GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS
|
|
- Elfrieda Richard
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS CHRIS HENDERSON Abstract. This paper will move through the basics o category theory, eventually deining natural transormations and adjunctions and showing the equivalence o two dissimilar deinitions o adjoint unctors, in order to state the Adjoint Functor Theorem. This theorem provides a nice result allowing us to classiy exactly which unctors have let adjoints. We borrow heavily rom Awodey s Category Theory but almost all proos are independent solutions. Almost no background in math is necessary or understanding. Contents 1. The Basics 1 2. Isomorphisms and Natural Transormations 2 3. Adjoint Functors: Two Deinitions and Their Equivalence 4 4. Limits 8 5. Preservation o Limits 9 6. Completeness and the Adjoint Functor Theorem Acknowledgements 14 Reerences The Basics Just as a group is made o a set paired with an operation and a topological space is a set with a topology, a category is made up o objects, arrows, and a rule o composition. One should note that the objects need not be a set, but I will illustrate this point later. For a ormal deinition: Deinition 1.1. A category, C, consists o: Objects: A, B, C,... Arrows:, g, h,... such that every arrow,, has a domain and codomain which are objects in C. We can represent this as: : A B where A = dom(), B = cod(). Composition: I, g C and : A B, g : B C, then g : A C. Identity: For any object, A C, there is an arrow: 1 A : A A. These must satisy our usual concepts o: Date: August 15,
2 2 CHRIS HENDERSON Associativity: h (g ) = (h g) i cod() = dom(g) and cod(g) = dom(h). Unit: i : A B. 1 A = = 1 B These concepts are not unamiliar, so let s give two quick examples o categories and move on. Example 1.2. Set: The category o sets and unctions. Example 1.3. Top: The category o topological spaces and continuous maps. Deinition 1.4. Hom C (A, B), where A, B are objects in a category C, is the set o morphisms, or arrows, rom A to B. Deinition 1.5. I C is a category, then its dual category, C op, is the category with the same objects as C but with arrows reversed. For instance, i : A B is in the category C, then op : B A would be an arrow in C op. The next concept to cover is the idea o unctors, which intuitively are like homomorphisms which we can use to map categories to categories, implying that they act on both objects and arrows and preserve composition. For a ormal deinition: Deinition 1.6. A unctor, F : C D where C and D are categories, is a mapping o objects to objects and arrows to arrows with: F (A) D or A C F () : F (A) F (B) with F () D i, A, B C and : A B F (g ) = F (g) F () F (1 A ) = 1 F (A) Example 1.7. The orgetul unctor: Take Top and Set and deine a unctor, U : Top Set, by U(X, G) = X. In other words, U orgets the topology on the space X. 2. Isomorphisms and Natural Transormations Beore we can deine an adjoint unctor we must deine isomorphisms and natural transormations. Deinition 2.1. For a category C, an arrow : A B, is an isomorphism i there exists an arrow g : B A such that: g = 1 B g = 1 A. In this case we would denote this by A = B.
3 GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS 3 A B 1 A g B g A 1 B A B This concept o an isomorphism appears identical to the normal deinition o a bijective homomorphism but does not in act always coincide. For instance, consider the category Top and take the set X = {1, 2, 3} and denote the discrete and coarse topologies as D and C, respectively. Consider the unction : (X, D) (X, C) where (1) = 1, (2) = 2, (3) = 3. This is clearly continuous, so it is in our category, and clearly bijective, in that it is one-to-one and onto, but its inverse, g : (X, C) (X, D) sending g(1) = 1, g(2) = 2, g(3) = 3 is not continuous because or example, {2} is an open set in (X, D) but g 1 ({2}) = {2} is not an open set in (X, C). Thus, g is not in Top and so does not have an inverse and is thereore not an isomorphism. Proposition 2.2. Inverses are unique. Proo. Take an arrow : A B and suppose there are inverses h, g : B A such that h = g = 1 B and g = h = 1 A. Then: h ( g) = (h ) g h 1 B = 1 A g h = g Thus, we can write the inverse o as 1. Deinition 2.3. Given categories C, D and unctors F, G : C D, a natural transormation η : F G, is a amily o arrows η C : F C GC or C C such that or any : C C, with C, C C, the ollowing diagram commutes: C F C η C GC F () C F C η C GC G() Example 2.4. Let D : Set Top be the unctor which applies the discrete topology (all sets are open) and let C : Set Top be the unctor which takes a set and applies the coarse topology (only the entire set and the empty set are open), then we see that the natural transormation η : D C could be the amily o arrows mapping every x X Top to itsel, giving us, or any : X Y D() DX η X =1 X CX DY ηy =1 Y CY C() This commutes by our requirement on the identity in Deinition 1.1 (Since D, C do not change where maps elements o X, they simply make topologies such that
4 4 CHRIS HENDERSON is continuous). We can see this more explicitly by taking x X and: (C() η X )(x) = C(x) = (x) = D(x) = (η Y D)(x) 3. Adjoint Functors: Two Deinitions and Their Equivalence Deinition 3.1. Given categories C, D and unctors F : C D, U : D C, a amily o arrows, φ : Hom D (F C, D) Hom C (C, UD), is natural in C i given any h : C C the ollowing diagram commutes: Hom D (F C, D) φ C,D Hom C (C, UD) (F h) Hom D (F C, D) φc,d Hom C (C, UD) (Where h is simply h composed on the right.) In other words, or any : F C D, we have: φ C,D () h = φ C,D( F h) φ is said to be natural in D i given any g : D D the ollowing diagram commutes: h Hom D (F C, D) φ C,D Hom C (C, UD) g (Ug) Hom D (F C, D ) Hom C (C, UD ) φc,d (Where g is simply g composed on the let.) In other words, or any : F C D, we have: φ C,D (g ) = U(g) φ C,D () A more sophisticated deinition o what it means to be natural in C or D requires the use o covariant and contravariant representable unctors, a topic discussed in section ive, but the deinition above will suice as we only need it to deine adjoint unctors. We will now give two dierent deinitions or adjoint unctors, show in an example how they match up, and then prove their equivalence. Deinition 3.2. Hom-Set: Given categories C, D and unctors F : C D, U : D C, then F is let adjoint to U i or any C C, D D, there is an isomorphism, φ : Hom D (F C, D) Hom C (C, UD) that is natural in both C and D. Deinition 3.3. Unit: Given categories C, D and unctors F : C D, U : D C, then F is let adjoint to U i there is a natural transormation η : 1 C U F such that or any C C, D D and : C U(D) there exists a unique g : F C D so that the ollowing diagram commutes: F C g D U F (C) η C C U(g) U(D)
