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: functoriality of codensity monad


view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Nov 19 2020 at 02:19):

When people write about the construction of codensity monads, they describe it as a functor (Cat/A)opMnd(A)(\mathrm{Cat}/A)^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathrm{Mnd}(A). This is great, but it leaves out the 2-categorical structure of the slice over AA.

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.

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Nov 19 2020 at 02:34):

Or a simpler version of the question - given an object cCc\in C in a cartesian category, we can form the endomorphism operad c,c:FSet\langle c,c\rangle:\mathbb{F}\to \mathrm{Set} defined by c,c(n)=C(cn,c)\langle c,c\rangle (n) = C(c^n,c). Is this functorial?

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Nov 19 2020 at 02:36):

(These are closely related to a previous thread about the possible functoriality of X[X,X]X\mapsto [X,X].)

view this post on Zulip sarahzrf (Nov 19 2020 at 03:33):

all else aside, i wonder if you can make it a functor out of the (2, 1)-category or something

view this post on Zulip Dan Doel (Nov 19 2020 at 03:53):

The construction I'm familiar with isn't functorial in the sense you're asking about, I think.

view this post on Zulip Dan Doel (Nov 19 2020 at 03:55):

For ZX=0Z X = 0, 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.

view this post on Zulip Dan Doel (Nov 19 2020 at 03:59):

I'm not sure how what I'm familiar with fits into what you described, but perhaps there are comparable examples.

view this post on Zulip sarahzrf (Nov 19 2020 at 04:07):

ZX?

view this post on Zulip Dan Doel (Nov 19 2020 at 04:08):

ZZ is the definition of the zero functor.

view this post on Zulip sarahzrf (Nov 19 2020 at 04:08):

ahh

view this post on Zulip sarahzrf (Nov 19 2020 at 04:09):

maybe it's just contravariant? okay i bet you can cook up an example that makes it work the other way around heh

view this post on Zulip Dan Doel (Nov 19 2020 at 04:09):

Yeah, the opposite way try zero and one functors.

view this post on Zulip Dan Doel (Nov 19 2020 at 04:10):

Then you can get 101 → 0, I think.

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Nov 19 2020 at 04:49):

that's a good counter-proof, thanks.

view this post on Zulip Christian Williams (Nov 19 2020 at 04:49):

it's just strange that endomorphism operads, endo-homs etc are ubiquitous and important, yet their construction is not functorial

view this post on Zulip Dan Doel (Nov 19 2020 at 05:19):

I imagine it behaves well with respect to 'logical relations'.

view this post on Zulip Dan Doel (Nov 19 2020 at 05:20):

Though I'm not sure exactly what those would be for this case.