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 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-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 sheaves 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.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 27th 2015

    Thomas Holder is busy creating Hegelian taco as I write.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 27th 2015

    I do wonder if we should cite Burritos for the hungry mathematician, by Ed Morehouse p46 of (as ’in popular culture’? ;-P)

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeAug 27th 2015

    We should include that picture that you, David R., showed on g+, explaining the name ’taco’.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
    • CommentTimeAug 27th 2015
    • (edited Aug 27th 2015)

    Unfortunately, type-setting the taco took so long that I haven’t found the time until now to give public warning here that the multiplication table there is still longing very much for an automated proof checker (or an attentive reader).

    The underlying configuration of adjoint modalities might also find smoother expression with the help of some of the n-adjoint modal logicians here.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthortrent
    • CommentTimeAug 27th 2015

    Hegel has some strange birthday gifts this year: math encyclopedia entry on a taco, rap album…

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeAug 28th 2015
    • (edited Aug 28th 2015)

    @David C : I agree, though perhaps just the actual diagram, with the text quoted nearby. I should thank John B for supplying me with the article; I was hesitant to do so in a more public venue.

    EDIT: I just went and pasted in the picture as I put in on G+. If someone else wants to pretty it up then go ahead.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMatt Earnshaw
    • CommentTimeMay 15th 2016

    I would be most grateful if anyone can share the 1989 taco paper… I can be reached here ( email address link). Thanks!

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorDean
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2020
    • (edited Mar 16th 2020)

    Could someone add examples on this page? It is really quite exciting, but I am trying to understand some examples, from either ontology or mathematics.

    Here are some monad comonad pairs (adjoint cylinders):

    provable that x, not provable that not x

    knowable that x, not knowable that not x (functoriality is a bit like modus ponens, counit is facticity, the multiplication says that knowable x -> knowable knowable x, which is perhaps disputable)

    possible, necessary

    sometimes, always

    exists, forall

    Do these adjoint cylinders produce tacos on their corresponding categories?

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
    • CommentTimeMar 16th 2020
    Though I agree that this entry leaves much to desire, I don't think an example is of much help here: there is only one taco which is a definite monoid and once you have a relation between two adjoint cylinders as exhibited in diagram of functors the involved data yield the same taco. So given the cases you mention the problem is rather to see whether they fit into this diagrammatic configuration i. e. to find an appropriate second adjoint cylinder in resolution-Aufhebungs relation which in view of cases where this has been worked out seems to be a hard problem in general.

    Whence in my opinion what this entry needs more urgently is to give the multiplication table a reality check (with automatic proof checker) in order to verify that it is indeed correct, then give the taco monoid a neater representation in terms of generators and relations (which I had tried unsuccessfully at the time of writing the entry though not too hard after having spent already some time on tediously calculating the multiplication table by hand). The next step then would be to stuff out the monoid taco with the additional 2-categorical data present in adjoint situations generally to a monoidal category and then write out what this monoidal category TACO yields for a Licata-Shulman-Reed adjoint logic when used as the 2-category of modes. Obviously, an energetic person is needed here!
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2020
    @Thomas. I see. I still think that I am missing the fundamental point of the idea though. You seem like you understand it completely though... so perhaps you explain a bit about the following questions?

    1. Suppose we are in a cartesian closed category. Does the monad [X, -] (internal hom) or the monad "product with X" ever get incorporated into a taco?

    2. Is one of the essential localizations the essential localization at the double negation monad?

    3. What does each of the four essential localizations correspond to in Hegel speak?
    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2020
    • (edited May 3rd 2020)
    Despite lacking "complete" or even good understanding of the situation let me give the following response to your questions:

    1. Terminologically, the taco is a determinate monoid that abstracts the multiplicative structure inherent in non-degenerate series of essential localisations that resolve/sublate each other. Hence, strictly speaking the question should be whether the monads you mention can occur as monads induced by essential localizations in such a series. Concerning the internal hom, I think the answer is yes, because open localisations are of this form for subterminal objects $X$ and these are essential and I know of no reason why they shouldn't be resolved/sublated in general (the identity monad resolves trivially any essential localisation). Concerning "product with X" I don't know (of course for X=1 this is trivially essential and as identity even sublating) but at Science of logic you find quite a few adjoint cylinders possibly with your favorite monad among it.

    2. The double negation monad i.e. the Booleanization of a topos (provided it is essential) typically sublates the trivial "empty" subtopos. This is detailed at Aufhebung where also some sufficient conditions are given for this to occur. There is also given a reference to a paper of Zaks, Riehl et al. that work out the complete Aufhebungs relation for three toposes of combinatorial topology illustrating that there are toposes where all contradictions = adjoint cylinders are sublated whence that a four series of resolving essential localizations need not contain the double negation subtopos since the chains of resolution/sublation become arbitrarily long in these toposes.

    3. In Hegel speak there is only the term of Aufhebung i.e. what is abstracted here is the passage from contradictory category to a new sublating contradictory category. The localisations are four presumably because besides the pair where one sublates the other there is also the ambient topos and a third subtopos that also resolves the first contradiction but contains the sublating subtopos (i.e. this approximates the "minimality condition" in Aufhebung: dialectics replaces a contradictory concept with a new concept in which the original contradiction disappears by making the smallest possible conceptual change; all later occurring concepts also have the original opposition resolved but stand in a less direct relation to it since they might resolve other contradictions ).