Results 1  10
of
27
A Koszul duality for props
 Trans. of Amer. Math. Soc
"... Abstract. The notion of prop models the operations with multiple inputs and multiple outputs, acting on some algebraic structures like the bialgebras or the Lie bialgebras. In this paper, we generalize the Koszul duality theory of associative algebras and operads to props. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 21 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The notion of prop models the operations with multiple inputs and multiple outputs, acting on some algebraic structures like the bialgebras or the Lie bialgebras. In this paper, we generalize the Koszul duality theory of associative algebras and operads to props.
Frobenius monads and pseudomonoids
 2CATEGORIES COMPANION 73
, 2004
"... Six equivalent definitions of Frobenius algebra in a monoidal category are provided. In a monoidal bicategory, a pseudoalgebra is Frobenius if and only i f it is star autonomous. Autonomous pseudoalgebras are also Frobenius. What i t means for a morphism of a bicategory to be a projective equivalenc ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Six equivalent definitions of Frobenius algebra in a monoidal category are provided. In a monoidal bicategory, a pseudoalgebra is Frobenius if and only i f it is star autonomous. Autonomous pseudoalgebras are also Frobenius. What i t means for a morphism of a bicategory to be a projective equivalence is defined; this concept is related to "strongly separable " Frobenius algebras and "weak monoidal Morita equivalence". Wreath products of Frobenius algebras are discussed.
MONADS AND COMONADS ON MODULE CATEGORIES
"... known in module theory that any Abimodule B is an Aring if and only if the functor − ⊗A B: MA → MA is a monad (or triple). Similarly, an Abimodule C is an Acoring provided the functor − ⊗A C: MA → MA is a comonad (or cotriple). The related categories of modules (or algebras) of − ⊗A B and comodu ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (10 self)
 Add to MetaCart
known in module theory that any Abimodule B is an Aring if and only if the functor − ⊗A B: MA → MA is a monad (or triple). Similarly, an Abimodule C is an Acoring provided the functor − ⊗A C: MA → MA is a comonad (or cotriple). The related categories of modules (or algebras) of − ⊗A B and comodules (or coalgebras) of − ⊗A C are well studied in the literature. On the other hand, the right adjoint endofunctors HomA(B, −) and HomA(C, −) are a comonad and a monad, respectively, but the corresponding (co)module categories did not find
The Category Theoretic Understanding of Universal Algebra: Lawvere Theories and Monads
, 2007
"... Lawvere theories and monads have been the two main category theoretic formulations of universal algebra, Lawvere theories arising in 1963 and the connection with monads being established a few years later. Monads, although mathematically the less direct and less malleable formulation, rapidly gained ..."
Abstract

Cited by 12 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Lawvere theories and monads have been the two main category theoretic formulations of universal algebra, Lawvere theories arising in 1963 and the connection with monads being established a few years later. Monads, although mathematically the less direct and less malleable formulation, rapidly gained precedence. A generation later, the definition of monad began to appear extensively in theoretical computer science in order to model computational effects, without reference to universal algebra. But since then, the relevance of universal algebra to computational effects has been recognised, leading to renewed prominence of the notion of Lawvere theory, now in a computational setting. This development has formed a major part of Gordon Plotkin’s mature work, and we study its history here, in particular asking why Lawvere theories were eclipsed by monads in the 1960’s, and how the renewed interest in them in a computer science setting might develop in future.
MONADS OF EFFECTIVE DESCENT TYPE AND COMONADICITY
"... Abstract. We show, for an arbitrary adjunction F ⊣ U: B→Awith B Cauchy complete, that the functor F is comonadic if and only if the monad T on A induced by the adjunction is of effective descent type, meaning that the free Talgebra functor F T: A→A T is comonadic. This result is applied to several ..."
Abstract

Cited by 7 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We show, for an arbitrary adjunction F ⊣ U: B→Awith B Cauchy complete, that the functor F is comonadic if and only if the monad T on A induced by the adjunction is of effective descent type, meaning that the free Talgebra functor F T: A→A T is comonadic. This result is applied to several situations: In Section 4 to give a sufficient condition for an exponential functor on a cartesian closed category to be monadic, in Sections 5 and 6 to settle the question of the comonadicity of those functors whose domain is Set, orSet⋆, or the category of modules over a semisimple ring, in Section 7 to study the effectiveness of (co)monads on module categories. Our final application is a descent theorem for noncommutative rings from which we deduce an important result of A. Joyal and M. Tierney and of J.P. Olivier, asserting that the effective descent morphisms in the opposite of the category of commutative unital rings are precisely the pure monomorphisms. 1.