5 GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS 5 In other words: = U(g) η C. We call η the unit. As an aside, there is a dual deinition using a counit, or a natural transormation rom U F to 1 D, but as its equivalence is proved similarly we will do no more than mention it. We can write that F is let adjoint to U (or equivalently that U is right adjoint to F ) as F U. Example 3.4. Consider the unctors, U : Top Set and F : Set Top, where U is the orgetul unctor and F is the unctor which applies the discrete topology, denoted by D. (For instance, i we have a set X, then F X = (X, D)). We will show that F U. Let s start with the unit deinition: Take any objects X Set, Y Top, and : X UY, let η X = 1 X, and the ollowing commutes: F X U F (X) η X X U() Y U(Y ) By deinition o the identity and since U(x) = (x) or all x X, is unique. (Noting that since all subsets o F X = (X, D) are open, any unction with F X as the domain is continuous, so : F X Y is continuous and thus Top.) Now or the hom-set deinition: Take X Set and Y Top. Let φ X,Y : Hom Top (F X, Y ) Hom Set (X, UY ) be the unction φ X,Y = U(g), where g : F X Y (since U F (X) = X). We now need to show that the ollowing diagram commutes, or any : X X in Set: φ(x,y Hom Top (F X, Y ) ) Hom Set (X, UY ) (F ) Hom Top (F X, Y ) φx,y Hom Set (X, UY ) (φ X,Y (g)) = U(g) = U(g) UF () = φ X,Y ((F ) (g)) Thus, φ is natural in X. For naturality in Y we need to check that the ollowing commutes or h : Y Y : φ(x,y Hom Top (F X, Y ) ) Hom Set (X, UY ) h (Uh) Hom Top (F X, Y ) Hom Set (X, UY ) φx,y
6 6 CHRIS HENDERSON To check this: (Uh) (φ X,Y (g)) = Uh U(g) = U(h g) = φ X,Y (h (g)) Thus φ is natural in Y. Now we need only check that φ is in act an isomorphism. Let ψ X,Y : Hom Set (X, UY ) Hom Top (F X, Y ) take any unction in Set and change its domain to F X and its range to Y, without changing where it sends individual elements o the set. We can do this because any unction with F X as its domain is continuous. Then it is easy to check that ψ X,Y φ X,Y = 1 HomTop (F X,Y ) and φ X,Y ψ X,Y = 1 HomSet (X,UY ) and thus, φ is an isomorphism. Theorem 3.5. Deinitions 3.2 and 3.3 are equivalent. Proo. Deinition 3.3 implies Deinition 3.2: Deine φ C,D (g) = U(g) η C (where g : F C D and η C is as deined in De We can see immediately that φ C,D : Hom D (F C, D) Hom C (C, UD). That φ C,D is an isomorphism ollows rom the uniqueness o g, given : C UD, such that = U(g) η C (i.e. because or any : C UD there is a unique g : F C D such that = U(g) η C, the unction ψ C,D () = g is an inverse to φ C,D ). So we must show naturality in C and D. For naturality in C, take : C C and h : F C D: (φ C,D (g) = (U(h) η C ) = U(h) UF () η C (rom the commutative diagram or natural transormations) Thus, φ is natural in C. For naturality in D examine g : D D Thus φ is natural in D. = U(h F ()) η C = φ C,D((F ) (h)) U(g) (φ C,D (h)) = U(g) (U(h) η C ) = U(g h) η C = φ C,D (g h) = φ C,D (g (h)) Now: Deinition 3.2 implies Deinition 3.3 Consider any : C UD and note that φ 1 C,D () : F C D. Let η C : C UF C be deined by η C = φ C,F C (1 F C ). To show that η : 1 C U F is a natural
7 GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS 7 transormation, take γ : C C and consider the ollowing commutative diagrams: Hom D (F C, F C) φ C,F C Hom C (C, UF C) Hom D (F C, F C ) φ C,F C Hom C (F, UF C ) (F γ) (UF γ) (F γ) Hom D (F C, F C ) Hom C (C, UF C ) Hom D (F C, F C ) Hom C (C, UF C ) φc,f C φc,f C γ Naturality in D Naturality in C Naturality in D gives us that: UF (γ) φ C,F C (1 F C ) = φ C,F C (F γ 1 F C ) Naturality in C gives us that: φ C,F C (1 F C ) γ = φ C,F C (1 F C F γ) Working rom one to the other: UF (γ) φ C,F C (1 F C ) = φ C,F C (F γ 1 F C ) = φ C,F C (F γ) = φ C,F C (1 F C F γ) = φ C,F C (1 F C ) γ η C γ = UF (γ) η C Thus since the ollowing diagram commutes, η is a natural transormation. C η C UF C γ C η C UF C UF (γ) Now we notice rom the commutative diagram given by De. 3.2: φ C,F C Hom D (F C, F C) Hom C (C, UF C) (φ 1 C,D ()) Hom D (F C, D) φ C,D (Uφ 1 C,D ()) Hom C (C, UD) Plugging in 1 F C : Uφ 1 C,D () φ C,F C = φ C,D (φ 1 C,D ()) = φ C,D (φ 1 C,D () Uφ 1 C,D () φ C,F C(1 F C ) = φ C,D (φ 1 C,D ((1 F C))) = φ C,D (φ 1 C,D ()) =
8 8 CHRIS HENDERSON Thus, or : C UD there exists g : F C D (where g = φ 1 C,D ()) such that the ollowing commutes: F C g=φ 1 C,D () D U F (C) η C C U(g) U(D) Now we need show that such a g is unique. Since φ is an isomorphism, the uniqueness o g requires only that we show φ C,D (g) = U(g) η C. U(g) η C = U(g) φ C,F C (1 F C ) = φ C,D (g 1 F C ) = φ C,D (g) (The second line comes rom naturality in D.) 4. Limits Deinition 4.1. A terminal object in a category C is an object 1 C such that or any C C, there is a unique morphism C 1. Proposition 4.2. Terminal objects are unique up to unique isomorphism. Proo. Take two terminal objects, 1 and 1, and ind the unique maps 1 α 1 β Since 1 is a terminal object then the only arrow rom 1 to itsel is its identity, 1 1. Since β α is a map rom 1 to itsel then it must be that 1 1 = β α. Similarly, 1 1 = α β. Thus, 1 = 1. Since 1 and 1 are terminal objects, then α and β are the unique maps or which this holds. Deinition 4.3. Let J and C be categories. A diagram o type J in C is a unctor D : J C. We write objects in the index category, J as i, j,... and values o the unctor D as D i, D j,.... Deinition 4.4. A cone to a diagram D consists o an object C C and a amily o arrows c i : C D i in C such that or each α : i j in J the ollowing commutes: C c i D i c j D α With this we can deine a category Cone(D) o cones to the diagram D, where a morphism o cones ν : (C, c j ) (C, c j ) is an arrow ν C such that the ollowing commutes or all j J: C D j ν C 1 c j c j D j
