Universal algebra uniformly captures various algebraic structures, by expressing them as equational theories or abstract clones. The ubiquity of algebraic structures in mathematics and related fields has given rise to several variants of universal algebra, such as symmetric operads, non-symmetric operads, generalised operads, and monads. These variants of universal algebra are called notions of algebraic theory. In the first part of this thesis, we develop a unified framework for notions of algebraic theory which includes all of the above examples. Our key observation is that each notion of algebraic theory can be identified with a monoidal category, in such a way that theories correspond to monoid objects therein. We introduce a categorical structure called metamodel, which underlies the definition of models of theories. We also consider morphisms between notions of algebraic theory, which are a monoidal version of profunctors. Every strong monoidal functor gives rise to an adjoint pair of such morphisms, and provides a uniform way to establish isomorphisms between categories of models in different notions of algebraic theory. A general structure-semantics adjointness result and a double categorical universal property of categories of models are also shown. In the second part of this thesis, we shift from the general study of algebraic structures, and focus on a particular algebraic structure: higher dimensional categories. Among several existing definitions of higher dimensional categories, we choose to look at the one proposed by Batanin and later refined by Leinster. We show that the notion of extensive category plays a central role in Batanin and Leinster’s definition. Using this, we generalise their definition by allowing enrichment over any locally presentable extensive category.
A set \mathcal{U} is called a universe if the following hold:
if x\in\mathcal{U} and y\in x, then y\in\mathcal{U};
if x\in\mathcal{U}, then \{x\}\in\mathcal{U};
if x\in\mathcal{U}, then \mathcal{P}(x)=\{y\mid y\subseteq x\}\in\mathcal{U};
if I\in\mathcal{U} and (x_i)_{i\in I} is an I-indexed family of elements of \mathcal{U}, then \bigcup_{i\in I} x_i\in\mathcal{U};
\mathbb{N}\in\mathcal{U}, where \mathbb{N}=\{0,1,\dots\} and for all n\in\mathbb{N}, n=\{0,1,\dots, n-1\}.
For each set x, there exists a universe \mathcal{U} such that x\in\mathcal{U}.
A set or other mathematical structure (group, category, etc.) is said to be:
small if it is in \mathcal{U}_1;
large if it is in \mathcal{U}_2;
huge if it is in \mathcal{U}_3.
Sets and other mathematical structures are often assumed to be small by default, even when we do not say so explicitly.
A category (or a 2-category) is said to be:
locally small if it is large and locally in \mathcal{U}_1;
locally large if it is huge and locally in \mathcal{U}_2.
An (\mathbb{N}-)graded set \Gamma is a family \Gamma=(\Gamma_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} of sets indexed by natural numbers \mathbb{N}=\{0,1,2,\dots\}. By an element of \Gamma we mean an element of the set \coprod_{n\in\mathbb{N}} \Gamma_n=\{\,(n,\gamma)\mid n\in\mathbb{N}, \gamma\in \Gamma_n\,\}. We write x\in\Gamma if x is an element of \Gamma.
If \Gamma=(\Gamma_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} and \Gamma'=(\Gamma'_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} are graded sets, then a morphism of graded sets f\colon \Gamma\longrightarrow \Gamma' is a family of functions f=(f_n\colon \Gamma_n\longrightarrow \Gamma'_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}.
Let \Sigma be a graded set.
A \Sigma-algebra is a set A equipped with, for each n\in\mathbb{N} and \sigma\in\Sigma_n, a function {[\![\sigma]\!]}^A\colon A^n\longrightarrow A called the interpretation of \sigma. We write such a \Sigma-algebra as (A,({[\![\sigma]\!]}^A)_{n\in\mathbb{N},\sigma\in\Sigma_n}) or simply (A,{[\![-]\!]}^A). We often omit the superscript in {[\![-]\!]}^A.
If (A,{[\![-]\!]}^A) and (B,{[\![-]\!]}^{B}) are \Sigma-algebras, then a \Sigma-homomorphism from (A,{[\![-]\!]}^A) to (B,{[\![-]\!]}^{B}) is a function f\colon A\longrightarrow B such that for any n\in\mathbb{N}, \sigma\in\Sigma_n and a_1,\dots,a_n\in A,
holds (that is, the diagram
commutes).
Let \Sigma be a graded set. The graded set T(\Sigma)=(T(\Sigma)_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} of \Sigma-terms is defined inductively as follows.
For each n\in\mathbb{N} and i\in\{1,\dots,n\},
We sometimes omit the superscript and write x_i for x_i^{(n)}.
For each n,k\in\mathbb{N}, \sigma\in\Sigma_k and t_1,\dots,t_k\in T(\Sigma)_n,
When k=0, we usually omit the parentheses in \sigma() and write instead as \sigma.
Let \Sigma be a graded set and (A,{[\![-]\!]}) be a \Sigma-algebra. We define the interpretation {[\![-]\!]'} of \Sigma-terms recursively as follows.
For each n\in\mathbb{N} and i\in\{1,\dots,n\},
is the i-th projection (a_1,\dots,a_n)\longmapsto a_i.
For each n,k\in\mathbb{N}, \sigma\in\Sigma_k and t_1\dots,t_k\in T(\Sigma)_n,
maps (a_1,\dots,a_n)\in A^n to {[\![\sigma]\!]}({[\![t_1]\!]'}(a_1,\dots,a_n),\dots, {[\![t_k]\!]'}(a_1,\dots,a_n)); that is, {[\![\sigma(t_1,\dots,t_k)]\!]'} is the following composite:
Note that for any n\in\mathbb{N} and \sigma\in\Sigma_n, {[\![\sigma]\!]}={[\![\sigma(x^{(n)}_1,\dots,x^{(n)}_n)]\!]'}. Henceforth, for any \Sigma-term t we simply write {[\![t]\!]} for {[\![t]\!]'} defined above.
Let \Sigma be a graded set. An element of the graded set T(\Sigma)\times T(\Sigma) is called a \Sigma-equation. We write a \Sigma-equation (n,(t,s))\in T(\Sigma)\times T(\Sigma) (that is, n\in\mathbb{N} and t,s\in T(\Sigma)_n) as t\approx_n s or t\approx s.
A presentation of an equational theory {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} is a pair consisting of:
a graded set \Sigma of basic operations, and
a graded set E\subseteq T(\Sigma)\times T(\Sigma) of equational axioms.
Let {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} be a presentation of an equational theory.
A model of {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} is a \Sigma-algebra (A,{[\![-]\!]}) such that for any t\approx_n s\in E, {[\![t]\!]}={[\![s]\!]} holds.
A homomorphism between models of {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} is just a \Sigma-homomorphism between the corresponding \Sigma-algebras.
Let {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} be a presentation of an equational theory.
Define the set of {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}-proofs inductively by the following inference rules. Every {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}-proof is a finite rooted tree whose vertices are labelled by \Sigma-equations.
(Ax) (if t\approx_n s \in E) t\approx_n s
(Refl) t\approx_n t t\approx_n s (Sym) s\approx_n t t\approx_n s s\approx_n u (Trans) t\approx_n u
s\approx_k s' t_1\approx_n t'_1 \cdots t_k\approx_n t'_k (Cong) s[x^{(k)}_1 \mapsto t_1, \dots, x^{(k)}_k\mapsto t_k]\approx_n s'[x^{(k)}_1 \mapsto t'_1, \dots, x^{(k)}_k\mapsto t'_k]
A \Sigma-equation t\approx_n s\in T(\Sigma)\times T(\Sigma) is called an equational theorem of {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} if there exists a {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}-proof whose root is labelled by t\approx_n s. We write
to mean that t\approx_n s is an equational theorem of {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}, and denote by \overline{E}\subseteq T(\Sigma)\times T(\Sigma) the graded set of all equational theorems of {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}.
Let \Sigma be a graded set and (A,{[\![-]\!]}) be a \Sigma-algebra. For any \Sigma-equation t\approx_n s\in T(\Sigma)\times T(\Sigma), we write
to mean {[\![t]\!]}={[\![s]\!]}.
Let {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} be a presentation of an equational theory. For any \Sigma-equation t\approx_n s\in T(\Sigma)\times T(\Sigma), we write
to mean that for any model (A,{[\![-]\!]}) of {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}, (A,{[\![-]\!]})\vDash t\approx_n s.
Let {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} be a presentation of an equational theory.
(Soundness) Let t\approx_n s\in T(\Sigma)\times T(\Sigma). If {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}\vdash t\approx_n s then {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}\vDash t\approx_n s.
(Completeness) Let t\approx_n s\in T(\Sigma)\times T(\Sigma). If {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}\vDash t\approx_n s then {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}\vdash t\approx_n s.
The soundness theorem is proved by a straightforward induction over {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}-proofs. For the completeness theorem, see e.g., [Johnstone_notes, Corollary 1.5] or [Burris_Sankappanavar, Section II.14].
A clone \mathsf{T} consists of:
(CD1) a graded set T=(T_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}};
(CD2) for each n\in\mathbb{N} and i\in\{1,\dots,n\}, an element
(CD3) for each k,n\in\mathbb{N}, a function
whose action on an element (\phi,\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k)\in T_k\times (T_n)^k we write as \phi\circ^{(n)}_k(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k) or simply as \phi\circ(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k);
satisfying the following equations:
(CA1) for each k,n\in\mathbb{N}, j\in\{1,\dots,k\} and \theta_1,\dots,\theta_k\in T_n,
(CA2) for each n\in\mathbb{N}, \theta\in T_n,
(CA3) for each l,k,n\in\mathbb{N}, \psi\in T_l, \phi_1,\dots,\phi_l\in T_k, \theta_1,\dots,\theta_k\in T_n,
Such a clone is written as \mathsf{T}=(T,(p^{(i)}_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N},i\in\{1,\dots,n\}}, (\circ^{(n)}_k)_{k,n\in\mathbb{N}}) or simply (T,p,\circ).
Let A be a set. Define the clone \mathsf{End}(A)=({\langle A, A\rangle},p,\circ)
as follows:
(CD1) for each n\in\mathbb{N}, let {\langle A, A\rangle}_n be the set of all functions from A^n to A;
(CD2) for each n\in\mathbb{N} and i\in\{1,\dots,n\}, let p^{(n)}_i be the i-th projection A^n\longrightarrow A, (a_1,\dots,a_n)\longmapsto a_i;
(CD3) for each k,n\in\mathbb{N}, g\colon A^k\longrightarrow A and f_1,\dots,f_k\colon A^n\longrightarrow A, let g\circ^{(n)}_k(f_1,\dots,f_k) be the function (a_1,\dots,a_n)\longmapsto g(f_1(a_1,\dots,a_n),\dots,f_k(a_1,\dots,a_n)), that is, the following composite:
It is straightforward to check the axioms (CA1)–(CA3).
Let \mathsf{T}=(T,p,\circ) and \mathsf{T'}=(T',p',\circ') be clones. A clone homomorphism from \mathsf{T} to \mathsf{T'} is a morphism of graded sets (Definition 2.1) h\colon T\longrightarrow T' which preserves the structure of clones; precisely,
for each n\in\mathbb{N} and i\in\{1,\dots,n\}, h_n(p^{(n)}_i)=p'^{(n)}_i;
for each k,n\in\mathbb{N}, \phi\in T_k and \theta_1,\dots,\theta_k\in T_n,
Let \mathsf{T} be a clone. A model of \mathsf{T} consists of a set A and a clone homomorphism \alpha\colon \mathsf{T}\longrightarrow \mathsf{End}(A).
Let A and B be sets. The graded set {\langle A, B\rangle} is defined by setting, for each n\in\mathbb{N}, {\langle A, B\rangle}_n be the set of all functions from A^n to B.
Let A,A' and B be sets and f\colon A'\longrightarrow A be a function. The morphism of graded sets {\langle f, B\rangle}\colon{\langle A, B\rangle}\longrightarrow{\langle A', B\rangle} is defined by setting, for each n\in\mathbb{N}, {\langle f, B\rangle}_n\colon{\langle A, B\rangle}_n\longrightarrow{\langle A', B\rangle}_n be the precomposition by f^n\colon (A')^n\longrightarrow A^n; that is, h\longmapsto h\circ f^n.
Let A,B and B' be sets and g\colon B\longrightarrow B' be a function. The morphism of graded sets {\langle A, g\rangle}\colon{\langle A, B\rangle}\longrightarrow{\langle A, B'\rangle} is defined by setting, for each n\in\mathbb{N}, {\langle A, g\rangle}_n\colon{\langle A, B\rangle}_n\longrightarrow{\langle A, B'\rangle}_n be the postcomposition by g\colon B\longrightarrow B'; that is, h\longmapsto g\circ h.
Let \mathsf{T} be a clone, and (A,\alpha) and (B,\beta) be models of \mathsf{T}. A homomorphism from (A,\alpha) to (B,\beta) is a function f\colon A\longrightarrow B making the following diagram of morphisms of graded sets commute:
Let \Sigma be a graded set. The clone \mathsf{T}(\Sigma) is the free clone generated from the graded set \Sigma. That is, the morphism of graded sets \eta_\Sigma\colon \Sigma\longrightarrow T(\Sigma), defined by (\eta_\Sigma)_n(\sigma)=\sigma(x^{(n)}_1,\dots,x^{(n)}_n) for each n\in\mathbb{N} and \sigma\in\Sigma_n, satisfies the following property: given any clone \mathsf{S}=(S,p,\circ) and any morphism of graded sets f\colon \Sigma\longrightarrow S, there exists a unique clone homomorphism g\colon \mathsf{T}(\Sigma)\longrightarrow \mathsf{S} such that g\circ \eta_\Sigma=f.
