Results 1  10
of
62
SemiAbelian Categories
, 2000
"... The notion of semiabelian category as proposed in this paper is designed to capture typical algebraic properties valid for groups, rings and algebras, say, just as abelian categories allow for a generalized treatment of abeliangroup and module theory. In modern terms, semiabelian categories ar ..."
Abstract

Cited by 37 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The notion of semiabelian category as proposed in this paper is designed to capture typical algebraic properties valid for groups, rings and algebras, say, just as abelian categories allow for a generalized treatment of abeliangroup and module theory. In modern terms, semiabelian categories are exact in the sense of Barr and protomodular in the sense of Bourn and have finite coproducts and a zero object. We show how these conditions relate to "old" exactness axioms involving normal monomorphisms and epimorphisms, as used in the fifties and sixties, and we give extensive references to the literature in order to indicate why semiabelian categories provide an appropriate notion to establish the isomorphism and decomposition theorems of group theory, to pursue general radical theory of rings, and how to arrive at basic statements as needed in homological algebra of groups and similar nonabelian structures. Mathematics Subject Classification: 18E10, 18A30, 18A32. Key words:...
Uniqueness theorems for certain triangulated categories possessing an Adams spectral sequence
, 139
"... 1.2. The axioms ..."
Finite tensor categories
 Moscow Math. Journal
"... These are lecture notes for the course 18.769 “Tensor categories”, taught by P. Etingof at MIT in the spring of 2009. In these notes we will assume that the reader is familiar with the basic theory of categories and functors; a detailed discussion of this theory can be found in the book [ML]. We wil ..."
Abstract

Cited by 26 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
These are lecture notes for the course 18.769 “Tensor categories”, taught by P. Etingof at MIT in the spring of 2009. In these notes we will assume that the reader is familiar with the basic theory of categories and functors; a detailed discussion of this theory can be found in the book [ML]. We will also assume the basics of the theory of abelian categories (for a more detailed treatment see the book [F]). If C is a category, the notation X ∈ C will mean that X is an object of C, and the set of morphisms between X, Y ∈ C will be denoted by Hom(X, Y). Throughout the notes, for simplicity we will assume that the ground field k is algebraically closed unless otherwise specified, even though in many cases this assumption will not be needed. 1. Monoidal categories 1.1. The definition of a monoidal category. A good way of thinking
Category O over a deformation of the symplectic oscillator algebra
 Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra
"... Abstract. We discuss the representation theory of Hf, which is a deformation of the symplectic oscillator algebra sp(2n)⋉hn, where hn is the ((2n+1)dimensional) Heisenberg algebra. We first look at a more general setup, involving an algebra with a triangular decomposition. Many of the constructions ..."
Abstract

Cited by 25 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We discuss the representation theory of Hf, which is a deformation of the symplectic oscillator algebra sp(2n)⋉hn, where hn is the ((2n+1)dimensional) Heisenberg algebra. We first look at a more general setup, involving an algebra with a triangular decomposition. Many of the constructions in the classical BGG case go through here as well; in particular, assuming the PBW theorem and finite length of all Vermas, the category O is abelian, finite length, and selfdual. We decompose O as a direct sum of blocks O(λ), and show that enough projectives exist in each block, so that each O(λ) is equivalent to a finitedimensional algebra. Each block is also a highest weight category, so that we have BGG reciprocity. We focus on the case Hf for n = 1, where we show all these assumptions to hold,
Complete Cuboidal Sets in Axiomatic Domain Theory (Extended Abstract)
 In Proceedings of 12th Annual Symposium on Logic in Computer Science
, 1997
"... ) Marcelo Fiore !mf@dcs.ed.ac.uk? Gordon Plotkin y !gdp@dcs.ed.ac.uk? John Power !ajp@dcs.ed.ac.uk? Department of Computer Science Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science University of Edinburgh, The King's Buildings Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland Abstract We study the enrichme ..."
Abstract

