Tag Archives: category

category theory, exposition, math, understanding math

Defining “category”

3 Comments

The concept of category is typically taught later in undergrad math than the concept of group is.  It is supposedly a more advanced concept.  Indeed, the typical examples of categories used in applications are more advanced than some of those in group theory (for example, symmetries of geometric shapes and operations on numbers).

Here are some thoughts on how categories could be taught as early as groups, if not earlier.

Nodes and arrows

Small finite categories can be pictured as a graph using nodes and arrows, together with a specification of the identity arrows and a definition of the composition.  (I am using the word “graph” the way category people use it:  a directed graph with possible multiple edges and loops.)

An example is the category pictured below with three objects and seven arrows. The composition is forced except for $kh$, which I hereby define to be $f$.

This way of picturing a category is  easy to grasp. The composite $kh$ visibly has to be either $f$ or $g$.  There is only one choice for the composite of any other composable pair.  Still, the choice of composite is not deducible directly by looking at the graph.

A first class in category theory using graphs as examples could start with this example, or the example in Note 1 below.  This example is nontrivial (never start any subject with trivial examples!) and easy to grasp, in this case using the extraordinary preprocessing your brain does with the input from your eyes.  The definition of category is complicated enough that you should probably present the graph and then give the definition while pointing to what each clause says about the graph.

Most abstract structures have several different ways of representing them. In contrast, when you discuss categorial concepts the standard object-and-arrow notation is the overwhelming favorite.  It reveals domains and codomains and composable pairs, in fact almost everything except which of several possible arrows the composite actually is.  If for example you try to define category using sets and functions as your running example, the student has to do a lot of on-the-go chunking — thinking of a set as a single object, of a set function (which may involve lots of complicated data) as a single chunk with a domain and a codomain, and so on.  But an example shown as a graph comes already chunked and in a picture that is guaranteed to be the most common kind of display they will see in discussions of categories.

After you do these examples, you can introduce trivial and simple graph examples in which the composition is entirely induced; for example these three:

(In case you are wondering, one of them is the empty category.)  I expect that you should also introduce another graph non-example in which associativity fails.

Multiplication tables

The multiplication table for a group is easy to understand, too, in the sense that it gives you a simple method of calculating the product of any two elements.  But it doesn’t provide a visual way to see the product as a category-as-graph does.  Of course, the graph representation works only for finite categories, just as the multiplication table works only for finite groups.

You can give a multiplication table for a small finite category, too, like the one below for the category above.  (“iA” means the identity arrow on A and composition, as usual in category theory, is right to left.) This is certainly more abstract than the graph picture, but it does hit you in the face with the fact that the multiplication is partial.

Notes

1. My suggested example of a category given as a graph shows clearly that you can define two different categorial structures on the graph.  One problem is that the two different structures are isomorphic categories.  In fact, if you engage the students in a discussion about these examples someone may notice that!  So you should probably also use the graph below,where you can define several different category structures that are not all isomorphic. 

2. Multiplication tables and categories-as-graphs-with-composition are extensional presentations.  This means they are presented with all their parts laid out in front of you.  Most groups and categories are given by definitions as accumulations of properties (see concept in the Handbook of Mathematical Discourse).  These definitions tend to make some requirements such as associativity obvious.

Students are sometimes bothered by extensional definitions.  “What are h and k (in the category above)?  What are a, b and c?” (in a group given as a set of letters and a multiplication table).

Send to Kindle
category theory, math, Mathematica, Sketches and forms, understanding math

Showing categorical diagrams in 3D

2 Comments

The interactive examples in this post require installing Wolfram CDF player, which is free and works on most desktop computers using Firefox, Safari and Internet Explorer, but not Chrome. The source code is the Mathematica Notebook algebra1.nb, which is available for free use under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. The notebook can be read by CDF Player if you cannot make the embedded versions in this post work.

In Graph-Based Logic and Sketches, Atish Bagchi and I needed to construct a lot of cones based on fairly complicated diagrams. We generally show the base diagram and left the reader to imagine the cone. This post is an experiment in presenting such a diagram in 3D, with its cone and other constructions based on it.