9 GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS 9 Deinition 4.5. A limit or a diagram D : J C is a terminal object in Cone(D). A inite limit is a limit or a diagram on a inite index category. We denote a limit as p i : lim D j D i j noting that the deinition says that given any cone (C, c i ) to D, there is a unique u : C lim D j j such that or all i p i u = c i. Example 4.6. Take 0 to be the empty category. Then there is only one diagram D : 0 C. Then cones are simply objects in C and so the limit is just a terminal object in C: lim D j = 1 j 0 5. Preservation o Limits Deinition 5.1. A unctor F : C D preserves limits o type J i whenever p j : L D j is a limit or a diagram D : J C, the cone F p j : F L F D j is a limit or the diagram F D : J D. We can also write this as: F (lim D j ) = lim F (D j ) For an example o this we look at representable untors. A representable unctor, denoted Hom C (C, ) : C Set or some object C C, takes an object X C to the set Hom C (C, X) and takes an arrow, : X Y, to Hom C (C, ) = : Hom C (C, X) Hom C (C, Y ) deined by (g) = g where g : C X in C. It is easy to check that this satisies all the properties o unctors. (Note: we can only use categories C considered locally small, meaning that or any X, Y C, Hom C (X, Y ) is small enough to constitute a set. A small category would be one where the objects can be considered a set and the morphisms can be considered a set.) Similarly, we also have contravariant representable unctors, denoted Hom C (, C) : C op Set which takes any : X Y to : Hom C (Y, C) Hom C (X, C) such that or g : X C, (g) = g. Lemma 5.2. Representable unctors preserve limits. Proo. Take any diagram D : J C or some index category J and assume it has a limit L. Then or any cone (A, c i ) to D there is a unique arrow u : A L such that or all i, p i u = c i. Now take any cone (S, i ) to Hom C (C, ) : C Set. Given any element s S we have a map and a cone (since that L is a limit): C i(s) L pi D i u s
10 10 CHRIS HENDERSON Note that u s is unique by the deinition o limits. Hom C (C, L) deined by g(s) = u s as given beore. commutes: S Now deine a map g : S Then the ollowing diagram g i Hom C (C, L) (pi) Hom C (C, D i ) Uniqueness o g ollows rom the uniqueness o each element u s. Deinition 5.3. The Yoneda embedding is the unctor y : C Set Cop which takes C C to the contravariant representable unctor (5.4) and takes : C D to the natural transormation (5.5): (5.4) (5.5) yc = Hom C (, C) : C op Set y = Hom C (, ) : Hom C (, C) Hom C (, D) Beore we start the next proposition, we introduce the notation C D or the category with unctors taking D to C as objects and natural transormations between such unctors as arrows. Proposition 5.6. Given objects A and B in a locally small category, C, i ya = yb, then A = B. Proo. Let ν be the natural isomorphism rom ya to yb. We will now show that the unction g : Hom C (A, B) Hom Set C op (ya, yb), deined by g() = y or any : A B, is an isomorphism. First, take any ν : ya yb and deine a unction φ : A B as φ = ν A (1 A). From the commutative diagram ollowing we see that ν = Hom C (, ν A (1 A)): Hom C (A, A) ν A Hom C (A, B) c Hom C (C, A) ν C c Hom C (C, B) where c : C A. Applying these unctions to 1 A, we get that: ν C(c (1 A )) = c (ν A(1 A )) ν C(1 A c) = φ c ν C(c) = φ c Because o this, we can deine an arrow h : Hom Set C op (ya, yb) Hom C (A, B) by h(ν ) = ν A (1 A). Now, to check that h and g are mutually inverse we irst note that or any : A B, = Hom C (A, )(1 A ). Also, or any ν : ya yb, we have ν = Hom C (, ν A (1 A)), as shown above. Thereore: g(h(ν)) = y(ν A (1 A )) = Hom C (, ν A (1 A )) = ν
11 GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS 11 and also: h(y()) = h(hom C (, )) = Hom C (A, )(1 A ) = We also write g and h or the analogous isomorphisms between Hom C (B, A) and Hom Set C op (yb, ya). Now, to show that A = B we observe, by the commutative diagram or naturality o ν: and similarly, ν A (1 A ν 1 A (1 B)) = ν A (1 A ) ν 1 A (1 B) ν A (ν 1 A (1 B) = h(ν)) h(ν 1 ) 1 B = h(ν) h(ν 1 ) Thus, A = B. ν 1 A (1 B ν A (1 A )) = ν 1 A (1 B) ν A (1 A ) ν 1 A (ν A(1 A )) = h(ν 1 ) h(ν) 1 A = h(ν 1 ) h(ν) One consequence o Proposition 5.6 is that i we have some φ : Hom C (X, Y ) = Hom C (X, Z) that is natural in X, then Y = Z. Lemma 5.7. I we have a diagram D : J C and i: φ : Hom C (X, L) = lim Hom C (X, D j ) which is natural in X, then L is a limit o the diagram D. Proo. First note that rom our proo or Proposition 5.6, we can denote any natural transormation rom Hom C (, L) to Hom C (, D i ) as (g i ) since it corresponds to some g i : L D i. Notice that as we vary X, p Xi φ X orms a natural transormation Hom C (, L) to Hom C (, D i ) which we denote (k i ) or some k i : L D i. We need to show that (L, k i ) is, in act, a cone. Take a map α : i j, where i, j J. Since (lim Hom C (X, D j ), p Xi ) is a cone (Diagram 1), then we have that: p Xj = (Dα) p Xi Thus, (L, k i ) is a cone (Diagram 2). p Xj φ X = (Dα) p Xi φ X k j = Dα k j p Xj lim Hom C (X, D j ) Hom C (X, D j ) L p Xi k i (Dα) Hom C (X, D i ) D i k j Dα Diagram 1 Diagram 2 D j
12 12 CHRIS HENDERSON Now, take any cone (X, x i ) to D and we will show that there is a map u such that the ollowing commutes: X x i u L D i ki Diagram 3 Take any one element set, 1 = { }, (which particular set is irrelevant, since any one element set is isomorphic to any other one element set) and deine a map h i : 1 Hom C (X, D i ) such that h i ( ) = x i. To show that (1, h i ) is a cone, we again take the arrow (Dα), and since (X, x i ) is a cone (Diagram 4): x j = Dα x i since star is the only element o 1, then: h j ( ) = (Dα) h i ( ) h j = (Dα) h i X xj D j 1 Hom C (X, D j ) h i Dα (Dα) Hom C (X, D i ) x i D i Diagram 4 Diagram 5 Thus, (1, h i ) is a cone (Diagram 5), and there is some unique v : 1 lim Hom C (X, D j ) such that the ollowing commutes: 1 h i v lim Hom C (X, D j ) pxi Hom C (X, D i ) h j Thus: p Xi (v( )) = h i ( ) = x i Deine a map u : X L by u = φ 1 X (v( )). To check that Diagram 3 commutes: p Xi (v( )) = x i p Xi φ X φ 1 X (v( ))) = x i (k i ) (u) = x i k i u = x i Now, we need to show that such a map u is unique, and i it is, we are inished with the proo. Since (k i ) = p Xi φ X, to show that our arrow u is uniquely determined by its composites with all the k i, we need only show that the unctions p Xi φ X are jointly one-to-one. Essentially, since φ X is an isomorphism, what we