The clone homomorphism g may be defined by using the inductive nature of the definition of T(\Sigma), as follows:
for each n\in\mathbb{N} and i\in\{1,\dots,n\}, let
for each k,n\in\mathbb{N}, \sigma\in\Sigma_k and t_1,\dots,t_k\in T(\Sigma)_n, let
To check that g is indeed a clone homomorphism, it suffices to show for each s\in T(\Sigma)_k and t_1,\dots,t_k\in T(\Sigma)_n,
this can be shown by induction on s. The uniqueness of g is clear.
Let {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} be a presentation of an equational theory. The clone homomorphism q\colon \mathsf{T}(\Sigma)\longrightarrow \mathsf{T}^{{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}, defined by q_n(\theta)=[\theta]_{\overline{E}} for each n\in\mathbb{N} and \theta\in T(\Sigma)_n, satisfies the following property: given any clone \mathsf{S}=(S,p,\circ) and a clone homomorphism g\colon \mathsf{T}(\Sigma)\longrightarrow \mathsf{S} such that for any t\approx_n s\in E, g_n(t)=g_n(s), there exists a unique clone homomorphism h\colon \mathsf{T}^{{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}\longrightarrow\mathsf{S} such that h\circ q=g.
The clone homomorphism h is given by h_n([\theta]_{\overline{E}})=g_n(\theta); this is shown to be well-defined by induction on {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}}-proofs (see Definition 2.8). The uniqueness of h is immediate from the surjectivity of q.
Let \Sigma be a graded set. The graded set T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma)=(T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma)_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}} of strongly regular \Sigma-terms is defined inductively as follows.
x^{(1)}_1\in T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma)_1.
For each k,n_1,\dots,n_k\in\mathbb{N}, \sigma\in\Sigma_k and t_1\in T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma)_{n_1},\dots,t_k\in T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma)_{n_k}, writing n_1+\dots+n_k=n,
When k=0, we usually write \sigma instead of \sigma().
Let \Sigma be a graded set. An element of the graded set T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma)\times T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma) is called a strongly regular \Sigma-equation. We write a strongly regular \Sigma-equation (n,(t,s))\in T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma)\times T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma) as t\approx_n s or t\approx s.
A strongly regular presentation of an equational theory {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} is a pair consisting of:
a graded set \Sigma of basic operations, and
a graded set E\subseteq T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma)\times T_\mathrm{SR}(\Sigma) of (strongly regular) equational axioms.
A non-symmetric operad \mathsf{T} consists of:
(ND1) a graded set T=(T_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}};
(ND2) an element {\mathrm{id}_{}}\in T_1;
(ND3) for each k,n_1,\dots,n_k\in \mathbb{N}, a function (we omit the sub- and superscripts)
whose action we write as (\phi,\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k)\longmapsto \phi\circ (\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k)
satisfying the following equations:
(NA1) for each n\in\mathbb{N} and \theta\in T_n,
(NA2) for each n\in\mathbb{N} and \theta\in T_n,
(NA3) for each l,\ k_1,\dots,k_l,\ n_{1,1},\dots,n_{1,k_1},\dots,n_{l,1}, \dots,n_{l,k_l}\in\mathbb{N}, \psi\in T_l, \phi_1\in T_{k_1}, \dots, \phi_l\in T_{k_l}, \theta_{1,1}\in T_{n_{1,1}},\dots,\theta_{1,k_1}\in T_{n_{1,k_1}}, \dots, \theta_{l,1}\in T_{n_{l,1}},\dots, \theta_{l,k_l}\in T_{n_{l, k_l}},
Such a non-symmetric operad is written as \mathsf{T}=(T,{\mathrm{id}_{}},\circ).
Let A be a set. Define the non-symmetric operad \mathsf{End}_\mathbf{Set}(A)=({\langle A, A\rangle},{\mathrm{id}_{}},\circ) as follows:
(ND1) for each n\in\mathbb{N}, let {\langle A, A\rangle}_n be the set of all functions from A^n to A;
(ND2) the element {\mathrm{id}_{}}\in{\langle A, A\rangle} is the identity function on A;
(ND3) for each k,n_1,\dots,n_k\in\mathbb{N}, g\colon A^k\longrightarrow A, f_1\colon A^{n_1}\longrightarrow A,\dots,f_k\colon A^{n_k}\longrightarrow A, let g\circ (f_1,\dots,f_k) be the following composite:
Let A be an abelian group. Define the non-symmetric operad \mathsf{End}_\mathbf{Ab}(A)=({\langle A, A\rangle},{\mathrm{id}_{}},\circ) as follows:
(ND1) for each n\in\mathbb{N}, let {\langle A, A\rangle}_n be the set of all group homomorphisms from A^{\otimes n} to A;
(ND2) the element {\mathrm{id}_{}}\in{\langle A, A\rangle} is the identity homomorphism on A;
(ND3) for each k,n_1,\dots,n_k\in\mathbb{N}, g\colon A^{\otimes k} \longrightarrow A, f_1\colon A^{\otimes n_1}\longrightarrow A,\dots, f_k\colon A^{\otimes n_k}\longrightarrow A, let g\circ (f_1,\dots,f_k) be the following composite:
Let \mathsf{T} be a non-symmetric operad.
A set model of \mathsf{T} consists of a set A and a non-symmetric operad homomorphism \mathsf{T}\longrightarrow \mathsf{End}_\mathbf{Set}(A).
An abelian group model of \mathsf{T} consists of an abelian group A and a non-symmetric operad homomorphism \mathsf{T}\longrightarrow \mathsf{End}_\mathbf{Ab}(A).
Homomorphisms between set or abelian group models of \mathsf{T} are defined just as in Definition 2.16.
Let \Sigma be a graded set. An element of the graded set T_\mathrm{R}(\Sigma)\times T_\mathrm{R}(\Sigma) is called a regular \Sigma-equation. We write a regular \Sigma-equation (n,(t,s))\in T_\mathrm{R}(\Sigma)\times T_\mathrm{R}(\Sigma) as t\approx_n s or t\approx s.
A regular presentation of an equational theory {{\langle\, \Sigma\, |\, E \,\rangle}} is a pair consisting of:
a graded set \Sigma of basic operations, and
a graded set E\subseteq T_\mathrm{R}(\Sigma)\times T_\mathrm{R}(\Sigma) of (regular) equational axioms.
A symmetric operad \mathsf{T} consists of:
(SD1) a graded set T=(T_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}};
(SD2) an element {\mathrm{id}_{}}\in T_1;
(SD3) for each k,n_1,\dots,n_k\in\mathbb{N}, a function (we omit the sub- and superscripts)
whose action we write as (\phi,\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k)\longmapsto \phi\circ(\theta_1,\dots,\theta_k);
(SD4) for each n\in\mathbb{N}, a function
satisfying the following equations:
(SA1) for each n\in\mathbb{N} and \theta\in T_n,
(SA2) for each n\in\mathbb{N} and \theta\in T_n,
(SA3) for each l,\ k_1,\dots,k_l,\ n_{1,1},\dots,n_{1,k_1},\dots,n_{l,1}, \dots,n_{l,k_l}\in\mathbb{N}, \psi\in T_l, \phi_1\in T_{k_1}, \dots, \phi_l\in T_{k_l}, \theta_{1,1}\in T_{n_{1,1}},\dots,\theta_{1,k_1}\in T_{n_{1,k_1}}, \dots, \theta_{l,1}\in T_{n_{l,1}},\dots, \theta_{l,k_l}\in T_{n_{l, k_l}},
(SA4) for each n\in\mathbb{N}, the function \bullet\colon \mathfrak{S}_n\times T_n\longrightarrow T_n is a left group action, that is, for each \theta\in T_n and u,v\in \mathfrak{S}_n,
(SA5) for each k,n_1,\dots,n_k\in\mathbb{N}, \phi\in T_k, \theta_1\in T_{n_1},\dots,\theta_k\in T_{n_k} and u_1\in\mathfrak{S}_{n_1},\dots, u_k\in\mathfrak{S}_{n_k},
(SA6) for each k,n_1,\dots,n_k\in\mathbb{N}, \phi\in T_k, \theta_1\in T_{n_1},\dots,\theta_k\in T_{n_k} and v\in\mathfrak{S}_k,
Let \mathcal{C} be a large category.
A monad on \mathcal{C} consists of:
a functor T\colon \mathcal{C}\longrightarrow \mathcal{C};
a natural transformation \eta\colon {\mathrm{id}_{\mathcal{C}}}\longrightarrow T (called the unit);
a natural transformation \mu\colon T\circ T\longrightarrow T (called the multiplication),
making the following diagrams commute:
Let \mathsf{T}=(T,\eta,\mu) and \mathsf{T'}=(T',\eta',\mu') be monads on \mathcal{C}. A morphism of monads on \mathcal{C} from \mathsf{T} to \mathsf{T'} is a natural transformation \alpha\colon T\longrightarrow T' which commutes with the units and multiplications.
We denote the category of monads on \mathcal{C} by {\mathbf{Mnd}(\mathcal{C})}.
Let \mathcal{C} be a large category and \mathsf{T}=(T,\eta,\mu) be a monad on \mathcal{C}.
An Eilenberg–Moore algebra of \mathsf{T} consists of:
an object C\in\mathcal{C};
a morphism \gamma\colon TC\longrightarrow C in \mathcal{C},
making the following diagrams commute:
Let (C,\gamma) and (C',\gamma') be Eilenberg–Moore algebras of \mathsf{T}. A homomorphism from (C,\gamma) to (C',\gamma') is a morphism f\colon C\longrightarrow C' in \mathcal{C} making the following diagram commute:
The category of all Eilenberg–Moore algebras of \mathsf{T} and their homomorphism is celled the Eilenberg–Moore category of \mathsf{T}, and is denoted by \mathcal{C}^\mathsf{T}.
Let \mathcal{C} and \mathcal{D} be categories, and F,G\colon \mathcal{C}\longrightarrow \mathcal{D} be functors. A natural transformation \alpha\colon F\longrightarrow G is called cartesian if and only if all naturality squares of \alpha are pullback squares; that is, if and only if for any morphism f\colon C\longrightarrow C' in \mathcal{C}, the square
is a pullback of Gf and \alpha_{C'}.
Let \mathcal{C} be a category with all pullbacks. A monad \mathsf{S}=(S,\eta,\mu) on \mathcal{C} is called cartesian if and only if the functor S preserves pullbacks, and \eta and \mu are cartesian.
Let \mathcal{C} be a large category with all finite limits and \mathsf{S}=(S,\eta,\mu) a cartesian monad on \mathcal{C}.
An \mathsf{S}-operad is a monoid object in the monoidal category (\mathcal{C}/S1,I,\otimes) introduced above; see Definition 3.1 for the definition of monoid object in a monoidal category.
A morphism of \mathsf{S}-operads is a homomorphism of monoid objects; see Definition 3.1 again.
We denote the category of \mathsf{S}-operads by {{\mathsf{S}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Opd}}; by definition it is identical to the category {\mathbf{Mon}(\mathcal{C}/S1)} of monoid objects in \mathcal{C}/S1.
If we let \mathcal{C}=\mathbf{Set} and \mathsf{S} be the free monoid monad (which is cartesian), then \mathsf{S}-operads are equivalent to non-symmetric operads. The arities are the natural numbers: S1\cong\mathbb{N}.
In more detail, the data of an \mathsf{S}-operad in this case consist of a set T, and functions {\mathrm{ar}_{T}}\colon T\longrightarrow \mathbb{N}, e\colon 1\longrightarrow T and m\colon (T,{\mathrm{ar}_{T}})\ast T\longrightarrow T. Unravelling this, we obtain a graded set (T_n)_{n\in\mathbb{N}}, an element {\mathrm{id}_{}}\in T_1 and a family of functions (m_{k,n_1,\dots n_k}\colon T_k\times T_{n_1}\times\dots \times T_{n_k} \longrightarrow T_{n_1+\dots +n_k})_{k,n_1,\dots,n_k\in\mathbb{N}}, agreeing with Definition 2.22. Note that indeed T_n may be interpreted as the set of all (derived) operations of arity n.
If we set \mathcal{C}={{n}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}, the category of n-graphs for n\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{\omega\} and \mathsf{S} be the free strict n-category monad, then \mathsf{S}-operads are called n-globular operads; see [Leinster_book, Chapter 8] for illustrations. These generalised operads have been used to give a definition of weak n-categories, and they (and their generalisations) will play a central role in the second part of this thesis.
Let \mathcal{C} be a large category with finite limits, \mathsf{S}=(S,\eta,\mu) a cartesian monad on \mathcal{C}, and \mathsf{T}=(T,e,m) an \mathsf{S}-operad.
A model of \mathsf{T} consists of:
an object C\in\mathcal{C};
a morphism \gamma\colon T\ast C\longrightarrow C in \mathcal{C},
making the following diagrams commute:
where the arrows labelled with \cong refer to the isomorphisms provided by the pseudo action.
Let (C,\gamma) and (C',\gamma') be models of \mathsf{T}. A homomorphism from (C,\gamma) to (C',\gamma') is a morphism f\colon C\longrightarrow C' in \mathcal{C} making the following diagram commute:
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a large monoidal category.