On the representability of actions in a semiabelian category
 THEORY AND APPLICATIONS OF CATEGORIES
, 2005
"... of actions of the object G on the object X, in the sense of the theory of semidirect products in V. We investigate the representability of the functor Act(−,X) in the case where V is locally presentable, with finite limits commuting with filtered colimits. This contains all categories of models of ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
of actions of the object G on the object X, in the sense of the theory of semidirect products in V. We investigate the representability of the functor Act(−,X) in the case where V is locally presentable, with finite limits commuting with filtered colimits. This contains all categories of models of a semiabelian theory in a Grothendieck topos, thus in particular all semiabelian varieties of universal algebra. For such categories, we prove first that the representability of Act(−,X) reduces to the preservation of binary coproducts. Next we give both a very simple necessary condition and a very simple sufficient condition, in terms of amalgamation properties, for the preservation of binary coproducts by the functor Act(−,X) in a general semiabelian category. Finally, we exhibit the precise form of the more involved “if and only if ” amalgamation property corresponding to the representability of actions: this condition is in particular related to a new notion of “normalization of a morphism”. We provide also a wide supply of algebraic examples and counterexamples, giving in particular evidence of the relevance of the object representing Act(−,X), when it turns out to exist. 1. Actions and split exact sequences A semiabelian category is a Barrexact, Bournprotomodular, finitely complete and finitely cocomplete category with a zero object 0. The existence of finite limits and a zero object implies that Bournprotomodularity is equivalent to, and so can be replaced with, the following split version of the short five lemma: K K given a commutative diagram of “kernels of split epimorphisms” qisi =1Q, ki = Ker qi, i =1, 2 k1 k2
Comparing Hierarchies of Types in Models of Linear Logic
, 2003
"... We show that two models M and N of linear logic collapse to the same extensional hierarchy of types, when (1) their monoidal categories C and D are related by a pair of monoidal functors F : C D : G and transformations Id C ) GF and Id D ) FG, and (2) their exponentials ! are related by distri ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (3 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that two models M and N of linear logic collapse to the same extensional hierarchy of types, when (1) their monoidal categories C and D are related by a pair of monoidal functors F : C D : G and transformations Id C ) GF and Id D ) FG, and (2) their exponentials ! are related by distributive laws % : ! : ! M G ) G ! N commuting to the promotion rule. The key ingredient of the proof is a notion of backandforth translation between the hierarchies of types induced by M and N. We apply this result to compare (1) the qualitative and the quantitative hierarchies induced by the coherence (or hypercoherence) space model, (2) several paradigms of games semantics: errorfree vs. erroraware, alternated vs. nonalternated, backtracking vs. repetitive, uniform vs. nonuniform.
Monads and Adjunctions for Global Exceptions
, 2006
"... In this paper, we look at two categorical accounts of computational effects (strong monad as a model of the monadic metalanguage, adjunction as a model of callbypushvalue with stacks), and we adapt them to incorporate global exceptions. In each case, we extend the calculus with a construct, due t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
In this paper, we look at two categorical accounts of computational effects (strong monad as a model of the monadic metalanguage, adjunction as a model of callbypushvalue with stacks), and we adapt them to incorporate global exceptions. In each case, we extend the calculus with a construct, due to Benton and Kennedy, that fuses exception handling with sequencing. This immediately gives us an equational theory, simply by adapting the equations for sequencing. We study the categorical semantics of the two equational theories. In the case of the monadic metalanguage, we see that a monad supporting exceptions is a coalgebra for a certain comonad. We further show, using Beck’s theorem, that, on a category with equalizers, the monad constructor for exceptions gives all such monads. In the case of callbypushvalue (CBPV) with stacks, we generalize the notion of CBPV adjunction so that a stack awaiting a value can deal both with a value being returned, and with an exception being raised. We see how to obtain a model of exceptions from a CBPV adjunction, and vice versa by restricting to those stacks that are homomorphic with respect to exception raising.
Distribution Algebras and Duality
, 2000
"... INTRODUCTION By an Svalued distribution on a topos E bounded over a base topos S it is meant here a cocontinuous Sindexed functor : E ! S. Since introduced by F. W. Lawvere in 1983, considerable progress has been made in the study of distributions on toposes from a variety of viewpoints [19, 15, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
INTRODUCTION By an Svalued distribution on a topos E bounded over a base topos S it is meant here a cocontinuous Sindexed functor : E ! S. Since introduced by F. W. Lawvere in 1983, considerable progress has been made in the study of distributions on toposes from a variety of viewpoints [19, 15, 24, 5, 6, 12, 7, 8, 9]. However, much work still remains to be done in this area. The purpose of this paper is to deepen our understanding of topos distributions by exploring a (dual) latticetheoretic notion of distribution algebra. We characterize the distribution algebras in E relative to S as the Sbicomplete Satomic Heyting algebras in E . As an illustration, we employ distribution algebras explicitly in order to give an alternative description of the display locale (complete spread) of a distribution [10, 12, 7].
Homological Algebra of Racks and Quandles
"... Contents Introduction 1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 Extensions 5 1.1 Extensions and expan ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Contents Introduction 1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Declaration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 Extensions 5 1.1 Extensions and expansions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1.2 Factor systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 1.3 Abelian extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1.4 Quandle extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 1.5 Involutory extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2 Modules 29 2.1 Rack modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 2.2 Beck modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 2.3 A digression on Gmodules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.4 Free modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.5 The rack