To understand this post, you need a basic understanding of categories, functors and limit cones (see References).

The notebook and CDF files that generate this display may be downloaded from here:

These files may be used and modified as you wish according to the Creative Commons rule listed under “Permissions” (at the top of the window).

The sketch for categories: composition

A finite-limit sketch (FL sketch) is a category with finite limits given by specifying certain  nodes and arrows, commutative diagrams using these nodes and arrows, and limit cones based on diagrams using the given nodes and arrows.  A model of an FL sketch is a finite-limit-preserving functor from the FL sketch into some category \mathcal{C}.  Detailed descriptions of FL-sketches are  in References [1], [2] and [3] (below).

Categories themselves may be sketched by FL-sketches. Here I will present the part of the sketch that constructs (in a model) the object of composites of two arrows.  This is the specification for composite:

  1. The composite of two arrows f:A\to B and g:B'\to C is defined if and only if B=B'.
  2. The composite is denoted by gf.
  3. The domain of gf is A and the codomain is C.

We start with a diagram in the FL sketch for categories that gives the data corresponding to two arrows that may be composed.  This diagram involves nodes ob and ar, which in a model become the object of objects and the object of arrows of the category object in \mathcal{C}.  (Suppose \mathcal{C} is the category of sets; then the model is simply a small category.  The node ob goes to the set of objects of the small category and ar goes to the set of arrows.)  The arrows labeled dom and cod take (in a model) an arrow to its domain and codomain respectively. Here is the diagram:

You can move the diagram around in three dimensions to see it from different perspectives. (Of course it isn’t really in three dimensions. Your eyes-to-brain module reconstructs the illusion of three dimensions when you twirl the diagram around.)

Note that this is a diagram, not a directed graph (digraph). (In the paper, Atish and I, like most category theorists, say “graph” instead of “digraph”.) It has an underlying digraph (see Chapter 2 of Graph-Based Logic and Sketches), but the labeling of several different nodes of the underlying digraph by the name of the same node of the sketch is meaningful. 

Here, the key fact is that in the diagram there are two arrows, one labeled dom and the other cod, to the same node labeled ob, and two other arrows to two different nodes labeled ob. 

Now click c1.

This shows a cone over the diagram.  One of the nodes in the sketch must be cp (in other words given beforehand; that is, we are specifying not only that the blue stuff is a limit cone but that the limit is the node cp.)   In a model, this cone must become a limit cone.  It follows from the properties of limits that the elements of cp in the model in Sets are pairs of arrows with the property that one has a codomain that is the same as the domain of the other.  The label “cp” stands for “compatible pairs”.

Now click c2.

The green stuff is a diagram showing two arrows from the node labeled ar to the left and right nodes labeled ob in the original black diagram.  This is not a cone; it is just a diagram.  In a model, any arrow in the vertex must have domain the same as the domain of one of the arrows in the compatible pair, and codomain the same as the codomain of the other arrow of the pair.  Thus in the model, an arrow living in the set labeled with “ar” in green must satisfy requirement 3 in the specification for composition given above.

Note that the requirement that the green diagram be commutative in a model is vacuous, so it doesn’t matter whether we specify it specifically as a diagram in the sketch or not.

Now click c3.

The arrow labeled comp must be specified as an arrow in the sketch.  We want its value to be the composite of an element of cp in a model, in other words a compatible pair of arrows.  At this point that will not necessarily be true.  But all can be saved:

Now click c4.

We must specify that the diagram given by the thick arrows must be a diagram of the sketch.  The fact that it must become commutative in a model means exactly that the red arrow comp from cp to ar takes a compatible pair to an arrow that satisfies requirements 1–3 of the specification of composite shown above.

References

  1. Peter T. Johnstone, Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium, Volume 2 (Oxford Logic Guides 44), by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0198524960.
  2. Michael Barr and Charles Wells, Category theory for computing science (1999).    (This is the easiest to start with but it doesn’t get very far.)
  3. Michael Barr and Charles Wells, Toposes, Triples and Theories (2005).  Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories 1.