13 GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS 13 need to show is that p Xi are jointly one-to-one. Take the commutative diagram below: Hom C (X, L) p Xi φ X φ X lim Hom C (X, D j ) pxi Hom C (X, D i ) Diagram 6 Suppose p Xi is not jointly one-to-one, or in other words, suppose that or some a and b in Hom C (X, L), p Xi φ X (a) = p Xi φ X (b) or all i. Then deine: φ X (a) i x = b m(x) = φ X (b) i x = a φ X (x) otherwise Clearly, p Xi φ X = p Xi m even though φ X m, so φ X is not unique or Diagram 6. Since this contradicts our deinition o limit, p Xi must be one-to-one. Thus, our arrow u is unique. Thus, k i : L D i is a limit o the diagram D. We have already shown that representable unctors preserve limits, and now we will use Lemma 5.7 to show that right adjoints preserve limits as well. Proposition 5.8. Right adjoints preserve limits, or more ormally, i F : C D and G : D C are unctors and F G, then i there exists a diagram D : J D with a limit, we have that the diagram GD : J C has a limit and that: G(lim D j ) = lim GD j Proo. Since F G, then or any X C we have: Hom C (X, G(lim D j )) = Hom D (F X, lim D j ) Since representable unctors preserve limits: = lim Hom D (F X, D j ) = lim Hom C (X, GD j ) By Lemma 5.7, this implies that G(lim D j ) is a limit o the diagram G. In other words: G(lim D j ) = lim GD j In other words, G preserves limits. 6. Completeness and the Adjoint Functor Theorem Deinition 6.1. A category, C, is complete i or any small category J and diagram D : J C, there is a limit in C. We are now at the point where we can state the Adjoint Functor Theorem, an important tool because it tells us a necessary and suicient condition or a unctor to have a let adjoint.
14 14 CHRIS HENDERSON Theorem 6.2. Adjoint Functor Theorem (Freyd) Let C be locally small and complete. Given any category D and a unctor F : C D between them, then the ollowing are equivalent: F has a let adjoint. F preserves limits, and or each object D D the unctor F satisies the ollowing condition: There exists a set o objects (C i ) i I C such that or any C C and any arrow : D F C, there exists an i I and arrows φ : D F C i and : C i C such that the ollowing diagram commutes: D φ F C i F C F = F () φ C i C 7. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Peter May and the REU program or providing a motivation or this paper and mentors to guide it, Michael Shulman or providing guidance and putting up with numerous drats and last minute questions, Emily Riehl and Claire Tomesch or being stand-in mentors early in the process, and Steve Awodey or writing the clearest, most coherent text on category theory. Reerences [1] Steve Awodey. Category Theory. Oxord University Press [2] Colin McLarty. Elementary Categories, Elementary Toposes. Oxord University Press
Categories and Natural Transformations
Categories and Natural Transormations Ethan Jerzak 17 August 2007 1 Introduction The motivation or studying Category Theory is to ormalise the underlying similarities between a broad range o mathematical
More informationGENERAL ABSTRACT NONSENSE
GENERAL ABSTRACT NONSENSE MARCELLO DELGADO Abstract. In this paper, we seek to understand limits, a uniying notion that brings together the ideas o pullbacks, products, and equalizers. To do this, we will
More informationCategory Theory. Course by Dr. Arthur Hughes, Typset by Cathal Ormond
Category Theory Course by Dr. Arthur Hughes, 2010 Typset by Cathal Ormond Contents 1 Types, Composition and Identities 3 1.1 Programs..................................... 3 1.2 Functional Laws.................................
More information1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations. Discrete categories. A category is discrete when every arrow is an identity.
MacLane: Categories or Working Mathematician 1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transormations 1.1 Axioms or Categories 1.2 Categories Discrete categories. A category is discrete when every arrow is an
More informationCATEGORIES. 1.1 Introduction
1 CATEGORIES 1.1 Introduction What is category theory? As a irst approximation, one could say that category theory is the mathematical study o (abstract) algebras o unctions. Just as group theory is the
More informationLIMITS AND COLIMITS. m : M X. in a category G of structured sets of some sort call them gadgets the image subset
5 LIMITS ND COLIMITS In this chapter we irst briely discuss some topics namely subobjects and pullbacks relating to the deinitions that we already have. This is partly in order to see how these are used,
More informationAdjunctions! Everywhere!
Adjunctions! Everywhere! Carnegie Mellon University Thursday 19 th September 2013 Clive Newstead Abstract What do free groups, existential quantifiers and Stone-Čech compactifications all have in common?
More informationUMS 7/2/14. Nawaz John Sultani. July 12, Abstract
UMS 7/2/14 Nawaz John Sultani July 12, 2014 Notes or July, 2 2014 UMS lecture Abstract 1 Quick Review o Universals Deinition 1.1. I S : D C is a unctor and c an object o C, a universal arrow rom c to S
More informationDescent on the étale site Wouter Zomervrucht, October 14, 2014
Descent on the étale site Wouter Zomervrucht, October 14, 2014 We treat two eatures o the étale site: descent o morphisms and descent o quasi-coherent sheaves. All will also be true on the larger pp and
More informationJoseph Muscat Categories. 1 December 2012
Joseph Muscat 2015 1 Categories joseph.muscat@um.edu.mt 1 December 2012 1 Objects and Morphisms category is a class o objects with morphisms : (a way o comparing/substituting/mapping/processing to ) such
More informationIn the index (pages ), reduce all page numbers by 2.