A monoid object in \mathcal{M} (or simply a monoid in \mathcal{M}) is a triple \mathsf{T}=(T,e,m) consisting of an object T in \mathcal{M}, and morphisms e\colon I\longrightarrow T and m\colon T\otimes T\longrightarrow T in \mathcal{M}, such that the following diagrams commute:
(Recall that the arrows labelled with \cong are the suitable instances of structural isomorphisms of \mathcal{M}.)
Let \mathsf{T}=(T,e,m) and \mathsf{T'}=(T',e',m') be monoid objects in \mathcal{M}. A homomorphism from \mathsf{T} to \mathsf{T'} is a morphism f\colon T\longrightarrow T' in \mathcal{M} such that the following diagrams commute:
The category of all monoid objects in \mathcal{M} and homomorphisms is denoted by {\mathbf{Mon}(\mathcal{M})}.
Let \mathbf{F} be the category defined as follows:
The set of objects is {\mathrm{ob}(\mathbf{F})}=\{\,[n]\mid n\in\mathbb{N}\,\}, where for each natural number n\in\mathbb{N}, [n] is defined to be the n-element set \{1,\dots,n\}.
A morphism is any function between these sets.
The substitution monoidal structure on [\mathbf{F},\mathbf{Set}] is defined as follows:
The unit object is I=\mathbf{F}([1],-)\colon \mathbf{F}\longrightarrow\mathbf{Set}.
Given X,Y\colon \mathbf{F}\longrightarrow\mathbf{Set}, their monoidal product Y\otimes X\colon \mathbf{F}\longrightarrow\mathbf{Set} maps [n]\in\mathbf{F} to
The above constructions establish an isomorphism of categories between the category of clones and {\mathbf{Mon}([\mathbf{F},\mathbf{Set}])}.
Let \mathbf{P} be the category defined as follows:
The set of objects is the same as \mathbf{F}: {\mathrm{ob}(\mathbf{P})}=\{\,[n]\mid n\in\mathbb{N}\,\} where [n]=\{1,\dots,n\}.
A morphism is any bijective function.
The substitution monoidal structure on [\mathbf{P},\mathbf{Set}] is defined as follows:
The unit object is I=\mathbf{P}([1],-)\colon\mathbf{P}\longrightarrow\mathbf{Set}.
Given X,Y\colon\mathbf{P}\longrightarrow\mathbf{Set}, their monoidal product Y\otimes X\colon \mathbf{P}\longrightarrow\mathbf{Set} maps [n]\in\mathbf{P} to
where
The category of symmetric operads is isomorphic to {\mathbf{Mon}([\mathbf{P},\mathbf{Set}])}.
Let \mathbf{N} be the category defined as follows:
The set of objects is the same as \mathbf{F} and \mathbf{P}.
There are only identity morphisms in \mathbf{N}.
The substitution monoidal structure on [\mathbf{N},\mathbf{Set}] is defined as follows:
The unit object is I=\mathbf{N}([1],-)\colon \mathbf{N}\longrightarrow \mathbf{Set}.
Given X,Y\colon \mathbf{N}\longrightarrow\mathbf{Set}, their monoidal product Y\otimes X\colon\mathbf{N}\longrightarrow\mathbf{Set} maps [n]\in\mathbf{N} to
The category of non-symmetric operads is isomorphic to {\mathbf{Mon}([\mathbf{N},\mathbf{Set}])}.
Let \mathcal{C} be a large category. Define the monoidal category [\mathcal{C},\mathcal{C}]=([\mathcal{C},\mathcal{C}],{\mathrm{id}_{\mathcal{C}}},\circ) of endofunctors on \mathcal{C} as follows:
The underlying category is the category [\mathcal{C},\mathcal{C}] of all functors \mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C} and natural transformations.
The unit object is the identity functor {\mathrm{id}_{C}} on \mathcal{C}.
The monoidal product is given by composition of functors.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a large monoidal category. An enrichment over \mathcal{M} consists of:
a large category \mathcal{C};
a functor {\langle -, -\rangle}\colon\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{M};
a natural transformation (j_C\colon I\longrightarrow{\langle C, C\rangle})_{C\in\mathcal{C}};
a natural transformation (M_{A,B,C}\colon{\langle B, C\rangle}\otimes{\langle A, B\rangle} \longrightarrow{\langle A, C\rangle})_{A,B,C\in\mathcal{C}},
making the following diagrams commute for all A,B,C,D\in\mathcal{C}:
We say that (\mathcal{C},{\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) is an enrichment over \mathcal{M}, or that ({\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) is an enrichment of \mathcal{C} over \mathcal{M}.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a large monoidal category, \mathsf{T}=(T,e,m) be a monoid object in \mathcal{M}, \mathcal{C} be a large category, and {\langle -, -\rangle}=({\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) be an enrichment of \mathcal{C} over \mathcal{M}.
A model of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to {\langle -, -\rangle} is a pair (C,\chi) consisting of an object C of \mathcal{C} and a monoid homomorphism \chi\colon \mathsf{T}\longrightarrow\mathsf{End}_{\langle -, -\rangle}(C); that is, a morphism \chi\colon T\longrightarrow {\langle C, C\rangle} in \mathcal{M} making the following diagrams commute:
Let (C,\chi) and (C',\chi') be models of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to {\langle -, -\rangle}. A homomorphism from (C,\chi) to (C',\chi') is a morphism f\colon C\longrightarrow C' in \mathcal{C} making the following diagram commute:
We denote the (large) category of models of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to {\langle -, -\rangle} by {\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{T},(\mathcal{C},{\langle -, -\rangle}))}.
Recall that clones may be identified with monoids in [\mathbf{F},\mathbf{Set}] with the substitution monoidal structure. Let \mathcal{C} be a locally small(Recall that by Convention 1.3, “locally small” implies “large”.) category with all finite powers. We have an enrichment of \mathcal{C} over [\mathbf{F},\mathbf{Set}] defined as follows:
The functor {\langle -, -\rangle}\colon \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C} \longrightarrow[\mathbf{F},\mathbf{Set}] maps A,B\in\mathcal{C} and [n]\in\mathbf{F} to the set
The natural transformation (j_C\colon I\longrightarrow {\langle C, C\rangle})_{C\in\mathcal{C}} corresponds by the Yoneda lemma (recall that I=\mathbf{F}([1],-)) to the family
The natural transformation (M_{A,B,C}\colon {\langle B, C\rangle}\otimes {\langle A, B\rangle}\longrightarrow{\langle A, C\rangle})_{A,B,C\in\mathcal{C}} corresponds by the universality of coends (recall that (Y\otimes X)_{n}=\int^{[k]\in\mathbf{F}} Y_k\times (X_n)^k) to the family whose (A,B,C)-th component is given by
mapping (g,f_1,\dots,f_k)\in \mathcal{C}(B^k,C)\times \mathcal{C}(A^n,B)^k to g\circ\langle f_1,\dots,f_k\rangle\in\mathcal{C}(A^n,B).
Clearly the definition of the clone \mathsf{End}(A) from a set A (Definition 2.12) is derived from the above enrichment, by setting \mathcal{C}=\mathbf{Set}. Consequently, we restore the classical definitions of model (Definition 2.14) and homomorphism between models (Definition 2.16) for clones as instances of Definition 3.13.
Symmetric operads may be identified with monoids in [\mathbf{P},\mathbf{Set}] with the substitution monoidal structure. Let \mathcal{C}=(\mathcal{C},I',\otimes') be a locally small symmetric monoidal category. We have an enrichment of \mathcal{C} over [\mathbf{P},\mathbf{Set}] defined as follows:
The functor {\langle -, -\rangle}\colon \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C} \longrightarrow[\mathbf{P},\mathbf{Set}] maps A,B\in\mathcal{C} and [n]\in\mathbf{P} to the set
where A^{\otimes' n} is the monoidal product of n many copies of A.
The natural transformation (j_C\colon I\longrightarrow {\langle C, C\rangle})_{C\in\mathcal{C}} corresponds by the Yoneda lemma (recall that I=\mathbf{P}([1],-)) to the family
The natural transformation (M_{A,B,C}\colon {\langle B, C\rangle}\otimes {\langle A, B\rangle}\longrightarrow{\langle A, C\rangle})_{A,B,C\in\mathcal{C}} corresponds by the universality of coends (recall Definition 3.6) to the family whose (A,B,C)-th component is given by
which is the unique function from the empty set if n\neq n_1+\dots+n_k and, if n= n_1+\dots+n_k, maps (g,u,f_1,\dots,f_k)\in \mathcal{C}(B^{\otimes' k},C)\times \mathbf{P}([n_1+\dots+n_k],[n])\times \mathcal{C}(A^{\otimes' n_1},B) \times\dots\times \mathcal{C}(A^{\otimes' n_k},B) to g\circ (f_1\otimes'\dots\otimes' f_k)\circ A^{\otimes' u}.
Via the above enrichment, we restore the classical definitions of model and homomorphism between models for symmetric operads.
Non-symmetric operads may be identified with monoids in [\mathbf{N},\mathbf{Set}] with the substitution monoidal structure. Let \mathcal{C}=(\mathcal{C},I',\otimes') be a locally small monoidal category. We have an enrichment of \mathcal{C} over [\mathbf{N},\mathbf{Set}] which is similar to, and simpler than, the one in the previous example.
This enrichment restores the classical definitions of model and homomorphism between models for non-symmetric operads, including Definition 2.25 (take \mathcal{C}=(\mathbf{Set},1,\times) for set models and \mathcal{C}=(\mathbf{Ab},\mathbb{Z},\otimes) for abelian group models).
We may also consider infinitary variants of Example 3.14. Here we take an extreme. Let \mathcal{C} be a locally small category with all small powers. Then we obtain an enrichment of \mathcal{C} over [\mathbf{Set},\mathbf{Set}], the category of endofunctors on \mathbf{Set} with composition as the monoidal product.
The functor {\langle -, -\rangle}\colon \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times \mathcal{C}\longrightarrow[\mathbf{Set},\mathbf{Set}] maps A,B\in\mathcal{C} and X\in \mathbf{Set} to the set
where A^X is the X-th power of A.
The natural transformation (j_C\colon {\mathrm{id}_{\mathbf{Set}}}\longrightarrow {\langle C, C\rangle})_{C\in\mathcal{C}} corresponds by the Yoneda lemma (note that {\mathrm{id}_{\mathbf{Set}}}\cong\mathbf{Set}(1,-), where 1 is a singleton) to the family
The natural transformation (M_{A,B,C}\colon {\langle B, C\rangle}\circ{\langle A, B\rangle}\longrightarrow{\langle A, C\rangle})_{A,B,C\in\mathcal{C}} has the X-th component (X\in\mathbf{Set})
the function induced from the canonical morphism A^X\longrightarrow B^{\mathcal{C}(A^X,B)} in \mathcal{C}.
Since monoids in [\mathbf{Set},\mathbf{Set}] are precisely monads on \mathbf{Set}, this enrichment gives us a definition of model of a monad \mathsf{T} on \mathbf{Set} in \mathcal{C}. To spell this out, first note that for any object C\in\mathcal{C}, the functor {\langle C, C\rangle}\colon \mathbf{Set}\longrightarrow\mathbf{Set} which maps X\in\mathbf{Set} to \mathcal{C}(C^X,C) acquires the monad structure, giving rise to the monad \mathsf{End}_{{\langle -, -\rangle}}(C) on \mathbf{Set}. A model of \mathsf{T} is then an object C\in\mathcal{C} together with a monad morphism \mathsf{T}\longrightarrow\mathsf{End}_{{\langle -, -\rangle}}(C). This is the definition of relative algebra of a monad on \mathbf{Set} by Hino, Kobayashi, Hasuo and Jacobs [Hino]. As noted in [Hino], in the case where \mathcal{C}=\mathbf{Set}, relative algebras of a monad \mathsf{T} on \mathbf{Set} agree with Eilenberg–Moore algebras of \mathsf{T}; we shall later show this fact in Example 3.30.
Let \mathcal{S} be a large category and consider the monoidal category [\mathcal{S},\mathcal{S}] of endofunctors on \mathcal{S}, with composition as the monoidal product. Then an enrichment over [\mathcal{S},\mathcal{S}] is the same thing as an \mathcal{S}-parameterised monad (without strength) in the sense of Atkey [Atkey_parameterised, Definition 1], introduced in the study of computational effects.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a large monoidal category. The (locally large) 2-category {\mathscr{E}\!nrich(\mathcal{M})} of enrichments over \mathcal{M} is defined as follows:
An object is an enrichment (\mathcal{C},{\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) over \mathcal{M}.
A 1-cell from (\mathcal{C},{\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) to (\mathcal{C'},{\langle -, -\rangle}',j',M') is a functor G\colon\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C'} together with a natural transformation (g_{A,B}\colon{\langle A, B\rangle}\longrightarrow{\langle GA, GB\rangle}')_{A,B\in\mathcal{C}} making the following diagrams commute for all A,B,C\in\mathcal{C}:
A 2-cell from (G,g) to (G',g'), both from (\mathcal{C},{\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) to (\mathcal{C'},{\langle -, -\rangle}',j', M'), is a natural transformation \theta\colon G\Longrightarrow G' making the following diagram commute for all A,B\in\mathcal{C}:
Let {\mathscr{F\!P}\!ow} be the 2-category of locally small categories with chosen finite powers, functors preserving finite powers (in the usual sense(That is, we do not require these functors to preserve the chosen finite powers on the nose.)) and all natural transformations. We have a canonical 2-functor
which is fully faithful (see Section ? for the definition of full faithfulness for 2-functors).
