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

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories 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 complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories nonassociative noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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 string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018

    There’s a first stab at it.

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018

    Judging by Prop 3.1 of Lenses, fibrations and universal translations, lenses are just algebras for our possibility monad, at necessity and possibility.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018

    It seems the terminology isn’t fixed, so I added a noted about ’well-behaved’ lenses.

    diff, v2, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorspitters
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018

    I’m told this is good. But I don’t have access at the moment: https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3191697.3191718

    Lenses for philosophers

    and of course we should cite the paper by Mitchell that started the discussion.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018
    • (edited Sep 24th 2018)

    Given

    necessity comonad : possibility monad = jet comonad : infinitesimal disk bundle monad,

    and since lens (in computer science) (at least lawlike ones) seem to be algebras for the possibility monad, what are algebras for the infinitesimal disk bundle?

    We’d need, EE over XX and a map T infX× XEE/XT_{inf} X \times_X E \to E/X.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2018

    Oh, is it just the constants E=K×XE = K \times X. But then what’s that exciting about lenses?

    That paper Lenses, fibrations and universal translations continues that when the VV of views is such that V1V \to 1 is split epi then a lens just is a projection.

    So people look at more general situations?

  1. Optic_C

    Ammar Husain

    diff, v8, current

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)