 
\mathcal{C}

Send to Kindle
abstractmath.org, category theory, exposition, language of math, math, representations, Sketches and forms, understanding math

Function as map

Leave a comment

This is a first draft of an article to eventually appear in abstractmath.

Images and metaphors

To explain a math concept, you need to explain how mathematicians think about the concept. This is what in abstractmath I call the images and metaphors carried by the concept. Of course you have to give the precise definition of the concept and basic theorems about it. But without the images and metaphors most students, not to mention mathematicians from a different field, will find it hard to prove much more than some immediate consequences of the definition. Nor will they have much sense of the place of the concept in math and applications.

Teachers will often explain the images and metaphors with handwaving and pictures in a fairly vague way. That is good to start with, but it’s important to get more precise about the images and metaphors. That’s because images and metaphors are often not quite a good fit for the concept — they may suggest things that are false and not suggest things that are true. For example, if a set is a container, why isn’t the element-of relation transitive? (A coin in a coinpurse in your pocket is a coin in your pocket.)

“A metaphor is a useful way to think about something, but it is not the same thing as the same thing.” (I think I stole that from the Economist.) Here, I am going to get precise with the notion that a function is a map. I am acting like a mathematician in “getting precise”, but I am getting precise about a metaphor, not about a mathematical object.

A function is a map

A map (ordinary paper map) of Minnesota has the property that each point on the paper represents a point in the state of Minnesota. This map can be represented as a mathematical function from a subset of a 2-sphere to {{\mathbb R}^2}. The function is a mathematical idealization of the relation between the state and the piece of paper, analogous to the mathematical description of the flight of a rocket ship as a function from {{\mathbb R}} to {{\mathbb R}^3}.

The Minnesota map-as-function is probably continuous and differentiable, and as is well known it can be angle preserving or area preserving but not both.

So you can say there is a point on the paper that represents the location of the statue of Paul Bunyan in Bemidji. There is a set of points that represents the part of the Mississippi River that lies in Minnesota. And so on.

A function has an image. If you think about it you will realize that the image is just a certain portion of the piece of paper. Knowing that a particular point on the paper is in the image of the function is not the information contained in what we call “this map of Minnesota”.

This yields what I consider a basic insight about function-as-map:  The map contains the information about the preimage of each point on the paper map. So:

The map in the sense of a “map of Minnesota” is represented by the whole function, not merely by the image.

I think that is the essence of the metaphor that a function is a map. And I don’t think newbies in abstractmath always understand that relationship.

A morphism is a map

The preceding discussion doesn’t really represent how we think of a paper map of Minnesota. We don’t think in terms of points at all. What we see are marks on the map showing where some particular things are. If it is a road map it has marks showing a lot of roads, a lot of towns, and maybe county boundaries. If it is a topographical map it will show level curves showing elevation. So a paper map of a state should be represented by a structure preserving map, a morphism. Road maps preserve some structure, topographical maps preserve other structure.

The things we call “maps” in math are usually morphisms. For example, you could say that every simple closed curve in the plane is an equivalence class of maps from the unit circle to the plane. Here equivalence class meaning forget the parametrization.

The very fact that I have to mention forgetting the parametrization is that the commonest mathematical way to talk about morphisms is as point-to-point maps with certain properties. But we think about a simple closed curve in the plane as just a distorted circle. The point-to-point correspondence doesn’t matter. So this example is really talking about a morphism as a shape-preserving map. Mathematicians introduced points into talking about preserving shapes in the nineteenth century and we are so used to doing that that we think we have to have points for all maps.

Not that points aren’t useful. But I am analyzing the metaphor here, not the technical side of the math.

Groups are functors

People who don’t do category theory think the idea of a mathematical structure as a functor is weird. From the point of view of the preceding discussion, a particular group is a functor from the generic group to some category. (The target category is Set if the group is discrete, Top if it is a topological group, and so on.)

The generic group is a group in a category called its theory or sketch that is just big enough to let it be a group. If the theory is the category with finite products that is just big enough then it is the Lawvere theory of the group. If it is a topos that is just big enough then it is the classifying topos of groups. The theory in this sense is equivalent to some theory in the sense of string-based logic, for example the signature-with-axioms (equational theory) or the first order theory of groups. Johnstone’s Elephant book is the best place to find the translation between these ideas.

