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.
Does anyone know of a reference for the following fact?
Consider an endofunctor and a monad on a sufficiently nice category, together with a distributive law
that commutes with the unit and multiplication of .
Furthermore, let denote the free monad over .
Then there is a unique distributive law commuting with both units and multiplications, and satisfying the obvious diagram relating it to . I found a few variants, notably in Bartel's thesis and a paper by Lenisa, Power, and Watanabe, but not this precise one.
Thanks in advance for any hint!
Funny, I tried to use unicode symbols instead of math mode, but the star didn't show...
I think this follows from the fact that such a distributive law is equivalent to a lifting of to a monad on the category of -endofunctor-algebras, and similarly is equivalent to a lifting of to a monad on the category of -monad algebras, while these latter two categories of algebras are equivalent (assuming is algebraically-free on ).
Thanks, @Mike Shulman, that's a neat proof, hardly longer than a mere reference.
What does "algebraically-free" mean here - it's different than free?
Algebraically free means that the category of algebras for the monad coincide with the category of algebras for the endofunctor. It's a stronger condition than just being free.
Nice! I don't have the energy to understand the proof right now, but the nLab says also that conversely, a free monad on a locally small and complete category is algebraically free. That covers most of our usual categories of mathematical gadgets.
Free monads that aren't algebraically-free are one of the pathologies of category theory that we make definitions and theorems to let us ignore, like limit-preserving functors that don't have left adjoints and Kan extensions that aren't pointwise.
(Of course, now that I've said that, someone will pop up and tell me about how important all three of those things are...)