Idempotents by sketches and forms

2012/02/16 — SixWingedSeraph

 
This post provides a detailed description of an example of a mathematical structure presented as a sketch and as a form.  It is a supplement to my article An Introduction to forms.  Most of the constructions I mention here are given in more detail in that article.
 
It helps in reading this post to be familiar with the basic ideas of category, including commutative diagram and limit cone, and of the concepts of logical theory and model in logic.
 

Sketches and forms

A sketch of a mathematical structure is a collection of objects and arrows that make up a digraph (directed graph), together with some specified cones, cocones and diagrams in the digraph.  A model of the sketch is a digraph morphism from the digraph to some category that takes the cones to limit cones, the cocones to colimit cocones, and the diagrams to commutative diagrams.  A morphism of models of a sketch from one model to another in the same category is a natural transformation.  Sketches can be used to define all kinds of algebraic structures in the sense of universal algebra, and many other types of structures (including many types of categories).  

There are many structures that sketches cannot sketch.  Forms were first defined in [4].  They can define anything a sketch can define and lots of other things.  [5] gives a leisurely description of forms suitable for people who have a little bit of knowledge of categories and [1] gives a more thorough description.  

An idempotent is a very simple kind of algebraic structure.  Here I will describe both a sketch and a form for idempotents. In another post I will do the same for binops (magmas).

Idempotent

An idempotent is a unary operation $u$ for which $u^2=u$.

  • If $u$ is a morphism in a category whose morphisms are set functions, a function $u:S\to S$ is an idempotent if $u(u(x))=u(x)$ for all $x$ in the domain.  
  • Any identity element in any category is an idempotent.
  • A nontrivial example is the function $u(x,y):=(-x,0)$ on the real plane.  

Any idempotent $u$ makes the following diagram commute

and that diagram can be taken as the definition of idempotent in any category.

The diagram is in green.  In this post (and in [5]) diagrams in the category of models of a sketch or a form are shown in green.

A sketch for idempotents

The sketch for idempotents contains a digraph with one object and one arrow from that object to itself (above left) and one diagram (above right).  It has no cones or cocones.  So this is an almost trivial example.  When being expository (well, I can hardly say "when you are exposing") your first example should not be trivial, but it should be easy.  Let's call the sketch $\mathcal{S}$.

  • The diagram looks the same as the green diagram above.  It is in black, because I am showing things in syntax (things in sketches and forms) in black and semantics (things in categories of models) in green.
  • The green diagram is a commutative diagram in some category (unspecified).  
  • The black diagram is a diagram in a digraph. It doesn't make sense to say it is commutative because digraphs don't have composition of arrows.
  • Each sketch has a specific digraph and lists of specific diagrams, cones and cocones.  The left digraph above is not in the list of diagrams of $\mathcal{S}$ (see below).

The definition of sketch says that every diagram in the official list of diagrams of a given sketch must become a commutative diagram in a model.  This use of the word "become" means in this case that a model must be a digraph morphism $M:\mathcal{S}\to\mathcal{C}$ for some category $\mathcal{C}$ for which the diagram below commutes.

This sketch generates a category called the Theory ("Cattheory" in [5]) of the sketch $\mathcal{S}$, denoted by $\text{Th}(\mathcal{S})$.  It is roughly the "smallest" category containing $f$ and $C$ for which the diagrams in $\mathcal{S}$ are commutative.  
 
This theory contains the generic model $G:\mathcal{S}\to \text{Th}(\mathcal{S})$ that takes $f$ and $C$ to themselves.
  • $G$ is "generic" because anything you prove about $G$ is true of every model of $\mathcal{S}$ in any category.
  • In particular, in the category $\text{Th}(\mathcal{S})$, $G(f)\circ G(f)=G(f)$.  
  • $G$ is a universal morphism in the sense of category theory: It lifts any model $M:\mathcal{S}\to\mathcal{C}$ to a unique functor $\bar{M}=M\circ G:\text{Th}(\mathcal{S})\to\mathcal{C}$ which can therefore be regarded as the same model.  See Note [2].
SInce models are functors, morphisms between models are natural transformations.  This gives what you would normally call homomorphisms for models of almost any sketchable structure.  In [2] you can find a sketch for groups, and indeed the natural transformations between models are group homomorphisms.

Sketching categories

You can sketch categories with a sketch CatSk containing diagrams and cones, but no cocones.  This is done in detail in [3]. The resulting theory $\text{Th}(\mathbf{CatSk})$ is required to be the least category-with-finite-limits generated by $\mathcal{S}$ with the diagrams becoming commutative diagrams and the cones becoming limit cones.  This theory is the FL-Theory for categories, which I will call ThCat (suppressing mention of FL).  

Doctrines

In general the theory of a particular kind of structure contains a parameter that denotes its doctrine. The sketch $\mathcal{S}$ for idempotents didn't require cones, but you can construct theories $\text{Th}(\mathcal{S})$, $\text{Th} (\text{FP},\mathcal{S})$ and $\text{Th}(\text{FL},\mathcal{S})$ for idempotents (FP means it is a category with finite products).  

In a strong sense, all these theories have the same models, namely idempotents, but the doctrine of the theory allows you to use more mechanisms for proving properties of idempotents.  (The doctrine for $\text{Th}(\mathcal{S})$ provides for equational proofs for unary operations only, a doctrine which has no common name such as FP or FS.)  The paper [1] is devoted to explicating proof in the context of forms, using graphs and diagrams instead of formulas that are strings of symbols.

Describing composable pairs of arrows

The form for any type of structure is constructed using the FL theory for some type of category, for example category with all limits, cartesian closed category, topos, and so on.  The form for idempotents can be constructed in ThCat (no extra structure needed).  The form for reflexive function spaces (for example) needs the FL theory for cartesian closed categories (see [5]).