Errata or Nilpotence and periodicity in stable homotopy theory (Annals O Mathematics Study No. 28, Princeton University Press, 992) by Douglas C. Ravenel, July 2, 997, edition. Most o these were ound by
More informationVALUATIVE CRITERIA BRIAN OSSERMAN
VALUATIVE CRITERIA BRIAN OSSERMAN Intuitively, one can think o separatedness as (a relative version o) uniqueness o limits, and properness as (a relative version o) existence o (unique) limits. It is not
More informationReview of category theory
Review of category theory Proseminar on stable homotopy theory, University of Pittsburgh Friday 17 th January 2014 Friday 24 th January 2014 Clive Newstead Abstract This talk will be a review of the fundamentals
More informationVALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR SEPARATED AND PROPER MORPHISMS
VALUATIVE CRITERIA FOR SEPARATED AND PROPER MORPHISMS BRIAN OSSERMAN Recall that or prevarieties, we had criteria or being a variety or or being complete in terms o existence and uniqueness o limits, where
More informationRepresentation Theory of Hopf Algebroids. Atsushi Yamaguchi
Representation Theory o H Algebroids Atsushi Yamaguchi Contents o this slide 1. Internal categories and H algebroids (7p) 2. Fibered category o modules (6p) 3. Representations o H algebroids (7p) 4. Restrictions
More informationSEPARATED AND PROPER MORPHISMS
SEPARATED AND PROPER MORPHISMS BRIAN OSSERMAN The notions o separatedness and properness are the algebraic geometry analogues o the Hausdor condition and compactness in topology. For varieties over the
More informationSEPARATED AND PROPER MORPHISMS
SEPARATED AND PROPER MORPHISMS BRIAN OSSERMAN Last quarter, we introduced the closed diagonal condition or a prevariety to be a prevariety, and the universally closed condition or a variety to be complete.
More informationMADE-TO-ORDER WEAK FACTORIZATION SYSTEMS
MADE-TO-ORDER WEAK FACTORIZATION SYSTEMS EMILY RIEHL The aim o this note is to briely summarize techniques or building weak actorization systems whose right class is characterized by a particular liting
More informationSpan, Cospan, and Other Double Categories
ariv:1201.3789v1 [math.ct] 18 Jan 2012 Span, Cospan, and Other Double Categories Susan Nieield July 19, 2018 Abstract Given a double category D such that D 0 has pushouts, we characterize oplax/lax adjunctions
More informationCHOW S LEMMA. Matthew Emerton
CHOW LEMMA Matthew Emerton The aim o this note is to prove the ollowing orm o Chow s Lemma: uppose that : is a separated inite type morphism o Noetherian schemes. Then (or some suiciently large n) there
More informationDUALITY AND SMALL FUNCTORS
DUALITY AND SMALL FUNCTORS GEORG BIEDERMANN AND BORIS CHORNY Abstract. The homotopy theory o small unctors is a useul tool or studying various questions in homotopy theory. In this paper, we develop the
More informationAn Introduction to Topos Theory
An Introduction to Topos Theory Ryszard Paweł Kostecki Institute o Theoretical Physics, University o Warsaw, Hoża 69, 00-681 Warszawa, Poland email: ryszard.kostecki % uw.edu.pl June 26, 2011 Abstract
More informationHSP SUBCATEGORIES OF EILENBERG-MOORE ALGEBRAS
HSP SUBCATEGORIES OF EILENBERG-MOORE ALGEBRAS MICHAEL BARR Abstract. Given a triple T on a complete category C and a actorization system E /M on the category o algebras, we show there is a 1-1 correspondence
More information{1X } if X = Y otherwise.
C T E G O R Y T H E O R Y Dr E. L. Cheng e.cheng@dpmms.cam.ac.uk http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/ elgc2 Michaelmas 2002 1 Categories, unctors and natural transormations 1.1 Categories DEFINITION 1.1.1 category
More informationProbabilistic Observations and Valuations (Extended Abstract) 1
Replace this ile with prentcsmacro.sty or your meeting, or with entcsmacro.sty or your meeting. Both can be ound at the ENTCS Macro Home Page. Probabilistic Observations and Valuations (Extended Abstract)
More informationTHE COALGEBRAIC STRUCTURE OF CELL COMPLEXES
Theory and pplications o Categories, Vol. 26, No. 11, 2012, pp. 304 330. THE COLGEBRIC STRUCTURE OF CELL COMPLEXES THOMS THORNE bstract. The relative cell complexes with respect to a generating set o coibrations
More informationMath 216A. A gluing construction of Proj(S)
Math 216A. A gluing construction o Proj(S) 1. Some basic deinitions Let S = n 0 S n be an N-graded ring (we ollows French terminology here, even though outside o France it is commonly accepted that N does
More informationMath 754 Chapter III: Fiber bundles. Classifying spaces. Applications
Math 754 Chapter III: Fiber bundles. Classiying spaces. Applications Laurențiu Maxim Department o Mathematics University o Wisconsin maxim@math.wisc.edu April 18, 2018 Contents 1 Fiber bundles 2 2 Principle
More informationELEMENTS IN MATHEMATICS FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE NO.14 CATEGORY THEORY. Tatsuya Hagino
1 ELEMENTS IN MTHEMTICS FOR INFORMTION SCIENCE NO.14 CTEGORY THEORY Tatsuya Haino haino@sc.keio.ac.jp 2 Set Theory Set Theory Foundation o Modern Mathematics a set a collection o elements with some property
More informationTowards a Flowchart Diagrammatic Language for Monad-based Semantics
Towards a Flowchart Diagrammatic Language or Monad-based Semantics Julian Jakob Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg julian.jakob@au.de 21.06.2016 Introductory Examples 1 2 + 3 3 9 36 4 while
More informationTangent Categories. David M. Roberts, Urs Schreiber and Todd Trimble. September 5, 2007
Tangent Categories David M Roberts, Urs Schreiber and Todd Trimble September 5, 2007 Abstract For any n-category C we consider the sub-n-category T C C 2 o squares in C with pinned let boundary This resolves
More informationON THE CONSTRUCTION OF LIMITS AND COLIMITS IN -CATEGORIES
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF LIMITS ND COLIMITS IN -CTEGORIES EMILY RIEHL ND DOMINIC VERITY bstract. In previous work, we introduce an axiomatic ramework within which to prove theorems about many varieties o
More informationGALOIS CATEGORIES MELISSA LYNN
GALOIS CATEGORIES MELISSA LYNN Abstract. In abstract algebra, we considered finite Galois extensions of fields with their Galois groups. Here, we noticed a correspondence between the intermediate fields
More informationThe basics of frame theory
First version released on 30 June 2006 This version released on 30 June 2006 The basics o rame theory Harold Simmons The University o Manchester hsimmons@ manchester.ac.uk This is the irst part o a series
More informationarxiv: v1 [math.ct] 27 Oct 2017
arxiv:1710.10238v1 [math.ct] 27 Oct 2017 Notes on clans and tribes. Joyal October 30, 2017 bstract The purpose o these notes is to give a categorical presentation/analysis o homotopy type theory. The notes
More informationGrothendieck construction for bicategories
Grothendieck construction or bicategories Igor Baković Rudjer Bošković Institute Abstract In this article, we give the generalization o the Grothendieck construction or pseudo unctors given in [5], which
More informationAssume the left square is a pushout. Then the right square is a pushout if and only if the big rectangle is.