Let {\mathscr{F\!P}\!rod} be the 2-category of locally small categories with chosen finite products, functors preserving finite products (in the usual sense) and all natural transformations. We have a canonical 2-functor
which is locally fully faithful.
Hence we may restore the classical functoriality of {\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{T},-)} for a clone \mathsf{T}, recalled above, if we could show that it is functorial with respect to morphisms in {\mathscr{E}\!nrich([\mathbf{F},\mathbf{Set}])}.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I_\mathcal{M},\otimes_\mathcal{M}) and \mathcal{N}=(\mathcal{N},I_\mathcal{N},\otimes_\mathcal{N}) be large monoidal categories, F=(F,f_\cdot,f)\colon\mathcal{M}\longrightarrow\mathcal{N} be a lax monoidal functor,(In more detail, such a lax monoidal functor (also called monoidal functors in e.g., [MacLane_CWM]) (F,f_\cdot,f) consists of a functor F\colon\mathcal{M}\longrightarrow\mathcal{N}, a morphism f_\cdot\colon I_\mathcal{N}\longrightarrow FI_\mathcal{M} and a natural transformation (f_{X,Y}\colon FY\otimes_\mathcal{N}FX\longrightarrow F(Y\otimes_\mathcal{M} X))_{X,Y\in\mathcal{M}} satisfying the suitable axioms.) \mathcal{C} be a large category and {\langle -, -\rangle}=({\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) be an enrichment of \mathcal{C} over \mathcal{M}. We define the enrichment F_\ast({\langle -, -\rangle})=({\langle -, -\rangle}',j',M') of \mathcal{C} over \mathcal{N} as follows:
The functor {\langle -, -\rangle}'\colon\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{N} maps (A,B)\in\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C} to F{\langle A, B\rangle}.
The natural transformation (j'_C\colon I_\mathcal{N}\longrightarrow{\langle C, C\rangle}')_{C\in\mathcal{C}} is defined by j'_C=Fj_C\circ f_\cdot:
The natural transformation (M'_{A,B,C}\colon {\langle B, C\rangle}'\otimes_\mathcal{N}{\langle A, B\rangle}'\longrightarrow{\langle A, C\rangle}')_{A, B,C\in\mathcal{C}} is defined by M'_{A,B,C}=FM_{A,B,C}\circ f_{{\langle A, B\rangle},{\langle B, C\rangle}}:
Let \mathcal{M} be a large monoidal category. The 2-category {\mathscr{E}\!nrich'(\mathcal{M})} is defined as follows:
An object is a triple (\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D},J) consisting of a large category \mathcal{C}, a large \mathcal{M}-category \mathcal{D} and an identity-on-objects functor J\colon\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow \mathcal{D}_0.
A 1-cell from (\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D},J) to (\mathcal{C'},\mathcal{D'},J') is given by a functor G\colon \mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C'} and an \mathcal{M}-functor H\colon \mathcal{D}\longrightarrow\mathcal{D'} such that H_0\circ J=J'\circ G.
A 2-cell from (G,H) to (G',H'), both from (\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D},J) to (\mathcal{C'},\mathcal{D'},J'), is given by a natural transformation \theta\colon G\Longrightarrow G' and an \mathcal{M}-natural transformation \phi\colon H\Longrightarrow H' such that \phi_0\circ J=J'\circ \theta.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a large monoidal category. An oplax action of \mathcal{M} consists of:
a large category \mathcal{C};
a functor \ast \colon \mathcal{M}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C};
a natural transformation (\varepsilon_C\colon I\ast C\longrightarrow C)_{C\in\mathcal{C}};
a natural transformation (\delta_{X,Y,C}\colon (Y\otimes X)\ast C\longrightarrow Y\ast (X\ast C))_{X,Y\in\mathcal{M},C\in\mathcal{C}},(We have chosen to set \delta_{X,Y,C}\colon (Y\otimes X)\ast C \longrightarrow Y\ast (X\ast C) and not \delta_{X,Y,C}\colon (X\otimes Y)\ast C \longrightarrow X\ast (Y\ast C), because the former agrees with the convention to write composition of morphisms in the anti-diagrammatic order, which we adopt throughout this thesis.)
making the following diagrams commute for all X,Y,Z\in\mathcal{M} and C\in\mathcal{C}:
We say that (\mathcal{C},\ast,\varepsilon,\delta) is an oplax action of \mathcal{M}, or that (\ast,\varepsilon,\delta) is an oplax action of \mathcal{M} on \mathcal{C}.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a large monoidal category, \mathsf{T}=(T,e,m) be a monoid object in \mathcal{M}, \mathcal{C} be a large category, and \ast=(\ast,\varepsilon,\delta) be an oplax action of \mathcal{M} on \mathcal{C}.
A model of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to \ast is a pair (C,\gamma) consisting of an object C\in\mathcal{C} and a morphism \gamma\colon T\ast C\longrightarrow C in \mathcal{C} making the following diagrams commute:
Let (C,\gamma) and (C',\gamma') be models of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to \ast. A homomorphism from (C,\gamma) to (C',\gamma') is a morphism f\colon C\longrightarrow C' in \mathcal{C} making the following diagram commute:
We denote the (large) category of models of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to \ast by {\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{T},(\mathcal{C},\ast))}.
Let \mathcal{C} be a large category. Recall that monads on \mathcal{C} are precisely monoids in the monoidal category [\mathcal{C},\mathcal{C}] whose monoidal product is given by composition. We have a strict action
given by evaluation: (X,C)\longmapsto XC.
This clearly generates the definitions of Eilenberg–Moore algebra and homomorphism (Definition 2.30).
Let \mathcal{C} be a large category with finite limits and \mathsf{S}=(S,\eta,\mu) be a cartesian monad on \mathcal{C}. Recall that under these assumptions the slice category \mathcal{C}/S1 acquires a structure (I,\otimes) of monoidal category, and an \mathsf{S}-operad is a monoid in (\mathcal{C}/S1,I,\otimes). Models of an \mathsf{S}-operad and their homomorphisms (Definition 2.35) were introduced by using the pseudo action
in the first place, and therefore are immediately an instance of the above general definitions.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a large monoidal category. The (locally large) 2-category {\mathscr{A}\!ct_{\mathrm{oplax}}(\mathcal{M})} of oplax actions of \mathcal{M} is defined as follows:
An object is an oplax action (\mathcal{C},\ast,\varepsilon,\delta) of \mathcal{M}.
A 1-cell from (\mathcal{C},\ast,\varepsilon,\delta) to (\mathcal{C'},\ast',\varepsilon',\delta') is a functor G\colon \mathcal{C} \longrightarrow\mathcal{C'} together with a natural transformation (g_{X,C}\colon X\ast' GC\longrightarrow G(X\ast C))_{X\in\mathcal{M},C\in\mathcal{C}} making the following diagrams commute for all X,Y\in\mathcal{M} and C\in\mathcal{C}:
A 2-cell from (G,g) to (G',g'), both from (\mathcal{C},\ast,\varepsilon,\delta) to (\mathcal{C'},\ast',\varepsilon',\delta'), is a natural transformation \theta\colon G\Longrightarrow G' making the following diagram commute for all X\in\mathcal{M} and C\in\mathcal{C}:
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I_\mathcal{M},\otimes_\mathcal{M}) and \mathcal{N}=(\mathcal{N},I_\mathcal{N},\otimes_\mathcal{N}) be large monoidal categories, G=(G,g_\cdot,g)\colon\mathcal{N}\longrightarrow\mathcal{M} be an oplax monoidal functor,(Such an oplax functor consists of a functor G\colon\mathcal{N}\longrightarrow\mathcal{M}, a morphism g_\cdot\colon GI_\mathcal{N}\longrightarrow I_\mathcal{M} and a natural transformation (g_{X,Y}\colon G(Y\otimes_\mathcal{N}X) \longrightarrow GY\otimes_\mathcal{M} GX)_{X,Y\in\mathcal{N}} satisfying the suitable axioms.) \mathcal{C} be a large category and \ast=(\ast,\varepsilon,\delta) be an oplax action of \mathcal{M} on \mathcal{C}. We define the oplax action G^\ast(\ast)=(\ast',\varepsilon',\delta') of \mathcal{N} on \mathcal{C} as follows:
The functor \ast'\colon\mathcal{N}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C} maps (X,C)\in\mathcal{N}\times\mathcal{C} to (GX)\ast C.
The natural transformation (\varepsilon'_C\colon I_\mathcal{N}\ast' C\longrightarrow C)_{C\in\mathcal{C}} is defined by \varepsilon'_C=\varepsilon_C\circ (g_\cdot\ast C):
The natural transformation (\delta'_{X,Y,C}\colon (Y\otimes_\mathcal{N}X)\ast' C\longrightarrow Y\ast'(X\ast' C))_{X,Y\in\mathcal{N},C\in\mathcal{C}} is defined by \delta'_{X,Y,C}=\delta_{GX,GY,C}\circ (g_{X,Y}\ast C):
Let \mathcal{M} be a large monoidal category.
Let {\mathscr{E}\!nrich^{\mathrm{r}}(\mathcal{M})} be the full sub-2-category of {\mathscr{E}\!nrich(\mathcal{M})} consisting of all enrichments (\mathcal{C},{\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) such that for each C\in\mathcal{C}, {\langle C, -\rangle} is a right adjoint.
Let {\mathscr{A}\!ct^{\mathrm{l}}_{\mathrm{oplax}}(\mathcal{M})} be the full sub-2-category of {\mathscr{A}\!ct_{\mathrm{oplax}}(\mathcal{M})} consisting of all oplax actions (\mathcal{C},\ast,\varepsilon,\delta) such that for each C\in\mathcal{C}, -\ast C is a left adjoint.
Let \mathcal{C} be a locally small category with all small powers. Recall the strict action
of the monoidal category [\mathcal{C},\mathcal{C}] of endofunctors on \mathcal{C} on \mathcal{C}, used to capture Eilenberg–Moore algebras of monads on \mathcal{C}. For any object C\in\mathcal{C}, write by {\lceil C\rceil}\colon 1\longrightarrow\mathcal{C} the functor from the terminal category 1 which maps the unique object of 1 to C\in\mathcal{C} ({\lceil C\rceil} is sometimes called the name of C).
By the assumptions on \mathcal{C}, for any object A\in\mathcal{C} the functor -\ast A (which may be seen as the precomposition by {\lceil A\rceil}\colon 1\longrightarrow\mathcal{C}) admits a right adjoint {\langle A, -\rangle}, which maps any B\in\mathcal{C} (equivalently, {\lceil B\rceil}\colon 1\longrightarrow\mathcal{C}) to the right Kan extension {\langle A, B\rangle}=\mathrm{Ran}_{{\lceil A\rceil}}{\lceil B\rceil} of {\lceil B\rceil} along {\lceil A\rceil}. The functor \mathrm{Ran}_{{\lceil A\rceil}}{\lceil B\rceil}\colon\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C} maps C\in\mathcal{C} to \mathrm{Ran}_{{\lceil A\rceil}}{\lceil B\rceil}(C)=B^{\mathcal{C}(C,A)}.
For any object C\in\mathcal{C}, \mathrm{Ran}_{{\lceil C\rceil}}{\lceil C\rceil} exists and becomes a monad on \mathcal{C} in a canonical way (the codensity monad of {\lceil C\rceil}). For any monad \mathsf{T} on \mathcal{C}, to give a structure of an Eilenberg–Moore algebra on C\in\mathcal{C} is equivalent to give a monad morphism from \mathsf{T} to \mathrm{Ran}_{{\lceil C\rceil}}{\lceil C\rceil}. This observation is in e.g., [Kelly_coherence_lax_dist, Section 3].
In particular, if we take \mathcal{C}=\mathbf{Set}, we see that the above enrichment agrees with the one given in Example 3.17. Hence the notion of relative algebra [Hino] agrees with that of Eilenberg–Moore algebra in this case.
A metatheory is a large monoidal category \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes).
Let \mathcal{M} be a metatheory. A theory in \mathcal{M} is a monoid object \mathsf{T}=(T,e,m) in \mathcal{M}.
We denote the category of theories in \mathcal{M} by {\mathbf{Th}(\mathcal{M})}, which we define to be the same as {\mathbf{Mon}(\mathcal{M})}, the category of monoid objects in \mathcal{M}.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a large monoidal category. The convolution monoidal structure (\widehat{I},\mathbin{\widehat{\otimes}}) on the presheaf category \widehat{\mathcal{M}} =[\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{op}},\mathbf{SET}] is defined as follows.
The unit object \widehat{I} is the representable functor \mathcal{M}(-,I)\colon \mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{op}}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET}.
Given P,Q\in\widehat{\mathcal{M}}, their monoidal product Q\mathbin{\widehat{\otimes}} P\colon \mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{op}}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET} maps Z\in\mathcal{M} to
We define the bicategory {\mathscr{P\!R\!O\!F}} as follows.
An object is a large category.
A 1-cell from \mathcal{A} to \mathcal{B} is a profunctor from \mathcal{A} to \mathcal{B}, which we define to be a functor
We write H\colon \mathcal{A}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to}\mathcal{B} if H is a profunctor from \mathcal{A} to \mathcal{B}. The identity 1-cell on a large category \mathcal{C} is the hom-functor \mathcal{C}(-,-). Given profunctors H\colon \mathcal{A}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to}\mathcal{B} and K\colon \mathcal{B}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to}\mathcal{C}, their composite K\odot H\colon\mathcal{A}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to}\mathcal{C} maps (C,A)\in\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{A} to
A 2-cell from H to H', both from \mathcal{A} to \mathcal{B}, is a natural transformation \alpha\colon H\Longrightarrow H' \colon\mathcal{B}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{A}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET}.
