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: learning: questions

Topic: Characterising free algebras


view this post on Zulip Nathaniel Virgo (Jan 28 2025 at 13:18):

I have a monad (P,μ,δ)(P,\mu,\delta) on a cartesian category C\mathcal{C} (in fact the Giry monad on the category of standard Borel spaces, which may or may not be relevant) and I have an algebra of that monad, (A,ε)(A,\varepsilon).

I hope to show that my algebra is free, i.e. that there exists some object XX of C\mathcal{C} such that (A,ε)(A,\varepsilon) is isomorphic to (P(X),μ)(P(X),\mu) as an algebra. However, I don't know what XX is a priori. (In fact I want to define something as the unique-up-to-iso XX such that AA is free on XX, assuming it is indeed unique.)

So I'm hoping for a result along the lines of "an algebra of a monad is free if and only if ...", where assessing the "..." doesn't require finding the object XX on which it's free. If there is such a characterisation then maybe I can use it to prove that AA is free. Does anyone know of one?

(edit: as usually happens after I post something publicly, I think I've solved my problem a different way ... edit 2: actually that didn't work, so I think I do still need this)

view this post on Zulip Tobias Fritz (Jan 28 2025 at 14:14):

I'd expect that projectivity is a necessary condition: along every surjective morphism of algebras BCB \to C, it must be possible to lift every algebra morphism ACA \to C to an algebra morphism ABA \to B.

view this post on Zulip Tobias Fritz (Jan 28 2025 at 14:14):

This is obviously necessary for algebras of any monad on Set to be free: in your notation, if AA is free then algebra morphisms out of AA are in bijection with arbitrary maps out of XX, and these can be lifted by the axiom of choice. Since standard Borel measurable spaces behave set-like in many ways, I'd hope that this still applies.

For some monads this projectivity condition is both necessary and sufficient for an algebra to be free, and intuitively I'd wager that the Giry monad is one of them.

Edit: Thanks to @Areeb SM for pointing out that what I said wasn't obvious at all (and probably not quite right). Should be fixed now.

view this post on Zulip Mike Shulman (Jan 28 2025 at 18:07):

Another necessary condition for being a free algebra is being a coalgebra for the comonad on the category of algebras induced by the free-forgetful adjunction. If the monadic adjunction is also comonadic, then this condition is sufficient, and the object XX on which a coalgebra algebra AA is free can be recovered as the equalizer of the coalgebra structure map and the unit of the monad.

view this post on Zulip Tobias Fritz (Jan 28 2025 at 18:26):

That reminds me of another necessary condition: a free Giry algebra AA has a "codiagonal" algebra morphism AAAA \to A \otimes A, which is basically the EM algebra version of the copy map in a Markov category. This codiagonal has the characteristic property that composing with the projection AIA \to I on either tensor factor gives the identity AAA \to A. Some people call such a thing a broadcasting map, because it "broadcasts" elements of AA to both tensor factors. It need not be commutative or associative though, just counital.

view this post on Zulip Tobias Fritz (Jan 28 2025 at 18:28):

The fact that not all Giry algebras have a broadcasting map is closely related to the no-cloning theorem in quantum theory. (I can go into more details if anyone wants to see them.)

view this post on Zulip Tobias Fritz (Jan 28 2025 at 18:30):

Morally speaking, the no-broadcasting theorem for general probabilistic theories says that the existence of a broadcasting map characterizes the free algebras. Technically, it's slightly different because they don't formally consider Giry algebras. But I'm fairly sure that the same result holds for Giry algebras, even if I wouldn't know how to prove it offhand.

view this post on Zulip JS PL (he/him) (Jan 28 2025 at 18:42):

Mike Shulman said:

Another necessary condition for being a free algebra is being a coalgebra for the comonad on the category of algebras induced by the free-forgetful adjunction. If the monadic adjunction is also comonadic, then this condition is sufficient, and the object XX on which a coalgebra algebra AA is free can be recovered as the equalizer of the coalgebra structure map and the unit of the monad.

Bart Jacobs has a paper on this topic, and how these coalgebra structures can be interpreted as bases: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.0844

view this post on Zulip Mike Shulman (Jan 28 2025 at 18:47):

Tobias Fritz said:

That reminds me of another necessary condition: a free Giry algebra AA has a "codiagonal" algebra morphism AAAA \to A \otimes A, which is basically the EM algebra version of the copy map in a Markov category. This codiagonal has the characteristic property that composing with the projection AIA \to I on either tensor factor gives the identity AAA \to A. Some people call such a thing a broadcasting map, because it "broadcasts" elements of AA to both tensor factors. It need not be commutative or associative though, just counital.

That's curious! Up until your last sentence I was thinking "that must be just because the free algebra functor is strong monoidal, so it preserves comonoids, and the monoidal structure of the base category is cartesian, so every object is a comonoid". That's what happens in lots of other cases like vector spaces, for instance. But if the broadcast map is not commutative or associative, it must come from somewhere else?

view this post on Zulip Tobias Fritz (Jan 28 2025 at 19:22):

Oh for free algebras it is commutative and associative, and does come from the strong monoidal structure. I see that my phrasing with "need not" was confusing; I just meant that these conditions are not part of the definition of a broadcasting map!

view this post on Zulip Tobias Fritz (Jan 28 2025 at 19:22):

So there seems to be the following dichotomy:

view this post on Zulip Mike Shulman (Jan 28 2025 at 19:25):

Ah, I see. So if every broadcasting map that actually exists is associative and commutative, why do people define the notion of "broadcasting map" that isn't associative or commutative? (-:

view this post on Zulip Tobias Fritz (Jan 28 2025 at 19:27):

Great question! I think that was based on the "operational" intuition by physicists that a broadcasting is a process that creates two copies of some piece of information in such a way that when you ignore or forget one, then you recover the original information. The fact that this counitality was enough for them to disprove the existence in non-free cases must have been why they didn't consider additional conditions.

view this post on Zulip Paolo Perrone (Jan 31 2025 at 07:23):

Here's another thing that might help: given a free algebra PXPX, the image of η:XPX\eta:X\to PX (for a convenient choice of XX) can be taken to be the set of extreme points of PXPX. Those are exactly the points pPXp\in PX such that if p=μ(π)p=\mu(\pi) for some πPPX\pi\in PPX, then necessarily π=η(p)\pi=\eta(p).

(There are a few other characterizations, but the one above is the one more readily generalizable outside the free case.)

Now let (A,e)(A,e) be an algebra and let AA' be the set of its extreme points (same definition as above, but with ee in place of μ\mu), with the induced sigma-algebra. AA is free if and only if any of the following equivalent conditions hold:

  1. Every point of AA is a unique convex mixture of extreme points (i.e. of a probability measure supported on AA')

  2. The usual universal property holds: there's a bijection Meas(A,B)Alg(A,B)\mathrm{Meas}(A', B)\cong\mathrm{Alg}(A,B), natural in BB, given in the left direction by precomposition with the inclusion.

(There are other equivalent conditions.)

view this post on Zulip Paolo Perrone (Jan 31 2025 at 08:06):

(The idea of "extreme points" is specific to the Giry monad, and of a few other probability monads, it does not hold in general. It may be related to the explicit basis property.)