Cited by 16 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
) Marcelo Fiore !mf@dcs.ed.ac.uk? Gordon Plotkin y !gdp@dcs.ed.ac.uk? John Power !ajp@dcs.ed.ac.uk? Department of Computer Science Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science University of Edinburgh, The King's Buildings Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland Abstract We study the enrichment of models of axiomatic domain theory. To this end, we introduce a new and broader notion of domain, viz. that of complete cuboidal set, that complies with the axiomatic requirements. We show that the category of complete cuboidal sets provides a general notion of enrichment for a wide class of axiomatic domaintheoretic structures. Introduction The aim of Axiomatic Domain Theory (ADT) is to provide a conceptual understanding of why domains are adequate as mathematical models of computation. (For a discussion see [12, x Axiomatic Domain Theory ].) The approach taken is to axiomatise the structure needed on a category so that its objects can be considered as domains, and its maps as continuous...
Arrows, like monads, are monoids
 Proc. of 22nd Ann. Conf. on Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, MFPS XXII, v. 158 of Electron. Notes in Theoret. Comput. Sci
, 2006
"... Monads are by now wellestablished as programming construct in functional languages. Recently, the notion of “Arrow ” was introduced by Hughes as an extension, not with one, but with two type parameters. At first, these Arrows may look somewhat arbitrary. Here we show that they are categorically fai ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Monads are by now wellestablished as programming construct in functional languages. Recently, the notion of “Arrow ” was introduced by Hughes as an extension, not with one, but with two type parameters. At first, these Arrows may look somewhat arbitrary. Here we show that they are categorically fairly civilised, by showing that they correspond to monoids in suitable subcategories of bifunctors C op ×C → C. This shows that, at a suitable level of abstraction, arrows are like monads — which are monoids in categories of functors C → C. Freyd categories have been introduced by Power and Robinson to model computational effects, well before Hughes ’ Arrows appeared. It is often claimed (informally) that Arrows are simply Freyd categories. We shall make this claim precise by showing how monoids in categories of bifunctors exactly correspond to Freyd categories.
Exact Completions and Toposes
 University of Edinburgh
, 2000
"... Toposes and quasitoposes have been shown to be useful in mathematics, logic and computer science. Because of this, it is important to understand the di#erent ways in which they can be constructed. Realizability toposes and presheaf toposes are two important classes of toposes. All of the former and ..."
Abstract

Cited by 13 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Toposes and quasitoposes have been shown to be useful in mathematics, logic and computer science. Because of this, it is important to understand the di#erent ways in which they can be constructed. Realizability toposes and presheaf toposes are two important classes of toposes. All of the former and many of the latter arise by adding &quot;good &quot; quotients of equivalence relations to a simple category with finite limits. This construction is called the exact completion of the original category. Exact completions are not always toposes and it was not known, not even in the realizability and presheaf cases, when or why toposes arise in this way. Exact completions can be obtained as the composition of two related constructions. The first one assigns to a category with finite limits, the &quot;best &quot; regular category (called its regular completion) that embeds it. The second assigns to
On braided tensor categories of type BCD
 J. reine angew. Math
"... Abstract. We give a full classification of all braided semisimple tensor categories whose Grothendieck semiring is the one of Rep ` O(∞) ´ (formally), Rep ` O(N) ´ , Rep ` Sp(N) ´ or of one of its associated fusion categories. If the braiding is not symmetric, they are completely determined by th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 9 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We give a full classification of all braided semisimple tensor categories whose Grothendieck semiring is the one of Rep ` O(∞) ´ (formally), Rep ` O(N) ´ , Rep ` Sp(N) ´ or of one of its associated fusion categories. If the braiding is not symmetric, they are completely determined by the eigenvalues of a certain braiding morphism, and we determine precisely which values can occur in the various cases. If the category allows a symmetric braiding, it is essentially determined by the dimension of the object corresponding to the vector representation. 1.