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 comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry 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-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 newpage 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 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.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2018

    Add page structure, idea section.

    I preserved most of the original page under a definition section.

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2018

    I’m looking at these “actegories” because I noticed that models of call-by-push-value can be described as actions of a (cartesian) monoidal category on a category with a dual adjunction between the two categories compatible with the action. As an aside, I don’t like the name actegory and would just prefer action of a monoidal category.

    Searching for applications for CS/programming I’m curious if there are any common uses of actions of a monoidal category?

    The only idea I have is that as monoidal categories are the “right” place to define monoids, an action of a monoidal category is the “right” place to define the action of a monoid: If C acts on D you can define a monoid in C acting on an object of D. Does anyone have any examples where things are fruitfully framed this way?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2018
    • (edited Oct 24th 2018)

    hyperlinked “actions” (!)

    diff, v7, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2018

    I don’t like the word “actegory” either.

    One example of this “right place to define monoids” thing is the definition of the bar construction. If VV is a monoidal category acting on CC, and DVD\in V is a monoid and MCM\in C is a DD-module, then there is a simplicial object B (D,D,M)C Δ opB_\bullet(D,D,M) \in C^{\Delta^{op}} where B n(D,D,M)=D (n+1)MB_n(D,D,M) = D^{\otimes (n+1)} \odot M, whose realization is a “resolution” of MM qua DD-module. At this level the gain is perhaps not obvious, since this bar construction factors through the “universal” action of End(C)End(C) on CC, with DD corresponding to the monad (= monoid in End(C)End(C)) T D(X)DXT_D(X) \coloneqq D\odot X. But when you talk about two-sided bar constructions B(N,D,M)B(N,D,M) and “coend-like” bar constructions B(D,H)B(D,H) I think the extra generality can be useful. Although it’s been a while since I thought about this sort of thing much.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorSam Staton
    • CommentTimeOct 24th 2018

    Hi – The Kelly-Janelidze paper has a nice idea: an enriched category with copowers is the same thing as an actegory that has a right adjoint in the appropriate argument. This leads to a simpler or even more “natural” presentation for enriched categories with copowers. If you are looking for examples, Rasmus Mogelberg and I used it extensively in linear usage of state and I found it useful in Freyd categories are enriched Lawvere theories.

    There is also a really nice characterization of enrichment with finite copowers in a locally D-presentable smc, in terms of actions (Prop 2.7 in my Freyd cats paper, but see also “Enrichment through variation”).

    Plenty of other people have also found this kind of thing useful including Marcelo Fiore, Paul Levy and Paul-Andre Mellies. This might all be related to call-by-push-value.

  1. Actions of monoidal categories are very important in geometric representation theory. For example, everything under the name 2-representation theory in the sense of Rouquier is about this: sl 2sl_2-categorification, 2-Kac-Moody algebras, etc.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthormaxsnew
    • CommentTimeOct 25th 2018

    Thanks everyone for the examples. Unsurprisingly Sam’s are the most understandable to me at the moment. I came to my current model of CBPV from the Enriched Effect Calculus work which I described somewhat here: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/call-by-push-value#as_an_adjoint_logic . I sent you an email with more details!

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorSam Staton
    • CommentTimeAug 15th 2019

    mention connection to enrichment

    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)