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 29th 2016

    New stub for the notion of clone in universal algebra, including a reference relating it to operads.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeNov 29th 2016

    Zoran: the categorical form of the full clone on a functor was one dual form of categorical shape theory if I remember it rightly.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017
    • (edited Jan 25th 2017)

    I rediscovered this page from an MO citation.

    Where on earth did the word “clone” come from?

    And if a clone is really the same as a Lawvere theory, why not merge it with Lawvere theory and add a redirect?

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017

    I don’t know where ’clone’ came from, but it’s been around a rather long time, before Lawvere’s thesis I believe.

    Clones and Lawvere theories and cartesian operads are virtually the same; you could say that a clone is to a Lawvere theory as a multicategory is to a monoidal category (so a clone is something like a cartesian multicategory with one object). Thus I believe clones and cartesian operads are synonyms, with maybe a slight difference in how they are usually packaged. I have notes on this here.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTim_Porter
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017
    • (edited Jan 25th 2017)

    The ‘full clone’ on a functor was a term that occurred in describing categorical shape theory, but I would have to check up how! I seem to remember the use involved Fred Linton’s work on theories. (Edit: It seems I have repeated myself … At least I said the same thing both times!)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorKarol Szumiło
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017

    Todd, maybe you could add some of these remarks as comments on MO. What I wrote in my answer is literally everything that I know about clones (I’ve learned about them solely because I wanted to understand the example of affine spaces), so I’m not familiar with all these subtleties.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017

    Well, we also have cartesian multicategory, so if that would be more appropriate we could redirect “clone” there. But it doesn’t make sense to me to have two pages with different names about essentially the same object.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2017

    Before we do that, let’s pause and consider again the analogy, written as the proportion clone: cartesian multicategory :: Lawvere theory: cartesian monoidal category, where redirecting clone to cartesian multicategory would be analogous to redirecting Lawvere theory to cartesian monoidal category. I wouldn’t think we’d want to do the latter.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017

    An even better analogy is clone : cartesian multicategory :: operad : symmetric multicategory, and the latter two are separate pages. So, I guess. But I hate to have so much duplication; I notice that we also have Lawvere theory and algebraic theory as separate pages. At least the pages should link to each other; I added some.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017
    • (edited Jan 26th 2017)

    Mike, thanks for adding those links.

    As for Lawvere theory and algebraic theory: the latter was written after the former as a separate article because the full generality of algebraic theory (of unbounded rank) could not of course be written under Lawvere theory which is traditionally refers just to the finitary single-sorted case. The connection between the two is implicitly acknowledged by adopting the phrase “large Lawvere theory” (red herring-like). Personally, I think it’s okay on occasion to admit some redundancy; the articles are slightly different in style, with the Lawvere theory article giving some extra intuition and motivation – appropriate for readers encountering the categorical concept first in its baby form – whereas the algebraic theory article is somewhat more hard-core in style.

    There’s yet another article, infinitary Lawvere theory. I believe Andrew Stacey started that (and I see you were the last editor). I had wanted to pursue a different approach but didn’t want to write all over what I regarded as Andrew’s (couldn’t think of how to do it gracefully), so I started algebraic theory also for that reason.

    Edit: Apologies; it wasn’t started by Andrew; it was started by Toby.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2017

    You make good points. I would like it, though, if we could have some more obvious way of pointing out at the beginning of an article that some other page(s) are about “almost the same subject”, as opposed to merely a related notion, so that someone finding the page from elsewhere won’t miss out on something that they would probably be interested in just because it’s on a page with a different name.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTime3 days ago

    The Idea and Definition sections of the page clone are a bit contradictory. Is there a difference between an “abstract” clone (= one-object cartesian multicategory) and a “concrete” clone (consisting of operations on a particular set)?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTime3 days ago

    The definition section reads weirdly to me. It might be possible to embed any abstract clone into an endomorphism clone (even that’s not so clear to me), but if that’s so, I’d think there should then be many ways of doing it. Do we then make a distinction between the resulting subclone supported on an set SS and the resulting one supported on a different set SS'? (There could even be abstractly isomorphic but different such subclones supported on the same set.)

    I’m thinking the definition section should be rewritten. Miles Gould’s thesis seems as good a source as any.

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)