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 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 homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure 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

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).

nLab > Latest Changes: cartesian monoidal category

Bottom of Page

1 to 9 of 9

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeNov 16th 2018

    Added a link to Todd’s nice page on free cartesian category.

    diff, v25, current

  2. Add cocartesian monoidal category as a related concept

    Alexey Muranov

    diff, v27, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthormattecapu
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2022

    Stub about the free and cofree construction of cartesian categories

    diff, v34, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthormattecapu
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2022
    Fox's paper doesn't really explain what is the free construction of a cartesian structure over a monoidal one. Does anybody know a reference, or a simple explanation? My hunch is you freely add projections to your monoidal category, imposing naturality of the induced copy-delete structure.
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2022

    (Only seeing this now.)

    That sounds right, mattecapu. But I think a nice way of viewing it is by using distributive laws between spans. The rough idea is that morphisms in the free cartesian category can be presented in a “standard” form, as a “purely cartesian morphism” cc (a morphism in the free cartesian monoidal category on the underlying set of objects) followed by a morphism mm in the monoidal category. I’ll denote this by c|mc|m. When it comes time to compose two such morphisms, say c|mc|m followed by d|nd|n, you rewrite m;dm; d into a new form d′;m′d' ; m' by using naturality of copy and delete, and then the composite will be c;d|m′;nc; d|m' ; n. The distributive law is this rewriting process.

    Slightly more formally, I think it goes like this. Suppose given a monoidal category M\mathbf{M} whose underlying span is

    S←domM→codS.S \stackrel{dom}{\leftarrow} M \stackrel{cod}{\to} S.

    I think technically it might be easier dealing with strict monoidal categories here, so I’ll just assume that for now. By strictness, the monoidal structure on the object level gives a map S *→SS^\ast \to S where the domain is the free monoid on SS. Now, the free cartesian monoidal category C\mathbf{C} on (the discrete category) SS has as its objects elements of S *S^\ast, and so its underlying span will look like

    S *←srcC→tarS *,S^\ast \stackrel{src}{\leftarrow} C \stackrel{tar}{\to} S^\ast,

    and now I think the underlying span of the free cartesian monoidal category on the monoidal category M\mathbf{M} is the span composite of

    S←S *←srcC→tarS *→SS \leftarrow S^\ast \stackrel{src}{\leftarrow} C \stackrel{tar}{\to} S^\ast \to S

    followed by S←domM→codSS \stackrel{dom}{\leftarrow} M \stackrel{cod}{\to} S. Abusing notation, let M∘C\mathbf{M} \circ \mathbf{C} denote this span composite.

    The distributive law will be a morphism of spans of the form C∘M→M∘C\mathbf{C} \circ \mathbf{M} \to \mathbf{M} \circ \mathbf{C}. I’ll only give an example for how this goes. Suppose m:s→tm: s \to t is a morphism in M\mathbf{M}, and let δ t:t→t⊗t\delta_t: t \to t \otimes t be the copy morphism. Then m;δ tm; \delta_t is formally rewritten as δ s;(m⊗m)\delta_s; (m \otimes m). Hopefully this makes the general idea clear.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthormattecapu
    • CommentTimeDec 28th 2022
    Thanks Todd, I really like this way of describing it!
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorJohn Baez
    • CommentTimeAug 23rd 2023

    Added a bit about how the comonoid structure of objects in a cartesian monoidal category is cocommutative and natural.

    diff, v36, current

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorJ-B Vienney
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2024

    Replaced “comonoid” by “cocommutative comonoid” in the last section when they talk about Fox’s theorem.

    diff, v38, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeAug 16th 2024

    Fixed the reference to Fox.

    diff, v39, current

1 to 9 of 9

  1.