Category Theory
Zulip Server
Archive

You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.


Stream: theory: category theory

Topic: "expanded" composition


view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Mar 08 2023 at 01:31):

Composition of profunctors is normally defined by a coend bR(a,b)×S(b,c)\int^b R(a,b)\times S(b,c), a sum over BB with a quotient by its action (rb,s)(r,bs)(r\cdot b, s)\equiv (r,b\cdot s). But what if we just defined (RS)(a,c)(R\circ S)(a,c) to be triples of morphisms (r,b,s)(r,b,s)? This seems to be an equivalent notion of composite, without needing any quotienting. It seems like the "coYoneda-expanded" form of composition. What's going on?

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Mar 08 2023 at 01:38):

Thinking of profunctors as discrete two-sided fibrations ARBBBSCA\leftarrow R\to B\leftarrow \vec{B}\to B\leftarrow S\to C, the composite span is a two-sided fibration consisting of these triples (r,b,s)(r,b,s).

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Mar 08 2023 at 01:39):

So why quotient at all? Just to collapse to a normal form of pairs R,SR,S?

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Mar 08 2023 at 01:42):

Oh, maybe this is about representing a virtual double category.

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Mar 08 2023 at 01:45):

but the "expanded" composite span seems to be a composite in that sense as well.

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Mar 08 2023 at 01:48):

So I'm wondering, why not define (RS)(A,C)(R\circ S)(A,C) to be a sum over morphisms rather than objects?
(RS)(A,C)=B:B.  R(A,B0)×S(B1,C)(R\circ S)(A,C) = \sum B:\vec{B}.\; R(A,B_0)\times S(B_1,C)
It seems simpler, because no quotient is needed.

view this post on Zulip Mike Shulman (Mar 08 2023 at 02:06):

Well, to start with, that sort of composition wouldn't have identities...

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Mar 08 2023 at 02:07):

Ah, yes of course.

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Mar 08 2023 at 02:07):

Thanks. It felt too good to be true, but I couldn't see the problem.

view this post on Zulip Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Mar 08 2023 at 12:25):

the archetypal 'identity crisis' :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

view this post on Zulip fosco (Mar 10 2023 at 08:06):

Matteo Capucci (he/him) said:

the archetypal 'identity crisis' :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Initial object in the category of identity crises