COMMUTATIVE ALGERA LECTURE 2: MORE CATEGORY THEORY VIVEK SHENDE Last time we learned about Yoneda s lemma, and various universal constructions initial and final objects, products and coproducts (which
More informationFinite Dimensional Hilbert Spaces are Complete for Dagger Compact Closed Categories (Extended Abstract)
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 270 (1) (2011) 113 119 www.elsevier.com/locate/entcs Finite Dimensional Hilbert Spaces are Complete or Dagger Compact Closed Categories (Extended bstract)
More informationThe synthetic theory of -categories vs the synthetic theory of -categories
Emily Riehl Johns Hopkins University The synthetic theory of -categories vs the synthetic theory of -categories joint with Dominic Verity and Michael Shulman Vladimir Voevodsky Memorial Conference The
More informationPART I. Abstract algebraic categories
PART I Abstract algebraic categories It should be observed first that the whole concept of category is essentially an auxiliary one; our basic concepts are those of a functor and a natural transformation.
More informationCategory Theory. Categories. Definition.
Category Theory Category theory is a general mathematical theory of structures, systems of structures and relationships between systems of structures. It provides a unifying and economic mathematical modeling
More informationMath 248B. Base change morphisms
Math 248B. Base change morphisms 1. Motivation A basic operation with shea cohomology is pullback. For a continuous map o topological spaces : X X and an abelian shea F on X with (topological) pullback
More informationCategory Theory. Travis Dirle. December 12, 2017
Category Theory 2 Category Theory Travis Dirle December 12, 2017 2 Contents 1 Categories 1 2 Construction on Categories 7 3 Universals and Limits 11 4 Adjoints 23 5 Limits 31 6 Generators and Projectives
More informationFUNCTORS AND ADJUNCTIONS. 1. Functors
FUNCTORS AND ADJUNCTIONS Abstract. Graphs, quivers, natural transformations, adjunctions, Galois connections, Galois theory. 1.1. Graph maps. 1. Functors 1.1.1. Quivers. Quivers generalize directed graphs,
More information2 Coherent D-Modules. 2.1 Good filtrations
2 Coherent D-Modules As described in the introduction, any system o linear partial dierential equations can be considered as a coherent D-module. In this chapter we ocus our attention on coherent D-modules
More informationThe Clifford algebra and the Chevalley map - a computational approach (detailed version 1 ) Darij Grinberg Version 0.6 (3 June 2016). Not proofread!
The Cliord algebra and the Chevalley map - a computational approach detailed version 1 Darij Grinberg Version 0.6 3 June 2016. Not prooread! 1. Introduction: the Cliord algebra The theory o the Cliord
More informationMidterm Exam Solutions February 27, 2009
Midterm Exam Solutions February 27, 2009 (24. Deine each o the ollowing statements. You may assume that everyone knows the deinition o a topological space and a linear space. (4 a. X is a compact topological
More informationProblem Set. Problems on Unordered Summation. Math 5323, Fall Februray 15, 2001 ANSWERS
Problem Set Problems on Unordered Summation Math 5323, Fall 2001 Februray 15, 2001 ANSWERS i 1 Unordered Sums o Real Terms In calculus and real analysis, one deines the convergence o an ininite series
More informationTHE HOMOTOPY THEORY OF EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS
THE HOMOTOPY THEORY OF EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS FINNUR LÁRUSSON Abstract. We give a detailed exposition o the homotopy theory o equivalence relations, perhaps the simplest nontrivial example o a model structure.
More informationLecture 15: Duality. Next we spell out the answer to Exercise It is part of the definition of a TQFT.
Lecture 15: Duality We ended the last lecture by introducing one of the main characters in the remainder of the course, a topological quantum field theory (TQFT). At this point we should, of course, elaborate
More informationELEG 3143 Probability & Stochastic Process Ch. 4 Multiple Random Variables
Department o Electrical Engineering University o Arkansas ELEG 3143 Probability & Stochastic Process Ch. 4 Multiple Random Variables Dr. Jingxian Wu wuj@uark.edu OUTLINE 2 Two discrete random variables
More informationPower-Set Functors and Saturated Trees
Power-Set Functors and Saturated Trees Jiří Adámek 1, Stean Milius 1, Lawrence S. Moss 2, and Lurdes Sousa 3 1 Institut ür Theoretische Inormatik, Technische Universität Braunschweig Germany 2 Department
More informationCATEGORY THEORY. Cats have been around for 70 years. Eilenberg + Mac Lane =. Cats are about building bridges between different parts of maths.
CATEGORY THEORY PROFESSOR PETER JOHNSTONE Cats have been around for 70 years. Eilenberg + Mac Lane =. Cats are about building bridges between different parts of maths. Definition 1.1. A category C consists
More informationA NOTE ON SHEAVES WITHOUT SELF-EXTENSIONS ON THE PROJECTIVE n-space.
