In discrete fibration I added a new section on the Street’s definition of a discrete fibration from $A$ to $B$, that is the version **for spans of internal categories**. I do not really understand this added definition, so if somebody has comments or further clarifications…

Hi,

I am attempting to show that Fong’s Causal theories are internal categories in an endofunctor category.

In section 4.2 of his paper, we see an interpretation of causal theories on SET. In particular, he talks about projections and diagonal maps. From this, I am trying to construct a bimonad, though I really only need a monad/comonad that is exact. Here it is, on SET:

$(F, \mu, \nu, \eta, \phi)$The endofunctor is

$F : SET \rightarrow SET$and is diagonal, so

$F:x \rightarrow (x,x)$$X \in Obj(SET)$$X=(a,b,c)$$F:(a,b,c) \rightarrow ((a,a),(b,b),(c,c))$Now for the natural transformations:

$\eta : 1_{SET} \rightarrow F$Example (actually, I am not sure how this works so please suggest a proper solution),

$\eta : a \rightarrow (a)$ $\mu : F^2 \rightarrow F$Example,

$((a,a),(a,a)) \rightarrow (a,a)$ $\nu : F \rightarrow 1_{SET}$Example (again, I am not sure how this one works),

$\nu : (a) \rightarrow a$ $\phi : F \rightarrow F^2$Example,

$\phi : (a,a) \rightarrow ((a,a),(a,a))$In order to show that this monad is an internal category in an endofunctor category, we take a look at the definition of internal categories in a monoidal category. What we want to do is take an endofunctor category as a monoidal category where the monoidal product is just functor composition. The monads and comonads form the internal monoids and comonoids as per the definition in the link. My understanding is that if you have a monad that is also a comonad and the underlying functor is exact, then you should have an internal category in an endofunctor category.

So far, I have shown that the interpretatation in SET for Fong’s causal theories is both a monad and comonad. What I can’t show is that the underlying functor is exact. Can someone show that the underlying functor is exact?

There is a lot of reasoning in here that I can’t verify, so please post if you know if this is all correct or needs correction.

]]>New entry [[internal diagram]], generalizing [[internal functor]].

]]>Cross-posted from MO. Feel free to put any answers there to pointy-licious goodness

I’m working out of *Sheaves in geometry and logic*, for reference.

There is a characterisation of flat functors $A:C \to Set$ as those such that the Grothendieck construction $\int_C A$ is a filtering category. There are more general versions of this result, in which $Set$ is replaced by a more general topos. One should also be able to characterise those discrete opfibrations that arise from flat functors (up to iso/equiv?). How about if we replace $C$ by an internal category, in a topos $E$ say? Then functors out of $C$ are replaced by discrete opfibrations over $C$ in $E$.

My question is this:

]]>What sort of thing should be considered as the analogue of a flat functor in the internal setting?