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.
When people write about the construction of codensity monads, they describe it as a functor . This is great, but it leaves out the 2-categorical structure of the slice over .
I've been trying to see how it would act on natural transformations, and it seems like there may be a variance obstruction that makes it impossible. Does anyone have thoughts about whether forming codensity monads can be made into a 2-functor? Thanks.
Or a simpler version of the question - given an object in a cartesian category, we can form the endomorphism operad defined by . Is this functorial?
(These are closely related to a previous thread about the possible functoriality of .)
all else aside, i wonder if you can make it a functor out of the (2, 1)-category or something
The construction I'm familiar with isn't functorial in the sense you're asking about, I think.
For , the codensity monad is double negation. For the identity functor, it's the identity. There's a natural transformation from the zero functor to the identity functor, but a transformation between the codensity monads would be double negation elimination.
I'm not sure how what I'm familiar with fits into what you described, but perhaps there are comparable examples.
ZX?
is the definition of the zero functor.
ahh
maybe it's just contravariant? okay i bet you can cook up an example that makes it work the other way around heh
Yeah, the opposite way try zero and one functors.
Then you can get , I think.
that's a good counter-proof, thanks.
it's just strange that endomorphism operads, endo-homs etc are ubiquitous and important, yet their construction is not functorial
I imagine it behaves well with respect to 'logical relations'.
Though I'm not sure exactly what those would be for this case.