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.

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.

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.

of actions of the object G on the object X, in the sense of the theory of semi-direct 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 semi-abelian theory in a Grothendieck topos, thus in particular all semi-abelian 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 semi-abelian 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 counter-examples, 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 semi-abelian category is a Barr-exact, Bourn-protomodular, finitely complete and finitely cocomplete category with a zero object 0. The existence of finite limits and a zero object implies that Bourn-protomodularity 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

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 back-and-forth 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: error-free vs. error-aware, alternated vs. non-alternated, backtracking vs. repetitive, uniform vs. non-uniform.

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 T-algebra 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.

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 call-by-push-value 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 call-by-push-value (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.

known in module theory that any A-bimodule B is an A-ring if and only if the functor − ⊗A B: MA → MA is a monad (or triple). Similarly, an A-bimodule C is an A-coring 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

INTRODUCTION By an S-valued distribution on a topos E bounded over a base topos S it is meant here a cocontinuous S-indexed 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) lattice-theoretic notion of distribution algebra. We characterize the distribution algebras in E relative to S as the S-bicomplete S-atomic 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].

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 G-modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 2.4 Free modules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2.5 The rack