized point of a super convex space AA is an evaluation map, at a unique point aa of AA. Using this fact, given any arbitrary probability measure PP defined on ΣA\Sigma A, one takes the restriction of PP, viewed as an operator Meas(ΣA, ) \mathbf{Meas}(\Sigma A, \mathbb{R}_{\infty}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\infty}, mapping f AfdPf \mapsto \int_A f \, dP, to the subset of countably affine maps, SCvx(A, ) \mathbf{SCvx}(A, \mathbb{R}_{\infty}) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\infty}. This restriction process yields an \mathbb{R}_{\infty}-generalized point in SCvx\mathbf{SCvx} which is necessarily a unique point of AA since \mathbb{R}_{\infty} is condense in SCvx\mathbf{SCvx}.

    As an illustration, the half open interval [0,)[0,\infty) is not a super convex space because one can take the countable partition of one given by {12 i} i=1 \{\frac{1}{2^i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}, and a set of points {i2 i} i=1 \{i 2^i\}_{i=1}^{\infty} in [0,)[0,\infty) so that the countably infinite sum { i=1 i2 i2 i} i=1 \{\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}\frac{i 2^i}{2^i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty} does not exist. This shows that [0,)[0,\infty) is not a super convex space and explains why there is no barycenter map for this space. (Consider the half-Cauchy distribution.) On the other hand, the open unit interval, (0,1)(0,1) is a super convex space and does have a barycenter. This illustrates that compactness is not a requirement for a barycenter map to exist, only the property of being a super convex space is necessary. (But it does tie in a sequential completeness condition - thereby making a connection with the topological viewpoint.)

    The category of super convex spaces is equivalent to the category of Giry algebras.

    • CommentRowNumber27.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2019

    @Sam, if you edit #26 and select the Markdown+Itex option and resubmit, it will be properly formatted.

    • CommentRowNumber28.
    • CommentAuthorSam Staton
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2019

    A note about my personal confusion about these developments from Sturtz.

    As far as I understand, a superconvex space is like a convex space except also allowing infinite formal sums weighted by convergent sequences of reals. (This is reasonable, and ties to Avery/Sturtz’s codensity characterizations, which should be mentioned properly somewhere.) But if Giry-algebras are supposed to be the same as plain superconvex sets, then I don’t see where the additional structure of a sigma-algebra comes from. I can see how to make up a sigma-algebra on an arbitrary superconvex set, but I don’t see why this is the only consistent sigma-algebra. Maybe the sigma-algebra is actually supposed to be given as extra data, but this is not mentioned in the latest arxiv paper by Sturtz.

    • CommentRowNumber29.
    • CommentAuthorSam Staton
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2019

    @DavidRoberts, thanks, re #27.

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)