Let \mathcal{C} be a large category. Define the monoidal category [\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times \mathcal{C},\mathbf{SET}] =([\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C},\mathbf{SET}],\mathcal{C}(-,-),\mathbin{\odot^\mathrm{rev}}) of endo-profunctors on \mathcal{C} to be the endo-hom-category {\mathscr{P\!R\!O\!F}}^{\mathrm{op}}(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{C}). More precisely:
The unit object is the hom-functor \mathcal{C}(-,-)\colon \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET}.
Given H,K\colon\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET}, define their monoidal product H\mathbin{\odot^\mathrm{rev}} K to be the functor which maps (A,C)\in\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C} to
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},\otimes, I) be a metatheory. A metamodel of \mathcal{M} consists of:
a large category \mathcal{C};
a functor \Phi\colon \mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET} (whose action we write as (X,A,B)\longmapsto \Phi_X(A,B));
a natural transformation ((\overline{\phi}_\cdot)_C\colon 1\longrightarrow\Phi_I(C,C))_{C\in\mathcal{C}};
a natural transformation
making the following diagrams commute for all X,Y,Z\in\mathcal{M} and A,B,C,D\in\mathcal{C}:
We say that (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) is a metamodel of \mathcal{M}, or that (\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) is a metamodel of \mathcal{M} in \mathcal{C}.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a metatheory, \mathsf{T}=(T,e,m) be a theory in \mathcal{M}, \mathcal{C} be a large category and \Phi=(\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) be a metamodel of \mathcal{M} in \mathcal{C}.
A model of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to \Phi is a pair (C,\xi) consisting of an object C of \mathcal{C} and an element \xi\in \Phi_T(C,C) such that (\Phi_e)_{C,C}(\xi)=(\overline{\phi}_\cdot)_{C}(\ast) (where \ast is the unique element of 1) and (\Phi_m)_{C,C}(\xi)=(\overline{\phi}_{T,T})_{C,C,C}(\xi,\xi):
Let (C,\xi) and (C',\xi') be models of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to \Phi. A homomorphism from (C,\xi) to (C',\xi') is a morphism f\colon C\longrightarrow C' in \mathcal{C} such that \Phi_T(C,f)(\xi)=\Phi_T(f,C')(\xi'):
We denote the (large) category of models of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to \Phi by {\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{T},(\mathcal{C},\Phi))}.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a metatheory, \mathcal{C} be a large category and ({\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) be an enrichment of \mathcal{C} over \mathcal{M}. This induces a metamodel (\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) of \mathcal{M} in \mathcal{C} as follows.
The functor \Phi\colon\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET} maps (X,A,B)\in \mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C} to
For each C\in\mathcal{C}, (\overline{\phi}_\cdot)_C\colon 1\longrightarrow\Phi_I(C,C) is the name of j_C (i.e., (\overline{\phi}_\cdot)_C maps the unique element of the singleton 1 to {j_C}).
For each A,B,C\in\mathcal{C} and X,Y\in\mathcal{M}, the function (\overline{\phi}_{X,Y})_{A,B,C}\colon \Phi_Y(B,C)\times\Phi_X(A,B) \longrightarrow\Phi_{Y\otimes X}(A,C) maps g\colon Y\longrightarrow{\langle B, C\rangle} and f\colon X\longrightarrow{\langle A, B\rangle} to
The definition of model and homomorphism (Definition 3.13) we derive from an enrichment may be seen as a special case of the corresponding definition (Definition 3.37) for metamodel.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a metatheory, \mathcal{C} be a large category and (\ast,\varepsilon,\delta) be an oplax action of \mathcal{M} on \mathcal{C}. This induces a metamodel (\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) of \mathcal{M} in \mathcal{C} as follows.
The functor \Phi\colon\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET} maps (X,A,B)\in \mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C} to
For each C\in\mathcal{C}, (\overline{\phi}_\cdot)_C\colon 1\longrightarrow\Phi_I(C,C) is the name of \varepsilon_C.
For each A,B,C\in\mathcal{C} and X,Y\in\mathcal{M}, the function (\overline{\phi}_{X,Y})_{A,B,C}\colon \Phi_Y(B,C)\times\Phi_X(A,B) \longrightarrow\Phi_{Y\otimes X}(A,C) maps g\colon Y\ast{B}\longrightarrow{C} and f\colon X\ast{A}\longrightarrow{B} to
The definition of model and homomorphism (Definition 3.24) we derive from an oplax action may be seen as a special case of the corresponding definition (Definition 3.37) for metamodel.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a metatheory. We define the (locally large) 2-category {\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{M}\!od(\mathcal{M})} of metamodels of \mathcal{M} as follows.
An object is a metamodel (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) of \mathcal{M}.
A 1-cell from (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) to (\mathcal{C'},\Phi',\overline{\phi'}_\cdot,\overline{\phi'}) is a functor G\colon \mathcal{C}\longrightarrow \mathcal{C'} together with a natural transformation (g_{X,A,B}\colon \Phi_X(A,B)\longrightarrow \Phi'_X(GA,GB))_{X\in\mathcal{M},A,B\in\mathcal{C}} making the following diagrams commute for all X,Y\in\mathcal{M} and A,B,C\in\mathcal{C}:
A 2-cell from (G,g) to (G',g'), both from (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) to (\mathcal{C'},\Phi',\overline{\phi'}_\cdot,\overline{\phi'}), is a natural transformation \theta\colon G\Longrightarrow G' making the following diagram commute for all X\in\mathcal{M} and A,B\in\mathcal{C}:
Let \mathcal{M} be a metatheory. The construction given in Example 3.38 canonically extends to a fully faithful 2-functor
A metamodel (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) of \mathcal{M} is in the essential image of this 2-functor if and only if for each A,B\in\mathcal{C}, the functor
is representable.
The construction of the 2-functor {\mathscr{E}\!nrich(\mathcal{M})}\longrightarrow{\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{M}\!od(\mathcal{M})} is straightforward. The rest can also be proved by a standard argument using the Yoneda lemma. We sketch the argument below.
Let us focus on the characterisation of the essential image. Suppose that (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) is a metamodel of \mathcal{M} such that for each A,B\in\mathcal{C}, the functor \Phi_{(-)}(A,B) is representable. From such a metamodel we obtain an enrichment ({\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) of \mathcal{C} over \mathcal{M} as follows. For each A,B\in\mathcal{C}, choose an object {\langle A, B\rangle}\in\mathcal{M} and an isomorphism \alpha_{A,B}\colon\mathcal{M}(-,{\langle A, B\rangle})\longrightarrow\Phi_{(-)}(A,B). By functoriality of \Phi, {\langle -, -\rangle} uniquely extends to a functor of type \mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{M} while making (\alpha_{A,B})_{A,B\in\mathcal{C}} natural. For each C\in\mathcal{C}, (\overline{\phi}_\cdot)_C\colon 1\longrightarrow \Phi_I(C,C)\cong \mathcal{M}(I,{\langle C, C\rangle}) gives rise to a morphism j_C\colon I\longrightarrow{\langle C, C\rangle} in \mathcal{M}. For each A,B,C\in\mathcal{M}, consider the function
Let the image of ({\mathrm{id}_{{\langle B, C\rangle}}},{\mathrm{id}_{{\langle A, B\rangle}}}) under this function be M_{A,B,C}\colon {\langle B, C\rangle}\otimes{\langle A, B\rangle}\longrightarrow{\langle A, C\rangle}. The axioms of metamodel then shows that ({\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) is an enrichment.
Moreover, if we consider the metamodel induced from this enrichment (see Example 3.38), then it is isomorphic to our original (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}). In particular, for each X,Y\in\mathcal{M} and A,B,C\in\mathcal{C}, the function (\overline{\phi}_{X,Y})_{A,B,C} is completely determined by M_{A,B,C}, as in Example 3.38. To see this, note that for each f\in\mathcal{M}(X,{\langle A, B\rangle}) and g\in\mathcal{M}(Y,{\langle B, C\rangle}), the diagram
commutes. Hence by chasing the element ({\mathrm{id}_{{\langle B, C\rangle}}},{\mathrm{id}_{{\langle A, B\rangle}}}) in the top left set, we observe that (modulo the isomorphisms \alpha) (g,f) is mapped by (\overline{\phi}_{X,Y})_{A,B,C} to M_{A,B,C}\circ (g\otimes f).
Let \mathcal{M} be a metatheory. The construction given in Example 3.39 canonically extends to a fully faithful 2-functor
A metamodel (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) of \mathcal{M} is in the essential image of this 2-functor if and only if for each X\in\mathcal{M} and A\in\mathcal{C}, the functor
is representable.
Similar to the proof of Proposition 3.41.
In particular, given a metamodel (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) of \mathcal{M} such that for each X\in\mathcal{M} and A\in\mathcal{C}, the functor \Phi_X(A,-) is representable, we may construct an oplax action (\ast,\varepsilon,\delta) of \mathcal{C} as follows. For each X\in\mathcal{M} and A\in\mathcal{C}, choose an object X\ast A\in\mathcal{C} and an isomorphism \beta_{X,A}\colon \mathcal{C}(X\ast A,-) \longrightarrow\Phi_X(A,-). We easily obtain a functor \ast\colon\mathcal{M}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C} and a natural transformation (\varepsilon_C)_{C\in\mathcal{C}}. To get \delta, for each X,Y\in\mathcal{M} and A\in\mathcal{C} consider the function
We define \delta_{X,Y,A}\colon (Y\otimes X)\ast A\longrightarrow Y\ast(X\ast A) to be the image of ({\mathrm{id}_{Y\ast (X\ast A)}},{\mathrm{id}_{X\ast A}}) under this function.
To verify that the metamodel induced from this oplax action (see Example 3.39) is isomorphic to (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}), essentially we only need to check that (\overline{\phi}_{X,Y})_{A,B,C} for each X,Y\in\mathcal{M} and A,B,C\in\mathcal{C} is determined by \delta_{X,Y,A} as in Example 3.39. Suppressing the isomorphisms \beta from now on, for each f\colon X\ast A\longrightarrow B and g\colon Y\ast B\longrightarrow C consider the following digram:
The top square commutes by naturality in C of ((\overline{\phi}_{X,Y})_{A,B,C}) and the bottom square commutes by (extra) naturality in B of it. By chasing the appropriate elements as follows
we conclude that (\overline{\phi}_{X,Y})_{A,B,C}(g,f)=g\circ(Y\ast f)\circ\delta_{X,Y,A}, as desired.
Let \mathcal{M} be a metatheory.
The 2-functors in Proposition 3.41 and Proposition 3.42 restrict to fully faithful 2-functors
with the same essential image characterised as follows: a metamodel (\mathcal{C},\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) of \mathcal{M} is in the essential image if and only if for each X\in\mathcal{M} and A,B\in\mathcal{C}, the functors
are representable.
The 2-categories {\mathscr{E}\!nrich^{\mathrm{r}}(\mathcal{M})} and {\mathscr{A}\!ct^{\mathrm{l}}_{\mathrm{oplax}}(\mathcal{M})} are equivalent.
The first clause is immediate from the definition of adjunction. For instance, an enrichment (\mathcal{C},{\langle -, -\rangle},j,M) over \mathcal{M} is in {\mathscr{E}\!nrich^{\mathrm{r}}(\mathcal{M})} if and only if for each A\in\mathcal{C}, {\langle A, -\rangle} is a right adjoint, which in turn is the case if and only if for each X\in\mathcal{M} and A\in\mathcal{C}, the functor
is representable.
The second clause is a direct consequence of the first.
Let \mathcal{M} be a metatheory and \widehat{\mathcal{M}}=([\mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{op}},\mathbf{SET}],\widehat{I},\widehat{\otimes}) (see Definition 3.33). The 2-categories {\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{M}\!od(\mathcal{M})} and {\mathscr{E}\!nrich(\widehat{\mathcal{M}})} are canonically isomorphic.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I_\mathcal{M},\otimes_\mathcal{M}) and \mathcal{N}=(\mathcal{N},I_\mathcal{N},\otimes_\mathcal{N}) be metatheories. A morphism of metatheories from \mathcal{M} to \mathcal{N} is a lax monoidal functor
More precisely, such a morphism consists of:
a functor H\colon\mathcal{N}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{M}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET};
a function h_\cdot\colon1\longrightarrow H(I_\mathcal{N},I_\mathcal{M});
a natural transformation (h_{N,N',M,M'}\colon H(N',M')\times H(N,M)\longrightarrow H(N'\otimes_\mathcal{N} N,M'\otimes_\mathcal{M} M))_{N,N'\in\mathcal{N},M,M'\in\mathcal{M}}
making the following diagrams commute for each N,N',N''\in\mathcal{N} and M,M',M''\in\mathcal{M} (we omit subscripts on \otimes):
We write H\colon\mathcal{M}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to}\mathcal{N} if H is a morphism of metatheories from \mathcal{M} to \mathcal{N}.
We define the bicategory {\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{T\!H}} of metatheories as follows.
An object is a metatheory.
