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 accessible adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory kan lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal

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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTime6 days ago

    Blute-Cockett-Seely-Trimble describes a string diagram / circuit diagram / proof net calculus for linearly distributive categories, which is significantly complicated by the presence of units; as discussed in section 2.3 of the paper, some of the unit and counit links have to be “attached” to other strings to prevent diagrams that should be distinct from getting identified. However, the example given there depends on the fact that the units \top and \bot for the tensor and cotensor products are different; as noted therein, if \top in the example were replaced by \bot then the two problematic diagrams would represent the same morphism. This makes me wonder, if we have a linearly distributive category that happens to satisfy =\top=\bot, then does the whole string diagram calculus work without these extra attachments?

    This would be especially convenient because any closed monoidal category (C,,)(C,\otimes,\top) can be embedded by a closed functor into a linearly distributive (indeed *\ast-autonomous) category in which =\top=\bot, namely Chu(C,)Chu(C,\top). So we could soundly use linearly distributive string diagrams to reason about closed monoidal categories, without the need for the clunky “boxes” that are sometimes used to deal with internal-homs.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTime6 days ago

    Oops, I’m not sure why I thought the embedding of CC in Chu(C,d)Chu(C,d) is closed; it’s strong monoidal but doesn’t preserve internal-homs. So that’s not as interesting as I thought it was.