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 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 nforum 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.
   • CommentAuthorFosco
   • CommentTimeJul 14th 2015
   • (edited May 7th 2019)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Fosco
   Format: MarkdownItexIn an attempt to find a mathematically convicing definition of a "unit of measurement" I came up with this construction; it's nice, but not perfect. I am interested in your opinion. In elementary physics units of measurement are something you attach to scalars (identified with "pure quantities"). You can multiply "meters" and "kilograms", and you can divide the result by "seconds"^2. But you can't add "inhomogeneous" quantities like meters and kilograms, this has no physical meaning. Ok then, I want to propose the following interpretation for this situation: - "you can't add inhomogeneous quantities" means that you can't compose non-contiguous arrows - "you can multiply freely" means that you can freely tensor objects and arrows. This led me to the following definition(s): let $\mathbb{F}$ be a ring, and $A$ a set of symbols (to fix ideas, let $A=\{ meters, kilograms, seconds\}$, whatever these three words mean). I denote by $\mathbf{A}$ the abelian group obtaining inverting all elements in the free monoid over $A$. I define the following category $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}}(A)$ - objects are elements of $\mathbf{A}$ - there are no arrows which are not endomorphisms, and $\hom_{\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}}(A)}([v], [v]) = \mathbb{F}$ for each $[v]\in \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}}(A)$. Composition in $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}}(A)$ is sum of elements of $\mathbb{F}$; this turns $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}}(A)$ into a groupoid (there are several other equivalent ways to define it). Moreover, $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}}(A)$ has a monoidal structure: let $(a, [v])\otimes (b, [w]) = (ab, [v.w])$, where $ab$ is the product of $a,b$ in $\mathbb{F}$ and "dot" is the concatenation of words in $\mathbf{A}$. (I denote an arrow in $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}}(A)$ with the pair of its domain-codomain and the name of the arrow $a\colon [v]\to [v]$ in $\mathbb{F}$). The fact that this turns $\mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}}(A)$ into a monoidal category is a consequence of the ring structure on $\mathbb{F}$. Plusses of this construction: * If $\mathbb{F}$ is a differential ring, you can define endofunctors $\mathbf{D}_{[v]}\colon \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}}(A)\to \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}}(A)$ as ![enter image description here][1] where $a\mapsto a'$ is the derivation of $\mathbb{F}$. Funny thing, this is "linear and Leibniz", in the sense that it is (a functor and) such that $$ \mathbf{D}_{[v]}\big( \alpha \otimes \beta \big) = (\mathbf{D}_{[v]}\alpha \otimes \beta)\circ (\alpha\otimes \mathbf{D}_{[v]}\beta) = (a'b + a b' , [u.w.v^{-1}]) $$ for each $\alpha = (a, [u])$ e $\beta = (b, [w])$. * Nothing forces you to have $\mathbb{F}$ as "ring/field of scalars" for each $[v]\in\mathbf{A}$: some physical quantities are quantized, some are not, so for some $[v]\in\mathbf{A}$ I can choose $\mathbb{R}$, for some others I can choose $\mathbb{Q}$ or even $\mathbb{Z}$ or even $\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$. That's all. I find it beautiful; help me to turn it into something more beautiful! [1]: https://s18.postimg.org/7pzdwo4p5/1_F7_OV.png

   In an attempt to find a mathematically convicing definition of a “unit of measurement” I came up with this construction; it’s nice, but not perfect. I am interested in your opinion.

   In elementary physics units of measurement are something you attach to scalars (identified with “pure quantities”). You can multiply “meters” and “kilograms”, and you can divide the result by “seconds”^2. But you can’t add “inhomogeneous” quantities like meters and kilograms, this has no physical meaning.

   Ok then, I want to propose the following interpretation for this situation:

   • “you can’t add inhomogeneous quantities” means that you can’t compose non-contiguous arrows
   • “you can multiply freely” means that you can freely tensor objects and arrows.

   This led me to the following definition(s): let be a ring, and a set of symbols (to fix ideas, let , whatever these three words mean). I denote by the abelian group obtaining inverting all elements in the free monoid over . I define the following category

   • objects are elements of
   • there are no arrows which are not endomorphisms, and for each .

   Composition in is sum of elements of ; this turns into a groupoid (there are several other equivalent ways to define it).

   Moreover, has a monoidal structure: let , where is the product of in and “dot” is the concatenation of words in . (I denote an arrow in with the pair of its domain-codomain and the name of the arrow in ).

   The fact that this turns into a monoidal category is a consequence of the ring structure on .

   Plusses of this construction:

   • If is a differential ring, you can define endofunctors as

     

     where is the derivation of . Funny thing, this is “linear and Leibniz”, in the sense that it is (a functor and) such that

     for each e .

   • Nothing forces you to have as “ring/field of scalars” for each : some physical quantities are quantized, some are not, so for some I can choose , for some others I can choose or even or even .

   That’s all. I find it beautiful; help me to turn it into something more beautiful!

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeJul 14th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexFosco, do you know about Jim Dolan's lectures on [Algebraic Geometry for Category Theorists](http://ncatlab.org/jamesdolan/published/Algebraic+Geometry)?

   Fosco, do you know about Jim Dolan’s lectures on Algebraic Geometry for Category Theorists?

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJul 14th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexFirst thing I thought of, too. Speaking of that, I wish we could get notes from Jim's recent Australian Category Seminar talks.

   First thing I thought of, too.

   Speaking of that, I wish we could get notes from Jim’s recent Australian Category Seminar talks.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorFosco
   • CommentTimeJul 14th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Fosco
   Format: MarkdownItexThe links to Jim Dolan's videos are all broken; is there another source to see them?

   The links to Jim Dolan’s videos are all broken; is there another source to see them?

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorFosco
   • CommentTimeJul 14th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Fosco
   Format: MarkdownItexAh, now I remember about "dimensional categories"!

   Ah, now I remember about “dimensional categories”!

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
   • CommentTimeJul 15th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: DavidRoberts
   Format: MarkdownItexThey seem to be available here: <http://ncatlab.org/johnbaez/show/Doctrines+of+algebraic+geometry>

   They seem to be available here: http://ncatlab.org/johnbaez/show/Doctrines+of+algebraic+geometry

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorFosco
   • CommentTimeJul 15th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Fosco
   Format: MarkdownItexThis is strange, now I can download the videos but they have no sound (also, the first video is of rather poor quality, to the point that I can't read on the blackboard...)

   This is strange, now I can download the videos but they have no sound (also, the first video is of rather poor quality, to the point that I can’t read on the blackboard…)

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJul 15th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexBy the way, there is the beginning of something in the $n$Lab entry _[[physical unit]]_. Certainly deserves to be expanded...

   By the way, there is the beginning of something in the Lab entry physical unit. Certainly deserves to be expanded…

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorNikolajK
   • CommentTimeJul 15th 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: NikolajK
   Format: MarkdownItexI remember this https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/a-mathematical-formalisation-of-dimensional-analysis/

   I remember this

   https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/a-mathematical-formalisation-of-dimensional-analysis/