A 1-cell from \mathcal{M} to \mathcal{N} is a morphism of metatheories \mathcal{M}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to}\mathcal{N}. The identity 1-cell on a metatheory \mathcal{M} is the hom-functor \mathcal{M}(-,-), equipped with the evident structure for a morphism of metatheories. Given morphisms of metatheories (H,h_\cdot,h)\colon \mathcal{M}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to}\mathcal{N} and (K,k_\cdot,k)\colon \mathcal{N}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to}\mathcal{L}, their composite is (K\odot H,k_\cdot\odot h_\cdot, k \odot h) \colon \mathcal{M}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to}\mathcal{L} where K\odot H is the composition of the profunctors H and K (Definition 3.34), and k_\cdot \odot h_\cdot and k\odot h are the evident natural transformations.
A 2-cell from H to H', both from \mathcal{M} to \mathcal{N}, is a monoidal natural transformation \alpha\colon H\Longrightarrow H'\colon\mathcal{N}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{M}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET}.
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I_\mathcal{M},\otimes_\mathcal{M}) and \mathcal{N}=(\mathcal{N},I_\mathcal{N},\otimes_\mathcal{N}) be metatheories, H=(H,h_\cdot,h)\colon\mathcal{M}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to}\mathcal{N} a morphism of metatheories, \mathcal{C} a large category and \Phi=(\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) a metamodel of \mathcal{M} in \mathcal{C}. We define the metamodel H(\Phi)=(\Phi',\overline{\phi'}_\cdot,\overline{\phi'}) of \mathcal{N} on \mathcal{C} as follows:
The functor \Phi'\colon\mathcal{N}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET} maps (N,A,B)\in\mathcal{N}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C} to the set
The natural transformation ((\overline{\phi'}_\cdot)_C\colon 1\longrightarrow \Phi'_{I_\mathcal{N}}(C,C))_{C\in\mathcal{C}} is defined by mapping the unique element \ast of 1 to
for each C\in\mathcal{C}.
The natural transformation
is defined by mapping a pair consisting of [M',x',y']\in\Phi'_{N'}(B,C) and [M,x,y]\in\Phi'_N(A,B) to
for each N,N'\in\mathcal{N} and A,B,C\in\mathcal{C}.
Recall from Section ?, where we have compared clones, symmetric operads and non-symmetric operads, that there is a chain of lax monoidal functors
These functors, being left adjoints in {\mathscr{M}\!on\mathscr{C\!A\!T}_{\mathrm{lax}}}, are in fact strong monoidal [Kelly:doctrinal]. Theories are mapped as follows, as noted in Section ?:
In this case, the suitable 2-functors between 2-categories of metamodels can be given either as {\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{M}\!od((\mathrm{Lan}_J)^\ast)} or {\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{M}\!od(([J,\mathbf{Set}])_\ast)} (and similarly for J'), because (\mathrm{Lan}_J)^\ast\cong ([J,\mathbf{Set}])_\ast in {\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{T\!H}}.
Let us consider the relationship between clones and monads on \mathbf{Set}. The inclusion functor
induces a functor
which naturally acquires the structure of a strong monoidal functor. The essential image of this functor is precisely the finitary endofunctors on \mathbf{Set}, i.e., those endofunctors preserving filtered colimits. The functor {\mathbf{Th}(\mathrm{Lan}_{J''})} maps a clone to a finitary monad on \mathbf{Set}, in accordance with the well-known correspondence between clones (= Lawvere theories) and finitary monads on \mathbf{Set} [Linton_equational]. Between the 2-categories of metamodels, we have a 2-functor
The standard metamodel of [\mathbf{Set},\mathbf{Set}] in \mathbf{Set} (corresponding to the definition of Eilenberg–Moore algebras) is given by the strict action described in Example 3.25; in particular, its functor part \Phi\colon [\mathbf{Set},\mathbf{Set}]^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathbf{Set}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathbf{Set}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET} maps (F,A,B) to \mathbf{Set}(FA,B). The metamodel (\mathrm{Lan}_{J''})^\ast(\Phi) of [\mathbf{F},\mathbf{Set}] in \mathbf{Set} has the functor part (\mathrm{Lan}_{J''})^\ast(\Phi)\colon[\mathbf{F},\mathbf{Set}]^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathbf{Set}^{\mathrm{op}}\times \mathbf{Set}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET} mapping (X,A,B) to
where {\langle A, B\rangle}\in[\mathbf{F},\mathbf{Set}] in the final line is the one in Example 3.14. Hence {\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{M}\!od((\mathrm{Lan}_{J''})^\ast)} preserves the standard metamodels and this way we restore the well-known observation that the classical correspondence of clones and finitary monads on \mathbf{Set} preserves semantics.
Note that by combining the previous example we obtain the chain
of strong monoidal functors, connecting non-symmetric and symmetric operads with monads on \mathbf{Set}.
Let \mathcal{M} be a metatheory, \mathcal{C} a large category, and \ast a pseudo action of \mathcal{M} on \mathcal{C}. We obtain a strong monoidal functor
(where [\mathcal{C},\mathcal{C}] is equipped with the composition monoidal structure) as the transpose of \ast\colon\mathcal{M}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C}. The functor {\mathbf{Th}(F)} maps any theory \mathsf{T}=(T,e,m) in \mathcal{M} to the monad F(\mathsf{T})=(T\ast(-), e\ast(-),m\ast(-)) on \mathcal{C}. The 2-functor {\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{M}\!od(F^\ast)}\colon{\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{M}\!od([\mathcal{C},\mathcal{C}])}\longrightarrow{\mathscr{M}\!\mathscr{M}\!od(\mathcal{M})} maps the standard metamodel \Phi of [\mathcal{C},\mathcal{C}] in \mathcal{C} (Example 3.25) to the metamodel F^\ast(\Phi)\colon \mathcal{M}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET} mapping (X,A,B) to
Therefore it maps the standard metamodel \Phi to the metamodel induced from \ast.
As a special case, for a large category \mathcal{C} with finite limits and a cartesian monad \mathsf{S} on \mathcal{C}, the standard metamodel for \mathsf{S}-operads (Example 3.26) may be related to the standard metamodel of monads on \mathcal{C}, and models of an \mathsf{S}-operad \mathsf{T} may alternatively be defined as Eilenberg–Moore algebras of the monad on \mathcal{C} induced from \mathsf{T} (as noted in [Leinster_book]).
Let \mathcal{M} be a metatheory, \mathcal{C} be a large category and \Phi=(\Phi,\overline{\phi}_\cdot,\overline{\phi}) be a metamodel of \mathcal{M} in \mathcal{C}. The functors \mathrm{Sem} and \mathrm{Str} defined above form an adjunction:
We show that there are bijections
natural in \mathsf{P}=(P,e,m)\in{\mathbf{Th}(\widehat{\mathcal{M}})} and (V\colon \mathcal{A}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C})\in{\mathbf{CAT}}/\mathcal{C}.
In fact, we show that the following three types of data naturally correspond to each other.
A morphism \alpha\colon \mathsf{P}\longrightarrow\mathrm{Str}(V) in {\mathbf{Th}(\widehat{\mathcal{M}})}; that is, a natural transformation
making the suitable diagrams commute.
A natural transformation
making the following diagrams commute for each A\in\mathcal{A} and X,Y\in\mathcal{M}:
A morphism F\colon V\longrightarrow\mathrm{Sem}(\mathsf{P}) in {\mathbf{CAT}}/\mathcal{C}; that is, a functor F\colon\mathcal{A}\longrightarrow{\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{P},(\mathcal{C},\Phi))} such that U\circ F=V (U\colon{\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{P},(\mathcal{C},\Phi))}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C} is the forgetful functor).
The correspondence between 1 and 2 is by the universality of ends (see (?)). To give \xi as in 2 without requiring naturality in A\in\mathcal{A}, is equivalent to give a function {\mathrm{ob}(F)}\colon {\mathrm{ob}(\mathcal{A})}\longrightarrow{\mathrm{ob}({\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{P},(\mathcal{C},\Phi))})} such that {\mathrm{ob}(U)}\circ {\mathrm{ob}(F)}={\mathrm{ob}(V)} (see (?)). To say that \xi is natural also in A\in\mathcal{A} is equivalent to saying that {\mathrm{ob}(F)} extends to a functor F\colon \mathcal{A}\longrightarrow{\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{P},(\mathcal{C},\Phi))} by mapping each morphism f in \mathcal{A} to Vf.
A pseudo double category \mathbb{D} consists of the following data.
(DD1) A category \mathbb{D}_0, whose objects are called objects of \mathbb{D} and whose morphisms vertical morphisms of \mathbb{D}.
(DD2) A category \mathbb{D}_1, whose objects are called horizontal morphisms of \mathbb{D} and whose morphisms squares of \mathbb{D}.
(DD3) Functors
where \mathbb{D}_2 is the pullback
of categories.
(DD4) Natural isomorphisms with components
in \mathbb{D}_1, where (Z,Y,X)\in \mathbb{D}_3 which is the pullback
of categories and X\in \mathbb{D}_1 with s(X)=A and t(X)=B.
These data are subject to the following axioms.
(DA1) The diagrams
commute (on the nose).
(DA2) The morphisms s(\mathfrak{a}_{X,Y,Z}),s(\mathfrak{l}_X) and s(\mathfrak{r}_X) are equal to {\mathrm{id}_{A}} for all (Z,Y,X) \in\mathbb{D}_3 and X\in\mathbb{D}_1, where A=s(X). Similarly for t.
(DA3) The coherence axioms (triangle and pentagon) for \mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{l} and \mathfrak{r}.
Let \mathscr{B} be a bicategory. This induces a pseudo double category \mathbb{H}\mathscr{B}, given as follows:
an object of \mathbb{H}\mathscr{B} is an object of \mathscr{B};
all vertical morphisms of \mathbb{H}\mathscr{B} are vertical identity morphisms;
a horizontal morphism of \mathbb{H}\mathscr{B} is a 1-cell of \mathscr{B};
a square of \mathbb{H}\mathscr{B} is a 2-cell of \mathscr{B}.
The isomorphisms \mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{l} and \mathfrak{r} of \mathbb{H}\mathscr{B} is given by the corresponding iso-2-cells of \mathscr{B}.
Conversely, for any pseudo double category \mathbb{D}, we obtain a bicategory \mathscr{H}\mathbb{D} given as follows:
an object of \mathscr{H}\mathbb{D} is an object of \mathbb{D};
a 1-cell of \mathscr{H}\mathbb{D} is a horizontal morphism of \mathbb{D};
a 2-cell of \mathscr{H}\mathbb{D} is a square in \mathbb{D} whose horizontal source and target are both vertical identity morphisms.
We define the pseudo double category {\mathbb{PROF}} as follows.
An object is a large category.
A vertical morphism from \mathcal{A} to \mathcal{A'} is a functor F\colon \mathcal{A}\longrightarrow\mathcal{A'}.
A horizontal morphism from \mathcal{A} to \mathcal{B} is a profunctor H\colon\mathcal{A}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to} \mathcal{B}, i.e., a functor H\colon \mathcal{B}^{\mathrm{op}}\times\mathcal{A}\longrightarrow\mathbf{SET}. Horizontal identities and horizontal compositions are the same as in Definition 3.34.
A square as in
is a natural transformation
that is, of type
It is straightforward to define various compositions of these morphisms and squares. The isomorphisms \mathfrak{a},\mathfrak{l} and \mathfrak{r} are the same as those in the bicategory {\mathscr{P\!R\!O\!F}}. (Indeed, using the construction introduced in Example 5.2, {\mathscr{P\!R\!O\!F}}=\mathscr{H}{\mathbb{PROF}}.)
Define a vertical double cone over \Phi(\mathsf{T}) to be a triple (\mathcal{A},V,v) consisting of a large category \mathcal{A}, a functor V\colon\mathcal{A}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C}, and a square v in {\mathbb{PROF}}^{\mathrm{op}} of type
satisfying the following equations:
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a metatheory, \mathsf{T}=(T,e,m) be a theory in \mathcal{M}, \mathcal{C} be a large category, and \Phi=(\Phi,\phi_\cdot,\phi) be a metamodel of \mathcal{M} in \mathcal{C}. The triple ({\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{T},\mathcal{C})},U,u) defined above is a universal vertical double cone over \Phi(\mathsf{T}), namely:
it is a vertical double cone over \Phi(\mathsf{T});
for any vertical double cone (\mathcal{A},V,v) over \Phi(\mathsf{T}), there exists a unique functor K\colon\mathcal{A}\longrightarrow {\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{T},\mathcal{C})} such that
holds;
for any pair of vertical cones (\mathcal{A},V,v) and (\mathcal{A'},V',v') over \Phi(\mathsf{T}), any horizontal morphism H\colon \mathcal{A}\mathrel{\mathpalette\p@to@gets\to} \mathcal{A'} in {\mathbb{PROF}}^{\mathrm{op}} and any square
in {\mathbb{PROF}}^{\mathrm{op}} such that
holds, there exists a unique square
in {\mathbb{PROF}}^{\mathrm{op}} such that
holds, where K and K' are the functors corresponding to (\mathcal{A},V,v) and (\mathcal{A'},V',v') respectively.
First, that ({\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{T},\mathcal{C})},U,u) is a vertical double cone over \Phi(\mathsf{T}) follows directly from the definition of model of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to \Phi (Definition 3.37).