A particular group is represented by a finite-limit-preserving functor on the algebraic theory, or by a logical functor on the classifying topos, and so on; constructions which bring with them the right concept of group homomorphisms as well (they will be any natural transformations).

The way we talk about groups mimics the way we talk about maps. We look at the symmetric group on five letters and say its multiplication is noncommutative. “Its multiplication” tells us that when we talk about this group we are talking about the functor, not just the values of the functor on objects. We use the same symbols of juxtaposition for multiplication in any group, “{1}” or “{e}” for the identity, “{a^{-1}}” for the inverse of {a}, and so on. That is because we are really talking about the multiplication, identity and inverse function in the generic group — they really are the same for all groups. That is because a group is not its underlying set, it is a functor. Just like the map of Minnesota “is” the whole function from the state to the paper, not just the image of the function.

Send to Kindle
language of math, math, representations, understanding math

Mathematical concepts

5 Comments

This post was triggered by John Armstrong’s comment on my last post.

We need  to distinguish two ideas: representations of a mathematical concept and the total concept.  (I will say more about terminology later.)

Example: We can construct the quotient of the kernel of a group homomorphism by taking its cosets and defining a multiplication on them.  We can construct the image of the homomorphism by take the set of values of the homomorphism and using the multiplication induced by the codomain group.   The quotient group and the image are the same mathematical structure in the sense that anything useful you can say about one is true of the other.   For example, it may be useful to know the cardinality of the quotient (image) but it is not useful to know what its elements are.

But hold on, as the Australians say, if we knew that the codomain was an Abelian group then we would know that the quotient group was abelian because the elements of the image form a subgroup of the codomain. (But the Australians I know wouldn’t say that.)

Now that kind of thinking is based on the idea that the elements of the image are “really” elements of the codomain whereas elements of the quotients are “really” subsets of the domain.  That is outmoded thinking.  The image and the quotient are the same in all important aspects because they are naturally isomorphic.   We should think of the quotient as just as much as subgroup of the codomain as the image is.  John Baez (I think) would say that to ask whether the subgroup embedding is the identity on elements or not is an evil question.

Let’s step back and look at what is going on here.  The definition of the quotient group is a construction using cosets.  The definition of the image is a construction using values of the homomorphism.  Those are two different specific  representations of the same concept.

But what is the concept, as distinct from its representations?  Intuitively, it is

  • All the constructions made possible by the definition of the concept.
  • All the statements that are true about the concept.

(That is not precise.)

The total concept is like the clone plus the equational theory of a specific type of algebra in the sense of universal algebra.  The clone is all the operations you can construct knowing the given signature and equations and the equational theory is the set of all equations that follow from them.  That is one way of describing it.  Another is the monad in Set that gives the type of algebra — the operations are the arrows and the equations are the commutative diagrams.

Note: The preceding description of the monad is not quite right.  Also the whole discussion omits mention of the fact that we are in the world (doctrine) of universal algebra.  In the world of first order logic, for example, we need to refer to the classifying topos of the category of algebras of that type (or to its first order theory).

Terminology

We need better terminology for all this.  I am not going to propose better terminology, so this is a shaggy dog story.

Math ed people talk about a particular concept image of a concept as well as the total schema of the concept.

In categorical logic, we talk about the sketch or presentation of the concept vs. the theory. The theory is a category (of the kind appropriate to the doctrine) that contains all the possible constructions and commutative diagrams that follow from the presentation.

In this post I have used “total concept” to refer to the schema or theory.  I have referred the particular things as  “representations” (for example construct the image of a homomorphism by cosets or by values of the homomorphism).

“Representation” does not have the same connotations as “presentation”.  Indeed a presentation of a group and a representation of a group are mathematically  two different things.  But I suspect they are two different aspects of the same idea.

All this needs to be untangled.  Maybe we should come up with two completely arbitrary words, like “dostak” and “dosh”.

Send to Kindle