A NOTE ON SHEAVES WITHOUT SELF-EXTENSIONS ON THE PROJECTIVE n-space. DIETER HAPPEL AND DAN ZACHARIA Abstract. Let P n be the projective n space over the complex numbers. In this note we show that an indecomposable
More informationON THE CONSTRUCTION OF FUNCTORIAL FACTORIZATIONS FOR MODEL CATEGORIES
ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF FUNCTORIAL FACTORIZATIONS FOR MODEL CATEGORIES TOBIAS BARTHEL AND EMIL RIEHL Abstract. We present general techniques or constructing unctorial actorizations appropriate or model
More information(C) The rationals and the reals as linearly ordered sets. Contents. 1 The characterizing results
(C) The rationals and the reals as linearly ordered sets We know that both Q and R are something special. When we think about about either o these we usually view it as a ield, or at least some kind o
More informationRepresentable presheaves
Representable presheaves March 15, 2017 A presheaf on a category C is a contravariant functor F on C. In particular, for any object X Ob(C) we have the presheaf (of sets) represented by X, that is Hom
More informationCategories and Modules
Categories and odules Takahiro Kato arch 2, 205 BSTRCT odules (also known as profunctors or distributors) and morphisms among them subsume categories and functors and provide more general and abstract
More informationUniversity of Oxford, Michaelis November 16, Categorical Semantics and Topos Theory Homotopy type theor
Categorical Semantics and Topos Theory Homotopy type theory Seminar University of Oxford, Michaelis 2011 November 16, 2011 References Johnstone, P.T.: Sketches of an Elephant. A Topos-Theory Compendium.
More informationBasic Category Theory
BRICS LS-95-1 J. van Oosten: Basic Category Theory BRICS Basic Research in Computer Science Basic Category Theory Jaap van Oosten BRICS Lecture Series LS-95-1 ISSN 1395-2048 January 1995 Copyright c 1995,
More informationTHE SNAIL LEMMA ENRICO M. VITALE
THE SNIL LEMM ENRICO M. VITLE STRCT. The classical snake lemma produces a six terms exact sequence starting rom a commutative square with one o the edge being a regular epimorphism. We establish a new
More informationBECK'S THEOREM CHARACTERIZING ALGEBRAS
BEK'S THEOREM HARATERIZING ALGEBRAS SOFI GJING JOVANOVSKA Abstract. In this paper, I will construct a proo o Beck's Theorem characterizin T -alebras. Suppose we have an adjoint pair o unctors F and G between
More informationClassification of effective GKM graphs with combinatorial type K 4
Classiication o eective GKM graphs with combinatorial type K 4 Shintarô Kuroki Department o Applied Mathematics, Faculty o Science, Okayama Uniervsity o Science, 1-1 Ridai-cho Kita-ku, Okayama 700-0005,
More informationON PROPERTY-LIKE STRUCTURES
Theory and Applications o Categories, Vol. 3, No. 9, 1997, pp. 213 250. ON PROPERTY-LIKE STRUCTURES G. M. KELLY AND STEPHEN LACK Transmitted by R. J. Wood ABSTRACT. A category may bear many monoidal structures,
More informationCONTINUITY. 1. Continuity 1.1. Preserving limits and colimits. Suppose that F : J C and R: C D are functors. Consider the limit diagrams.
CONTINUITY Abstract. Continuity, tensor products, complete lattices, the Tarski Fixed Point Theorem, existence of adjoints, Freyd s Adjoint Functor Theorem 1. Continuity 1.1. Preserving limits and colimits.
More information3. Categories and Functors We recall the definition of a category: Definition 3.1. A category C is the data of two collections. The first collection
3. Categories and Functors We recall the definition of a category: Definition 3.1. A category C is the data of two collections. The first collection is called the objects of C and is denoted Obj(C). Given
More informationCLASS NOTES MATH 527 (SPRING 2011) WEEK 6
CLASS NOTES MATH 527 (SPRING 2011) WEEK 6 BERTRAND GUILLOU 1. Mon, Feb. 21 Note that since we have C() = X A C (A) and the inclusion A C (A) at time 0 is a coibration, it ollows that the pushout map i
More informationWeak bisimulations for coalgebras over ordered functors
Weak bisimulations or coalgebras over ordered unctors Tomasz Brengos Faculty o Mathematics and Inormation Sciences Warsaw University o Technology Koszykowa 75 00-662 Warszawa, Poland t.brengos@mini.pw.edu.pl
More information10. Joint Moments and Joint Characteristic Functions
10. Joint Moments and Joint Characteristic Functions Following section 6, in this section we shall introduce various parameters to compactly represent the inormation contained in the joint p.d. o two r.vs.
More informationA Peter May Picture Book, Part 1
A Peter May Picture Book, Part 1 Steve Balady Auust 17, 2007 This is the beinnin o a larer project, a notebook o sorts intended to clariy, elucidate, and/or illustrate the principal ideas in A Concise
More informationAdjunctions, the Stone-Čech compactification, the compact-open topology, the theorems of Ascoli and Arzela
Adjunctions, the Stone-Čech compactification, the compact-open topology, the theorems of Ascoli and Arzela John Terilla Fall 2014 Contents 1 Adjoint functors 2 2 Example: Product-Hom adjunction in Set
More informationSheafification Johan M. Commelin, October 15, 2013
heaiication Johan M. Commelin, October 15, 2013 Introduction Let C be a categor, equipped with a Grothendieck topolog J. Let 2 Ph(C) be a preshea. The purpose o these notes is to assign to a morphism to
More informationUniversity of Cape Town
The copyright o this thesis rests with the. No quotation rom it or inormation derived rom it is to be published without ull acknowledgement o the source. The thesis is to be used or private study or non-commercial
More informationDiscrete Mathematics. On the number of graphs with a given endomorphism monoid
Discrete Mathematics 30 00 376 384 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Discrete Mathematics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/disc On the number o graphs with a given endomorphism monoid
More informationTHE GORENSTEIN DEFECT CATEGORY
THE GORENSTEIN DEFECT CATEGORY PETTER ANDREAS BERGH, DAVID A. JORGENSEN & STEFFEN OPPERMANN Dedicated to Ranar-Ola Buchweitz on the occasion o his sixtieth birthday Abstract. We consider the homotopy cateory
More informationA CLASSIFICATION THEOREM FOR NORMAL EXTENSIONS MATHIEU DUCKERTS-ANTOINE AND TOMAS EVERAERT
Pré-Publicações do Departamento de Matemática Universidade de Coimbra Preprint Number 15 11 A CLASSIFICATION THEOREM FOR NORMAL EXTENSIONS MATHIEU DUCKERTS-ANTOINE AND TOMAS EVERAERT Abstract: For a particular
More informationNotes on Beilinson s How to glue perverse sheaves
Notes on Beilinson s How to glue perverse sheaves Ryan Reich June 4, 2009 In this paper I provide something o a skeleton key to A.A. Beilinson s How to glue perverse sheaves [1], which I ound hard to understand
More informationVariations on a Casselman-Osborne theme
Variations on a Casselman-Osborne theme Dragan Miličić Introduction This paper is inspired by two classical results in homological algebra o modules over an enveloping algebra lemmas o Casselman-Osborne
More informationA CHARACTERIZATION OF CENTRAL EXTENSIONS IN THE VARIETY OF QUANDLES VALÉRIAN EVEN, MARINO GRAN AND ANDREA MONTOLI
Pré-Publicações do Departamento de Matemática Universidade de Coimbra Preprint Number 15 12 CHRCTERIZTION OF CENTRL EXTENSIONS IN THE VRIETY OF QUNDLES VLÉRIN EVEN, MRINO GRN ND NDRE MONTOLI bstract: The
More information( x) f = where P and Q are polynomials.
