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-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 history homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie lie-theory limit 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorKevin Watkins
    • CommentTimeOct 13th 2018

    I’m having trouble understanding the relationship between what is described in the page generalized algebraic theory and what is in the referenced article by Cartmell.

    For example, the nLab page seems to contemplate three levels of symbols—“supersort”, “sort”, and “operation”—while if I understand correctly, Cartmell’s GATs only have symbols at two levels, for sorts and operations. Also, I would only expect a GAT’s sort symbols to be applied to terms, not types as the nLab page seems to contemplate. (The nLab page speaks of “derived operations in the theory of sorts” rather than types, but I believe the same concept is intended.) My intuition is that the world of GATs in Cartmell’s sense more or less corresponds to a certain sublanguage of LF (rather than F ωF_\omega), so there shouldn’t be anything like a symbol that is applied to arguments that are types and yields a type.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 13th 2018

    The author of those remarks apparently hasn’t been around for some time, so I don’t know that an explanation of that description would be forthcoming.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2021

    One way to compare internalized/enriched categories here in a page that could use some attention.

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2021

    Added in the reference.

    diff, v8, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeJun 9th 2021

    For what it’s worth, the “definition” generalized algebraic theory is a bit lackluster (I realise the onus is on me to do something about it, but in case anyone out there has the info at their fingertips…)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2022
    • (edited Jul 20th 2022)

    I have added pointer to

    • John Cartmell, Generalised Algebraic Theories and Contextual Categories, PhD thesis, Oxford University (1978) [pdf]

    Also, I am removing this old query box discussion:

    +– {: .standout} Might there be such a thing as an nn-GAT, where a 00-GAT is an algebraic theory and an (n+1)(n+1)-GAT is defined as above except that the sort algebra is an nn-GAT rather than an algebra? – Adam =–

    +– {: .standout} I feel like there must be some sort of way to eliminate the notion of “arity” and put in its place an arbitrary (G)AT, recovering the original notion using the single-sorted Peano algebra (one constant “0”, one unary operation “S”, and no equations) or binary tree algebra (one constant “0”, one binary operation “B”, and no equations). But I can’t quite put my finger on how to do it. – Adam =–

    diff, v9, 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)