Given a vertical double cone (\mathcal{A},V,v) over \Phi(\mathsf{T}), for each object A\in\mathcal{A}, the pair (VA,v_{A,A}({\mathrm{id}_{A}})) is a \mathsf{T}-model in \mathcal{C} with respect to \Phi, and for each morphism f\colon A\longrightarrow A' in \mathcal{A}, the morphism Vf is a \mathsf{T}-model homomorphism from (VA,v_{A,A}({\mathrm{id}_{A}})) to (VA',v_{A',A'}({\mathrm{id}_{A'}})). The functor K\colon \mathcal{A}\longrightarrow {\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{T},\mathcal{C})} can therefore be given as KA=(VA,v_{A,A}({\mathrm{id}_{A}})) and Kf=Vf. The uniqueness is clear.
Finally, given H and \theta as in the third clause, the equation (?) says that for each A\in\mathcal{A}, A'\in\mathcal{A'} and x\in H(A,A'), the morphism \theta_{A,A'}(x)\colon VA\longrightarrow V'A' in \mathcal{C} satisfies \Phi_T(VA,\theta_{A,A'}(x)) (v_{A,A}({\mathrm{id}_{A}}))= \Phi_T(\theta_{A,A'}(x),VA')(v'_{A',A'}({\mathrm{id}_{A'}})); in other words, that \theta_{A,A'}(x) is a \mathsf{T}-model homomorphism from KA to K'A'. The square \sigma can then be given as the natural transformation with \sigma_{A,A'}(x)=\theta_{A,A'}(x).
We define the augmented simplex category (also known as the algebraists’ simplex category) \Delta_{a} as follows.
Objects are all finite ordinals \mathbf{n}=\{\,{0}<{1}<\dots <{n-1} \,\}, including the empty ordinal \mathbf{0}=\{\ \}.
Morphisms are all monotone functions.
Note that a morphism in \Delta_{a} is mono (resp. epi) iff it is an injective (resp. surjective) monotone function.
This category has a natural monoidal structure, given as follows.
The unit object is \mathbf{0}.
The monoidal product +\colon \Delta_{a}\times\Delta_{a}\longrightarrow\Delta_{a} maps a pair of objects \mathbf{n} and \mathbf{m} in \Delta_{a} to \mathbf{n+m}, and maps a pair of morphisms u\colon \mathbf{n}\longrightarrow \mathbf{n'} and v\colon \mathbf{m}\longrightarrow\mathbf{m'} in \Delta_{a} to u+v\colon \mathbf{n+m}\longrightarrow\mathbf{n'+m'} defined as
In the following, whenever we talk about a monoidal structure on \Delta_{a}, we always mean this (strict) monoidal structure (\mathbf{0},+).
Let \mathcal{M}=(\mathcal{M},I,\otimes) be a metatheory. There is an equivalence of categories between the category {\mathscr{M}\!on\mathscr{C\!A\!T}_{\mathrm{strong}}}(\Delta_{a},\mathcal{M}) of all strong monoidal functors \Delta_{a}\longrightarrow\mathcal{M} and monoidal natural transformations, and the category {\mathbf{Th}(\mathcal{M})}.
Recall that a strong monoidal functor (F,f_\cdot,f)\colon \Delta_{a}\longrightarrow\mathcal{M} consists of a functor F\colon \Delta_{a}\longrightarrow\mathcal{M}, an isomorphism f_\cdot\colon I\longrightarrow F(\mathbf{0}) and a natural isomorphism
satisfying the suitable axioms. The functor
mapping an object (F,f_\cdot,f)\in{\mathscr{M}\!on\mathscr{C\!A\!T}_{\mathrm{strong}}}(\Delta_{a},\mathcal{M}) to (F(\mathbf{1}), F({!_\mathbf{0}})\circ f_\cdot, F({!_{\mathbf{2}}})\circ f_{\mathbf{1},\mathbf{1}}) and a morphism \phi\colon (F,f_\cdot,f)\longrightarrow (G,g_\cdot,g) in {\mathscr{M}\!on\mathscr{C\!A\!T}_{\mathrm{strong}}}(\Delta_{a},\mathcal{M}) to \phi_\mathbf{1} is well-defined and is an equivalence of categories.
Let \mathcal{M} be a metatheory, \mathsf{T} be a theory in \mathcal{M}, \mathcal{C} be a large category and \Phi be a metamodel of \mathcal{M} in \mathcal{C}. The category {\mathbf{Mod}(\mathsf{T},(\mathcal{C},\Phi))} of models of \mathsf{T} in \mathcal{C} with respect to \Phiis the apex of the double limit of the lax double functor \Phi(\mathsf{T}).
A large category \mathcal{V} is extensive if and only if it admits all small coproducts and for any small set I and I-indexed family (X_i)_{i\in I} of objects of \mathcal{V}, the functor \coprod in (?) is an equivalence of categories.
Let \mathcal{V} be a large category.
A small \mathcal{V}-graph G consists of a small set {\mathrm{ob}(G)} together with, for each x,y\in{\mathrm{ob}(G)}, an object G(x,y)\in \mathcal{V}.
A morphism of \mathcal{V}-graphs from G to G' is a function f\colon {\mathrm{ob}(G)}\longrightarrow{\mathrm{ob}(G')} together with, for each x,y\in{\mathrm{ob}(G)}, a morphism f_{x,y}\colon G(x,y)\longrightarrow G'(fx,fy) in \mathcal{V}.
For any natural number n and any large category \mathcal{V}, the category {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)} is defined as follows:
An object of {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)} is called an n-dimensional \mathcal{V}-graph.
For each natural number n and any large category \mathcal{V} with finite products, the category {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)} is defined as follows (using the cartesian structure for enrichment):
An object of {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)} is called a strict n-dimensional \mathcal{V}-category (to avoid confusion with weak n-dimensional \mathcal{V}-category which we are trying to define).
If \mathcal{V} is a large category with a strict initial object 0, then {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} is extensive.
The coproduct of a family (G_i)_{i\in I} of \mathcal{V}-graphs is given by {\mathrm{ob}(\coprod_{i\in I}G_i)}=\coprod_{i\in I}{\mathrm{ob}(G_i)} and
It is easy to see that the functor \coprod\colon \prod_{i\in I}({{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}/G_i)\longrightarrow {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}/(\coprod_{i\in I}G_i) (as in (?)) is full and faithful. For any object (f\colon H\longrightarrow \coprod_{i\in I}G_i) in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}/{(\coprod_{i\in I} G_i)}, define an object (f_i\colon H_i\longrightarrow G_i)_{i\in I}\in \prod_{i\in I}(\mathcal{V}/G_i) by the pullbacks of f along the coprojections \sigma_i\colon G_i\longrightarrow \coprod_{i\in I}G_i; note that these pullbacks always exist, and H_i are just the suitable “full sub” \mathcal{V}-graphs of H. Since 0 is strict, (\coprod_{i\in I}f_i \colon \coprod_{i\in I}H_i\longrightarrow \coprod_{i\in I}G_i) is isomorphic to f. Hence \coprod is also essentially surjective.
If \mathcal{V} is a large category with a strict initial object and finite products, then {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}} is extensive.
Coproducts in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}} are formed just as in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}; namely, given a family (\mathcal{C}_i)_{i\in I} of \mathcal{V}-categories, we have {\mathrm{ob}(\coprod_{i\in I} \mathcal{C}_i)}=\coprod_{i\in I} {\mathrm{ob}(\mathcal{C}_i)} and
Note that to define a composition law for \coprod_{i\in I}\mathcal{C}_i, we use the fact that for a category \mathcal{V} with a strict initial object 0, 0\times B\cong 0 for every object B\in\mathcal{V}.(In fact, for a category \mathcal{V} with an initial object 0 and finite products, 0 is strict if and only if 0\times B\cong 0 for every B\in \mathcal{V}.) The rest of the proof is identical to that of Proposition 6.5.
Let \mathcal{V} have finite limits. A commutative square
in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} or in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}} is a pullback if and only if the square
is a pullback in \mathbf{Set}, and for any pair p_1,p_2\in{\mathrm{ob}(P)}, writing a_i=h(p_i), b_i=k(p_i) and x_i=f(a_i)=g(b_i) for i=1,2, the square
is a pullback in \mathcal{V}.
If \mathcal{V} is an extensive category with finite limits, then so are {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)} and {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)}, for each natural number n.
A category \mathcal{V} with small coproducts is extensive if and only if it has all pullbacks along coprojections associated with small coproducts, and for any small set I, I-indexed family (X_i)_{i\in I} of objects of \mathcal{V}, morphism f\colon A\longrightarrow \coprod_{i\in I}X_i in \mathcal{V}, and I-indexed family of commutative squares
in \mathcal{V} (in which \sigma_i is the i-th coprojection), each square (6.9) is a pullback square if and only if (\tau_i)_{i\in I} defines a coproduct (that is, A=\coprod_{i\in I} A_i with \tau_i the i-th coprojection).
If \mathcal{V} has small coproducts, then the functor (?) has a right adjoint if and only if all pullbacks along \sigma_i exists in \mathcal{V}, and in that case the right adjoint
has the i-th component \sigma_i^\ast\colon \mathcal{V}/\coprod_{i\in I}X_i\longrightarrow\mathcal{V}/X_i mapping (f\colon A\longrightarrow \coprod_{i\in I}X_i)\in \mathcal{V}/\coprod_{i\in I} X_i to (\sigma_i^\ast f\colon \sigma_i^\ast A\longrightarrow X_i)\in\mathcal{V}/X_i, defined by the pullback
in \mathcal{V}.
In general, a functor is an equivalence of categories if and only if it has a right adjoint and the associated unit and counit are natural isomorphisms. Applying this fact to the functors of the form (?), we obtain the desired result.
Let \mathcal{V} be an extensive category. For any small set I and I-indexed family of pullback squares in \mathcal{V} as on the left of the following diagram, the square as on the right is a pullback.
By the definition of extensivity, the functor \coprod\colon \prod_{i\in I} (\mathcal{V}/X_i) \longrightarrow \mathcal{V}/(\coprod_{i\in I} X_i) is an equivalence of categories and, in particular, it preserves binary products.
Let \mathcal{V} be an extensive category with finite products. For any B\in\mathcal{V}, the functor (-)\times B\colon \mathcal{V}\longrightarrow\mathcal{V} preserves small coproducts.
In any category, a square as on the left of the following diagram is always a pullback. Hence for any object B\in\mathcal{V}, small set I, and I-indexed family (X_i)_{i\in I} of objects of \mathcal{V}, for each i\in I the square as on the right is a pullback.
Therefore by Proposition 6.9, (\coprod_{i\in I}X_i)\times B \cong \coprod_{i\in I}(X_i\times B).
Let \mathcal{V} be an extensive category. For any object Y\in\mathcal{V}, the slice category \mathcal{V}/Y is again extensive.
Clearly \mathcal{V}/Y has small coproducts given by \coprod_{i\in I}(f_i\colon X_i\longrightarrow Y) = ([f_i]_{i\in I}\colon \coprod_{i\in I} X_i\longrightarrow Y). Also note that for any object (f\colon X\longrightarrow Y) of \mathcal{V}/Y, the canonical functor (\mathcal{V}/Y)/f\longrightarrow \mathcal{V}/X which maps (h\colon (g\colon A\longrightarrow Y)\longrightarrow f)\in (\mathcal{V}/Y)/f to (h\colon A\longrightarrow X)\in \mathcal{V}/X is an isomorphism of categories. For any small set I and I-indexed family (f_i\colon X_i\longrightarrow Y)_{i\in I} of objects of \mathcal{V}/Y, the diagram
(in which the vertical arrows are the canonical isomorphisms mentioned above) commutes. Since the lower \coprod is an equivalence by the assumption, so is the upper one.
Let \mathcal{V} be an extensive category with pullbacks.
For any morphism g\colon B\longrightarrow X in \mathcal{V}, small set I, and I-indexed family of pullback squares in \mathcal{V} as on the left of the following diagram, the square as on the right is a pullback.
For any object X\in\mathcal{V}, small set I, I-indexed family of morphisms (f_i\colon A_i\longrightarrow X)_{i\in I} in \mathcal{V}, small set J, J-indexed family of morphisms (g_j\colon B_j\longrightarrow X)_{j\in J} in \mathcal{V}, and (I\times J)-indexed family of pullback squares in \mathcal{V} as on the left of the following diagram, the square as on the right is a pullback.
By the assumption, the slice category \mathcal{V}/X has finite products \times_X (given by pullbacks in \mathcal{V}), and is extensive (Proposition 6.12). Hence by Proposition 6.11, binary product by (g\colon B\longrightarrow X)\in \mathcal{V}/X preserves small coproducts, that is, (\coprod_{i\in I} f_i)\times_X g \cong \coprod_{i\in I}(f_i\times_X g).
Using the first clause iteratively, we obtain (\coprod_{i\in I}f_i)\times_X(\coprod_{j\in J}g_j)\cong \coprod_{i\in I,j\in J} (f_i\times_X g_j).
If \mathcal{V} has finite products and small coproducts, and if for any B\in\mathcal{V} the functor (-)\times B\colon \mathcal{V}\longrightarrow \mathcal{V} preserves small coproducts, then the forgetful functor U\colon{{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}\longrightarrow{{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} admits a left adjoint F.
Given a \mathcal{V}-graph G=({\mathrm{ob}(G)},(G(x,y))_{x,y\in{\mathrm{ob}(G)}}), the free \mathcal{V}-category FG on G has the same objects as G and the hom-object given by
for all x,y\in {\mathrm{ob}(FG)}={\mathrm{ob}(G)}. To spell out the identity elements and composition laws in FG, let us write
for all x,y\in{\mathrm{ob}(FG)} and n\in\mathbb{N}.