9.8 Graphing Rational Functions Lets begin with a deinition. Deinition: Rational Function A rational unction is a unction o the orm ( ) ( ) ( ) P where P and Q are polynomials. Q An eample o a simple rational
More informationTopos Theory. Lectures 21 and 22: Classifying toposes. Olivia Caramello. Topos Theory. Olivia Caramello. The notion of classifying topos
Lectures 21 and 22: toposes of 2 / 30 Toposes as mathematical universes of Recall that every Grothendieck topos E is an elementary topos. Thus, given the fact that arbitrary colimits exist in E, we can
More informationThe Uniformity Principle on Traced Monoidal Categories
Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 69 (2003) URL: http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/entcs/volume69.html 19 pages The Uniormity Principle on Traced Monoidal Categories Masahito Hasegawa Research
More informationLogarithm of a Function, a Well-Posed Inverse Problem
American Journal o Computational Mathematics, 4, 4, -5 Published Online February 4 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ajcm http://dx.doi.org/.436/ajcm.4.4 Logarithm o a Function, a Well-Posed Inverse Problem
More informationELEMENTARY TOPOI: SETS, GENERALIZED
ELEMENTARY TOPOI: SETS, GENERALIZED CHRISTOPHER HENDERSON Abstract. An elementary topos is a nice way to generalize the notion of sets using categorical language. If we restrict our world to categories
More informationPOLARIZED CATEGORY THEORY, MODULES, AND GAME SEMANTICS. Contents. Introduction
Theory and Applications o Categories, Vol. 18, No. 2, 2007, pp. 4 101. Contents POLARIZED CATEGORY THEORY, MODULES, AND GAME SEMANTICS J.R.B. COCKETT AND R.A.G. SEELY Abstract. Motivated by an analysis
More informationCategory theory and set theory: algebraic set theory as an example of their interaction
Category theory and set theory: algebraic set theory as an example of their interaction Brice Halimi May 30, 2014 My talk will be devoted to an example of positive interaction between (ZFC-style) set theory
More informationCartesian Closed Topological Categories and Tensor Products
Cartesian Closed Topological Categories and Tensor Products Gavin J. Seal October 21, 2003 Abstract The projective tensor product in a category of topological R-modules (where R is a topological ring)
More information9.3 Graphing Functions by Plotting Points, The Domain and Range of Functions
9. Graphing Functions by Plotting Points, The Domain and Range o Functions Now that we have a basic idea o what unctions are and how to deal with them, we would like to start talking about the graph o
More informationHow to glue perverse sheaves
How to glue perverse sheaves A.A. Beilinson The aim o this note [0] is to give a short, sel-contained account o the vanishing cycle constructions o perverse sheaves; e.g., or the needs o [1]. It diers
More informationarxiv: v2 [math.ct] 19 Feb 2008
Understanding the small object argument arxiv:0712.0724v2 [math.ct] 19 Feb 2008 Richard Garner Department o Mathematics, Uppsala University, Box 480, S-751 06 Uppsala, Sweden October 14, 2011 Abstract
More informationLimit Preservation from Naturality
CTCS 2004 Preliminary Version Limit Preservation from Naturality Mario Caccamo 1 The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute Cambridge, UK Glynn Winskel 2 University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory Cambridge,
More information9 Direct products, direct sums, and free abelian groups
9 Direct products, direct sums, and free abelian groups 9.1 Definition. A direct product of a family of groups {G i } i I is a group i I G i defined as follows. As a set i I G i is the cartesian product
More informationFeedback Linearization
Feedback Linearization Peter Al Hokayem and Eduardo Gallestey May 14, 2015 1 Introduction Consider a class o single-input-single-output (SISO) nonlinear systems o the orm ẋ = (x) + g(x)u (1) y = h(x) (2)
More informationCARTESIAN DIFFERENTIAL CATEGORIES
Theory and Applications o Categories, Vol. 22, No. 23, 2009, pp. 622 672. CARTESIAN DIFFERENTIAL CATEGORIES R.F. BLUTE, J.R.B. COCKETT AND R.A.G. SEELY Abstract. This paper revisits the authors notion
More informationRoberto s Notes on Differential Calculus Chapter 8: Graphical analysis Section 1. Extreme points
Roberto s Notes on Dierential Calculus Chapter 8: Graphical analysis Section 1 Extreme points What you need to know already: How to solve basic algebraic and trigonometric equations. All basic techniques
More informationNOTES ON ATIYAH S TQFT S
NOTES ON ATIYAH S TQFT S J.P. MAY As an example of categorification, I presented Atiyah s axioms [1] for a topological quantum field theory (TQFT) to undergraduates in the University of Chicago s summer
More informationON KAN EXTENSION OF HOMOLOGY AND ADAMS COCOMPLETION
Bulletin o the Institute o Mathematics Academia Sinica (New Series) Vol 4 (2009), No 1, pp 47-66 ON KAN ETENSION OF HOMOLOG AND ADAMS COCOMPLETION B AKRUR BEHERA AND RADHESHAM OTA Abstract Under a set
More information2-DIMENSIONAL TOPOLOGICAL QUANTUM FIELD THEORIES AND FROBENIUS ALGEBRAS. Contents 1. The main theorem 1
2-DIMENSIONL TOPOLOGICL QUNTUM FIELD THEORIES ND FROBENIUS LGEBRS CROLINE TERRY bstract. Category theory provides a more abstract and thus more general setting for considering the structure of mathematical
More informationArrow-theoretic differential theory
Arrow-theoretic dierential theory Urs Schreiber August 17, 2007 Abstract We propose and study a notion o a tangent (n + 1)-bundle to an arbitrary n-category Despite its simplicity, this notion turns out
More informationThe synthetic theory of -categories vs the synthetic theory of -categories
Emily Riehl Johns Hopkins University The synthetic theory of -categories vs the synthetic theory of -categories joint with Dominic Verity and Michael Shulman Homotopy Type Theory Electronic Seminar Talks
More information