Such an FL theory must contain objects $\text{ob}$ and $\text{ar}$ that become the set of objects and the set of arrows of the category that a model produces.  (Since FL theories have models in any category with finite limits, I could have said "object of objects" and "object of arrows".  But in this post I will talk about only models in Set.)

ThCat contains an object  $\text{ar}_2$ that represents composable pairs of arrows.  That requires a cone to define it:

This must become a limit cone in a model.

  • I usually show cones in blue. 
  • $\text{dom}$ and $\text{cod}$ give (in a model) the domain and codomain of an arrow.
  • $\text{lfac}$ gives the left factor and $\text{rfac}$ gives the right factor. It is usually useful to give suggestive names to some of the projections in situations like this, since they will be used elsewhere (where they will be black!).
  • The objects and arrows in the diagram (including $\text{ar}_2$) are already members of the FL theory for categories.
  • This diagram is annotated in green with sample names of objects and arrows that might exist in a model.  Atish and I introduced that annotation system in [1] to help you chase the diagram and think about what it means.

This cone is a graph-based description of the object of composable arrows in a category (as opposed to a linguistic or string-based description).

Describing endomorphisms

Now an idempotent must be an endomorphism, so we provide a cone describing the object of endomorphisms in a category. This cone already exists in the FL theory for categories.

  • $\text{loop}$ is a monomorphism (in fact a regular mono because it is the mono produced by an equalizer) so it is not unreasonable to give the element annotation for $\text{endo}$ and $\text{ar}$ the same name.
  • "$\text{dc}$" takes $f$ to its domain and codomain. 
  • $\text{loop}$ and "$\text{dc}$" were not created when I produced the cone above.  They were already in the FL theory for categories.
 
Since the cone defining $\text{ar}_2$ is a limit cone (in the Theory, not in a model), if you have any other commutative cone (purple) to that cone, a unique arrow (red) $\text{diag}$ automatically is present as shown below:

This particular purple cone is the limit cone defining $\text{endo}$ just defined.  Now $\text{diag}$ is a specific arrow in the FL theory for categories. In a model of the theory (which is a category in Set or in some other category) takes an endomorphism to the corresponding pair of composable arrows.

The object of idempotents

Now using these arrows we can define the object $\text{idm}$ of idempotents using the diagram below. See Note [3].

 

 

 

 

 

Idm is an object in ThCat.  In any category, in other words in any model of ThCat, idm becomes the set of idempotent arrows in that category.

In the terminology of [5], the object idm is the form for idempotents, and the cone it is the limit of is the description of idempotent.  

Now take ThCat and adjoin an arrow $g:1\to\text{idm}$.  You get a new FL category I will call the FL-theory of the form for idempotents.  A model of the theory of the form in Set  is a category with a specified idempotent. A particular example of a model of the form idm in the category of real linear vector spaces is the map $u(x,y):=(-x,0)$ of the (set of points of) the real plane to itself (it is an idempotent endomorphism of $\textbf{R}^2$).  

This example is typical of forms and their models, except in one way:  Idempotents are also sketchable, as I described above.  Many mathematical structures can be perceived as models of forms, but not models of sketches, such as reflexive function spaces as in [5].

Notes

[1] The diagrams shown in this post were drawn in Mathematica.  The code for them is shown in the notebook SketchFormExamples.nb .  I am in the early stages of developing a package for drawing categorical diagrams in Mathematica, so this notebook shows the diagrams defined in very primitive machine-code-like Mathematica.  The package will not rival xypic for TeX any time soon.  I am doing it so I can produce diagrams (including 3D diagrams) you can manipulate.

[2] In practice I would refer to the names of the objects and arrows in the sketch rather than using the M notation:  I might write $f\circ f=f$ instead of $M(f)\circ M(f)=M(f)$ for example.  Of course this confuses syntax with semantics, which sounds like a Grievous Sin, but it is similar to what we do all the time in writing math:  "In a semigroup, $x$ is an idempotent if $xx=x$."  We use same notation for the binary operation for any semigroup and we use $x$ as an arbitrary element of most anything.  Actually, if I write $f\circ f=f$ I can claim I am talking in the generic model, since any statement true in the generic model is true in any model.  So there.

[3] In the Mathematica notebook SketchFormExamples.nb in which I drew these diagrams, this diagram is plotted in Euclidean 3-space and can be viewed from different viewpoints by running your cursor over it.

References

[1] Atish Bagchi and Charles Wells, Graph-Base Logic and Sketches, draft, September 2008, on ArXiv.

[2] Michael Barr and Charles Wells, Category Theory for Computing Science (1999). Les Publications CRM, Montreal (publication PM023).

[3] Michael Barr and Charles Wells, Toposes, Triples and Theories (2005). Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories 1.

[4] Charles Wells, A generalization of the concept of sketch, Theoretical Computer Science 70, 1990

[5] Charles Wells, An Introduction to forms.

 

 

 

Posted in exposition, math, Sketches and forms, Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

Function as map

2010/05/24 — Charles Wells

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 $latex {{\mathbb R}^2}&fg=000000$. 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 $latex {{\mathbb R}}&fg=000000$ to $latex {{\mathbb R}^3}&fg=000000$.

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, “$latex {1}&fg=000000$” or “$latex {e}&fg=000000$” for the identity, “$latex {a^{-1}}&fg=000000$” for the inverse of $latex {a}&fg=000000$, 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.

Posted in abstractmath.org, category theory, exposition, language of math, math, representations, Sketches and forms, understanding math. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . No Comments »

Mathematical concepts

2009/06/10 — Charles Wells

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”.

Posted in language of math, math, representations, understanding math. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »
«
»