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 finite 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 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.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeNov 2nd 2017
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI just noticed that the [[Isbell envelope]] $E(\mathcal{T})$ embeds fully-faithfully into the [[Chu construction]] $Chu(Set^{\mathcal{T}^{op}\times\mathcal{T}},\hom_{\mathcal{T}})$. An object of the latter consists of two endo-profunctors $P,F : \mathcal{T}^{op}\times\mathcal{T}\to Set$ together with a natural transformation $P\times F \to \hom_{\mathcal{T}}$, and the image of $E (\mathcal{T})$ consists of those triples such that $P$ depends only on $\mathcal{T}^{op}$ and $F$ depends only on $\mathcal{T}$. Does this mean anything? Is it good for anything?

   I just noticed that the Isbell envelope embeds fully-faithfully into the Chu construction . An object of the latter consists of two endo-profunctors together with a natural transformation , and the image of consists of those triples such that depends only on and depends only on . Does this mean anything? Is it good for anything?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMay 27th 2018
   • (edited May 27th 2018)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexStumbling upon this on a Sunday morning wander, we talk about duality in an Isbell context ([Isbell envelope](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Isbell%20envelope#isbell_duality), [[Isbell duality]]) and in a Chu context ([Chu construction](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Chu+construction#chu_spaces_general_case)), but without relating them. Isbell pages don't mention 'Chu', and vice versa. It seems ([Linear Logic for Constructive Mathematics](https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2018/05/linear_logic_for_constructive.html)) that the Chu outlook is good for setting constructions in terms of linear logic, so might we expect that it could be used to formulate that work on linear HoTT? If Chu constructions act interestingly on toposes of various kinds (Heyting algebras, etc), then why not on $(\infty, 1)$-toposes? How about a $Chu((\infty, 1)$-topos, object classifier)? That would seem to take us in a [[integral transforms on sheaves]] direction, with a fibration over a product as an integral kernel.

   Stumbling upon this on a Sunday morning wander, we talk about duality in an Isbell context (Isbell envelope, Isbell duality) and in a Chu context (Chu construction), but without relating them. Isbell pages don’t mention ’Chu’, and vice versa.

   It seems (Linear Logic for Constructive Mathematics) that the Chu outlook is good for setting constructions in terms of linear logic, so might we expect that it could be used to formulate that work on linear HoTT? If Chu constructions act interestingly on toposes of various kinds (Heyting algebras, etc), then why not on -toposes?

   How about a -topos, object classifier)? That would seem to take us in a integral transforms on sheaves direction, with a fibration over a product as an integral kernel.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeMay 28th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexI see that Vaughan Pratt found a common generalization of the Isbell envelope and Chu spaces in the form of his _communes_, [talk](http://boole.stanford.edu/pub/sortprop.pdf) and [paper](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c496/5eb1b0ce45befddfe9da964c81adbfd16028.pdf).

   I see that Vaughan Pratt found a common generalization of the Isbell envelope and Chu spaces in the form of his communes, talk and paper.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeMay 31st 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIt's a bit funny: the "prototypical" Chu construction on a 1-category is $Chu(Set,Prop)$ ([[Chu spaces]]), which as you say categorifies to $Chu(\infty Gpd, \infty gpd)$. But since (-2)-categories are trivial, its obvious decategorification would be $Chu(Prop,1)$, whereas in LLCM I used instead $Chu(Prop,0)$. The latter also categorifies to $Chu(Set,0)$ and $Chu(\infty Gpd,0)$. And any of these can be done "fibered" over the base DTT for $Set$ or $\infty Gpd$, producing a model of [[dependent linear type theory]] with linear types depending on nonlinear ones; the fibered $Chu(Set,0)$ appears briefly in Remark 9.12 of LLCM.

   It’s a bit funny: the “prototypical” Chu construction on a 1-category is (Chu spaces), which as you say categorifies to . But since (-2)-categories are trivial, its obvious decategorification would be , whereas in LLCM I used instead . The latter also categorifies to and . And any of these can be done “fibered” over the base DTT for or , producing a model of dependent linear type theory with linear types depending on nonlinear ones; the fibered appears briefly in Remark 9.12 of LLCM.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 1st 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexThere's another construction that "combines the idea of a category of presheaves with that of the Chu construction" in Hyland's [Proof theory in the abstract](https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~martin/Research/Publications/2002/pta02.pdf), section 5, called the "envelope of a polycategory".

   There’s another construction that “combines the idea of a category of presheaves with that of the Chu construction” in Hyland’s Proof theory in the abstract, section 5, called the “envelope of a polycategory”.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2018
   • (edited Jun 2nd 2018)
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexSo if the $Chu(n Gpd, 0)$ family corresponds to a linear type theory, how would one describe the object classifier family? It would seem to include a groupoidified linear algebra.

   So if the family corresponds to a linear type theory, how would one describe the object classifier family? It would seem to include a groupoidified linear algebra.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 2nd 2018
   • (edited Jun 2nd 2018)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItex*All* Chu constructions are $\ast$-autonomous and hence have a linear type theory.

   All Chu constructions are -autonomous and hence have a linear type theory.