Note that (FG)(x,y)_0 is the terminal object 1 of \mathcal{V} if x=y (otherwise, it is the initial object 0 of \mathcal{V}). Hence the identity element on x\in{\mathrm{ob}(FG)} can be given as
where \sigma_0 denotes the 0-th coprojection. Given any triple x,y,z\in{\mathrm{ob}(FG)} of objects, by the assumption we have
Using the assumption once again, we see that (FG)(y,z)_l\times (FG)(x,y)_k is isomorphic to
and therefore naturally embeds into (FG)(x,z)_{k+l}. The universality of coproducts induce the composition laws for FG from these embeddings.
If \mathcal{V} is an extensive category with finite limits, then the functor F\colon{{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}\longrightarrow{{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}} given in Proposition 7.1 preserves pullbacks.
Suppose we have a pullback
in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}. Since F does nothing on the set of objects, by Proposition 6.7 it suffices to show that for any pair p=(a,b),p'=(a',b')\in{\mathrm{ob}(P)} with f(a)=g(b)=x and f(a')=g(b')=x', the square
is a pullback in \mathcal{V}. Recall that
and similarly for other objects in the above diagram. Decomposing the morphisms by (?), we may apply Proposition 6.10 and now it suffices to show that for each n\in\mathbb{N}, the square
is a pullback. Decomposing the morphisms by (?) and applying Proposition 6.10 once again, we see that it suffices to show that for each n\in\mathbb{N} and x_0,\dots,x_n\in{\mathrm{ob}(X)} with x_0=x and x_n=x', the square
is a pullback. Writing the indexing sets of the coproducts appearing in the above diagram as
we have I\times J\cong K by the description of {\mathrm{ob}(P)} as a pullback. Using (?) and the second clause of Corollary 6.13, it suffices to show that for any n,x_i,a_i,b_i,p_i with p_i=(a_i,b_i), f(a_i)=g(b_i)=x_i, the square
is a pullback. This follows from the fact that each P(p_i,p_{i+1}) is the pullback of A(a_i,a_{i+1}) and B(b_i,b_{i+1}) over X(x_i,x_{i+1}), as pullbacks commute with products.
If \mathcal{V} has a strict initial object 0 and finite products,
then the categories {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} and {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}} admit small coproducts and the forgetful functor U\colon {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}\longrightarrow{{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} preserves small coproducts.
If \mathcal{V} is an extensive category with finite limits, then the unit \eta\colon {\mathrm{id}_{{{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}}}\Longrightarrow UF of the adjunction F\dashv U in Proposition 7.1 is cartesian.
By Proposition 6.7, it suffices to show that for any morphism f\colon G\longrightarrow H of \mathcal{V}-graphs, and x,y\in{\mathrm{ob}(G)}, the square
is a pullback in \mathcal{V}. This follows from Proposition 6.9 (note that if we rewrite (Ff)_{x,y} via (?) and (?), we have (Ff)_{x,y,1,fx,fy}=f_{x,y}).
If \mathcal{V} is an extensive category with finite limits, then for each natural number m, the natural transformation
where \varepsilon is the counit of the adjunction F\dashv U in Proposition 7.1 and \prod is the m-ary product functor, is cartesian.
Let f=(f^{(1)},\dots, f^{(m)})\colon (G^{(1)},\dots,G^{(m)})\longrightarrow (H^{(1)},\dots,H^{(m)}) be a morphism in ({{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}})^m. Our aim is to show that the square
in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}} is a pullback. By Proposition 6.7 it suffices to show that for every pair of objects x=(x^{(1)},\dots,x^{(m)}),y=(y^{(1)},\dots,y^{(m)})\in{\mathrm{ob}(FU(FG^{(1)}\times \dots \times FG^{(m)}))}={\mathrm{ob}(G^{(1)})}\times \dots \times {\mathrm{ob}(G^{(m)})}, the square
in \mathcal{V} is a pullback. Using Proposition 6.11, we may rewrite the bottom right object \prod_{i=1}^{m}(FH^{(i)})(f^{(i)}x^{(i)},f^{(i)}y^{(i)}) as a coproduct of products. Precisely, we define an (indexing) set I to be
Then \prod_{i=1}^{m}(FH^{(i)})(f^{(i)}x^{(i)},f^{(i)}y^{(i)}) is isomorphic to
We may now decompose the diagram (?) into coproducts over I and apply Proposition 6.10. Fix an element (n_1,v^{(1)}_0,\dots, v^{(1)}_{n_1},\dots, n_m, v^{(m)}_0,\dots,v^{(m)}_{n_m})\in I, and introduce new indexing sets
It suffices to show that the square
is a pullback, which follows from the second clause of Corollary 6.13.
If \mathcal{V} is an extensive category with finite limits, then the free \mathcal{V}-category monad \mathsf{T}=(T,\eta,\mu) on {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} is cartesian.
For each natural number n, we define an adjunction F^{(n)}\dashv U^{(n)}\colon {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)}\longrightarrow{{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)} recursively as follows:
F^{(0)}=U^{(0)}={\mathrm{id}_{\mathcal{V}}};
F^{(n+1)}\dashv U^{(n+1)} is the composite:
For each natural number n, F^{(n)}\colon {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)}\longrightarrow{{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)} preserves pullbacks.
For n=0, the assertion is trivial.
Proceeding inductively, if F^{(n)} preserves pullbacks, so does {{F^{(n)}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} by Proposition 6.7. The functor F\colon {{({{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)})}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}\longrightarrow {{({{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)})}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}} preserves pullbacks by Proposition 7.2.
For each natural number n, U^{(n)}\colon {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)}\longrightarrow{{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)} preserves small coproducts.
For n=0, the assertion is trivial. Proceeding inductively, if U^{(n)} preserves small coproducts, it preserves initial objects, and so the functor {{U^{(n)}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} preserves small coproducts. The functor U\colon {{({{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)})}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}\longrightarrow {{({{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)})}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} also preserves small coproducts by Proposition 7.3.
For each natural number n, the unit \eta^{(n)}\colon {\mathrm{id}_{{{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)}}} \Longrightarrow U^{(n)}F^{(n)} of the adjunction F^{(n)}\dashv U^{(n)} is cartesian.
Observe that adjunctions whose units are cartesian are closed under composition. Proceeding inductively, if \eta^{(n)} is cartesian, so is {{\eta^{(n)}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} by Proposition 6.7. The unit of the adjunction F\dashv U\colon {{({{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)})}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}\longrightarrow {{({{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(n)})}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} is cartesian by Proposition 7.4.
For each pair of natural numbers n and m, the natural transformation
where \varepsilon^{(n)} is the counit of the adjunction F^{(n)}\dashv U^{(n)} and \prod is the m-ary product functor, is cartesian.
By induction on n. Suppose the claim is true for n=k and for all m. For brevity, we will write the adjunction {{F^{(k)}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}\dashv{{U^{(k)}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} as F'\dashv U', and whose counit {{\varepsilon^{(k)}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} as \varepsilon'. We aim to show that for every morphism (f^{(1)},\dots, f^{(m)})\colon (G^{(1)},\dots,G^{(m)})\longrightarrow (H^{(1)},\dots,H^{(m)}) in ({{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(k+1)})^m, the outer rectangle in the diagram
in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(k+1)} is a pullback. The right square is a pullback by Proposition 7.5, so we shall show that the left square is also a pullback. Since F preserves pullbacks by Proposition 7.2, it suffices to show that the square
in {{({{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(k)})}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}} is a pullback. By Proposition 6.7, it suffices to show that for every pair of objects (x^{(1)},\dots,x^{(m)}),(y^{(1)},\dots,y^{(m)})\in {\mathrm{ob}(F'U'U(\prod_{i=1}^{m}FF'G^{(i)}))}={\mathrm{ob}(G^{(1)})}\times \dots \times {\mathrm{ob}(G^{(m)})}, the square
in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Cat}}^{(k)} is a pullback. The bottom right object may be rewritten, using the set
as
cf. (?). Because both F^{(k)} and U^{(k)} (by Proposition 7.9) preserve small coproducts, we may decompose (?) as the coproduct over the set I and apply Proposition 6.10. Fix an element (n_1,v^{(1)}_0,\dots, v^{(1)}_{n_1},\dots, n_m, v^{(m)}_0,\dots,v^{(m)}_{n_m})\in I and introduce the set
It suffices to show that the square
is a pullback. This follows from the first clause of Corollary 6.13, and the induction hypothesis.
For each natural number n, the free strict n-dimensional \mathcal{V}-category monad \mathsf{T}^{(n)} is cartesian.
Let \mathcal{C} be a category, {J} a set, and \mathcal{F}=(f_j\colon A_j\longrightarrow B_j)_{j\in {J}} a {J}-indexed family of morphisms in \mathcal{C}.
A contraction (with respect to \mathcal{F}) on a morphism g\colon C\longrightarrow D in \mathcal{C} is a J-indexed family of functions (\kappa_j)_{j\in J} such that for each j\in J, \kappa_j assigns to every pair of morphisms (h,k) in \mathcal{V} which makes the perimeter of (?) commute, a morphism \kappa_j(h,k) making the whole diagram (?) commute.
A map of morphisms with contractions from (g\colon C\longrightarrow D, (\kappa)_{j\in J}) to (g'\colon C'\longrightarrow D',(\kappa'_j)_{j\in J}) is a map of morphisms (u\colon C\longrightarrow C',v\colon D\longrightarrow D') from g to g' which commutes with contractions: for each j\in J and (h,k) in the domain of \kappa_j, u\circ \kappa_j(h,k)=\kappa'_j(u\circ h, v\circ k).
We write the category of morphisms in \mathcal{C} with contractions (with respect to \mathcal{F}) as {\mathbf{Contr}(\mathcal{F})}. Note that we have the evident forgetful functor V\colon{\mathbf{Contr}(\mathcal{F})}\longrightarrow\mathcal{C}^{\mathbf{2}} where \mathbf{2} denotes the arrow category (i.e., the ordinal \mathbf{2} seen as a category) and \mathcal{C}^\mathbf{2}=[\mathbf{2},\mathcal{C}] is the functor category.
Let \mathcal{V} be a category with a terminal object and finite coproducts. For each natural number n, define a family \mathcal{F}^{(n)}=(f^{(n)}_0,\dots,f^{(n)}_{n+1}) of morphisms in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)} recursively as follows.
f^{(0)}_0\colon 0\longrightarrow 1 and f^{(0)}_1\colon 1+1\longrightarrow 1 are the unique morphisms in \mathcal{V} into the terminal object 1.
f^{(n)}_0\colon D\emptyset \longrightarrow D\{\ast\}, where \emptyset and \{\ast\} are the empty set and a singleton respectively, is the unique morphism in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)} out of the initial object D\emptyset, and for each i\in \{1,\dots, n+1\}, f^{(n)}_i=\Sigma f^{(n-1)}_{i-1}.
Let \mathcal{V} be a locally presentable category. Then for each n\in\mathbb{N} and X\in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)}, the functor V_X\colon {\mathbf{Contr}(\mathcal{F}^{(n)})}_{X}\longrightarrow {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)}/X is monadic and accessible.
If \mathcal{V} is a locally presentable and extensive category, then for any natural number n the category {T^{(n)}}\mhyphen{\mathbf{OC}} has an initial object.
We shall follow the argument in [Leinster_book, Appendix G] (where \mathcal{V}=\mathbf{Set} and n=\omega) and
show that {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)}/T^{(n)}1 is locally presentable (hence is both complete and cocomplete), and that W and V_{T^{(n)}1} are monadic and accessible. Then by [Kelly_unified, Theorem 27.1] it follows that the forgetful functor from {\mathsf{T}^{(n)}}\mhyphen{\mathbf{OC}} to {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)}/T^{(n)}1 (the composite of functors in (?)) is also monadic, thus in particular {\mathsf{T}^{(n)}}\mhyphen{\mathbf{OC}} has an initial object, given by the free algebra over the initial object in {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)}/T^{(n)}1.
Because {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)} is locally presentable, so is {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)}/T^{(n)}1, being its slice. The functor W is monadic because it is the forgetful functor from a category of monoids and admits a left adjoint G (which, incidentally, is of a particularly simple form GP=\coprod_{n\in\mathbb{N}}P^{\otimes n} thanks to Proposition 7.9). It is routine to show that W is accessible. The functor V_{T^{(n)}1} is monadic and accessible by Proposition 8.3.
Let \mathcal{V} be a locally presentable extensive category and n be a natural number. A weak n-dimensional \mathcal{V}-category is a model of the initial \mathsf{T}^{(n)}-operad with contraction, where \mathsf{T}^{(n)} is the free strict n-dimensional \mathcal{V}-category monad on {{\mathcal{V}}\mhyphen\mathbf{Gph}}^{(n)}.
If we let \mathcal{V}=\mathbf{Set} and n=2, then weak 2-categories (weak 2-dimensional \mathbf{Set}-categories) are equivalent to unbiased bicategories, which are a variant of bicategories equipped with for each natural number m, an m-ary horizontal composition operation. See [Leinster_book, Section 9.4] for details.
If we let \mathcal{V}=\omega\mhyphen\mathbf{Cpo} and n=2, then weak 2-dimensional \omega\mhyphen\mathbf{Cpo}-categories are the unbiased version of \omega\mhyphen\mathbf{Cpo}-enriched bicategories as in [Power_Tanaka].
The text on this page is from arXiv:1903.07030v1 by Soichiro Fujii, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/1903/1903.07030.jsonl.