[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: categories@mta.ca*Subject*: categories: Real coalgebra*From*: Peter Freyd <pjf@saul.cis.upenn.edu>*Date*: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 11:49:50 -0500 (EST)*Sender*: cat-dist@mta.ca

I've been looking at the Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Coalgebraic Methods in Computer Science (CMCS'99), Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Volume 19, to be found at www.elsevier.nl:80/cas/tree/store/tcs/free/noncas/pc/menu.htm There's a nice paper by Dusko Pavlovic and Vaughan Pratt. It's entitled On Coalgebra of Real Numbers and it has turned me on. Their abstract begins: We define the continuum up to order isomorphism (and hence homeomorphism) as the final coalgebra of the functor X x omega, ordinal product with omega. This makes an attractive analogy with the definition of the ordinal omega itself as the initial algebra of the functor 1;X, prepend unity, with both definitions made in the category of posets. I thought of using another functor. And damned if it isn't just what I should have had for my CTCS talk last September at Edinburgh. In the category of posets with top and bottom consider the binary functor, X v Y, obtained by starting with the disjoint union X;Y, with everything in X ordered below Y, and then identifying the top of X with the bottom of Y. The functor X v X preserves the terminator (the one-element poset) hence the terminator is its final coalgebra. So restrict to the category of posets with _distinct_ top and bottom. The functor X v X again has a final coalgebra: this time it's the closed interval, I. (For Dusko and Vaughan's functor it's the half-open interval. For yet another functor, one that ought to have the open interval as its final coalgebra, but doesn't, see PS below.) If X v Y is described as the subobject of the product X x Y consisting of those pairs <x,y> such that either x is top or y is bottom, then a coalgebra structure for X v X can be described as a pair of endo-functions d,u such that for each x either d(x) is top or u(x) is bottom. On the interval [a,b] the final-coalgebra structure is understood to be given by d(x) = min (b, 2x - a) and u(x) = max (a, 2x - b). In fact, we didn't need to start in the category of posets. It would have sufficed to work in the category of sets with distinct top and bottom (see PPS below for a proof). The final coalgebra is still the closed interval and, yes, the ordering is implicit: it is the most inclusive relation preserved by d and u that avoids placing top below bottom. (It can also be obtained by constructing either of the two lattice operations on I as the unique coalgebra map I x I --> I for an appropriately chosen coalgebra structure on I x I. A similar construction works for the Pavlovic-Pratt coalgebra.) Indeed, all of the structure of the closed interval is definable from this coalgebra definition. Go back to the category of posets with distinct top and bottom. It is routine to verify that X v X commutes with the opposite-poset functor hence -- using the fact that that functor is an equivalence -- its final coalgebra will be invariant under that functor. That is, there is an isomorphism from I to its opposite. It takes more work, but not an infinite amount, to construct a coalgebra structure on I x I so that the induced binary operation I x I --> I is the midpoint operation, the values of which will be denoted here as x|y. It is pretty much characterized by the equations: idempotence, x|x = x; commutativity, x|y = y|x; and middle- two-interchange, (u|v)|(x|y) = (u|x)|(v|y); together with cancelation: a|x = a|y => x = y. If one chooses a zero, then one may prove that there's an ambient abelian group with unique division by 2, such that the given midpoint algebra is a subset closed under the operation x|y = (x + y)/2. (There must be an existent reference for this.) Actually we want that ambient abelian group for I; it's none other than the reals. The order-duality makes its construction easier than in the general case. So let's use 1 to denote the top of the final coalgebra, I, -1 for the bottom, and 0 for their midpoint, -1|1. Let h:I -> I denote the "halving" map that sends x to 0|x. Note that h is an endomorphism with respect to 0, the ordering, the duality, the midpoint structure (and not, of course, the top and bottom). For a moment enter the category of endomorphisms, and reflect the object <I, h> into the full subcategory of automorphisms. (The reflection may be explicitly constructed as the colimit of the diagram h h h I --> I --> I -->...) The result is a poset-with-0-and-duality-and- midpoint-operation we'll denote as R. The midpoint operation respects the order and commutes with duality. 0 is self-dual. By making h an automorphism we know that for all y there is a unique x such that 0|x = y. On R define a + b by the equation 0|(a + b) = a|b and verify 0 + b = b = b + 0 and (a + b) + (c + d) = (a + c) + (b + d). Use the duality to define -a and verify (-a) + a = 0. Use h to define a/2 and verify a/2 + a/2 = a. All of this makes R an abelian group with unique division by 2. Viewing R as an ordered abelian group it is easy to verify that any endomorphism is determined by where it sends 1 (inherited from I -> R). That, of course, allows us to define the multiplication. Those who heard my CTCS talk last September at Edinburgh, "Path Integrals, Bayesian Vision, and Is Gaussian Quadrature Really Good?", (there's an abstract at the same website as above) can appreciate why I'm particularly happy. I started by defining ordinary integration of continuous functions using -- without knowing it -- this coalgebra structure on I. Let C be the functor that assigns to a space X the set, C(X), of continuous real-valued functions on X. The "mean-value" function M:C(I) -> R can be characterized -- indeed, evaluated -- from its order-preservation together with what it does to constant functions and MxM C(I v I) --> C(I + I) --> C(I) x C(I) ---> R x R C(F) | | m v v M C(I) ------------------------------------> R where F:I -> I v I is the coalgebra structure and m is the midpoint operation. If C(F) is inverted then this diagram can be read as a fixed-point definition of M. (It's the unique fixed-point of an operator acting on the set of all those order-preserving maps from C(I) to R that do the right thing on constant functions.) PS Just for comparison, consider the category of posets and the functor that sends X to X;1;X. The open interval is an invariant object for this functor but it is not the final coalgebra. For that we need -- as we called it in Cats and Alligators -- Wilson space. Actually, not the space but the linearly ordered set, most easily defined as the lexicographically ordered subset, W, of sequences with values in {-1, 0, 1} consisting of all those sequences such that for all n a(n) = 0 => a(n+1) = 0 (take a finite word on {-1,1} and pad it out to an infinite sequence by tacking on 0s). PPS Given a coalgebra structure described by endo-functions d and u on X, let End(X) be the monoid of endo-functions on X. We will need to compose in the diagrammatic order: "ud" means "first u then d". Let {0,1}* be the free monoid with generators named 0 and 1 and Let M_X:{0,1}* --> End(X) be the monoid homomorphism such that M_X(0) = d and M_X(1) = u. Given x in X let L be the subset of {0,1}* consisting of those words w such that M_X(w) sends x to top in X. The elements of {0,1}* may, of course, be viewed as finite words on 0 and 1. By catenating "0." on the left of any such word we obtain a description -- in binary -- of a dyadic rational in the half-open unit interval [0,1). Define f:X -> I by sending each x to the supremum in [0,1] of the dyadic rationals, r(L), named by the words in its corresponding L. The L corresponding to d(x) can thus be obtained by taking each word in L that starts with 0 and deleting that 0. The resulting r(L) can be described by first throwing away each dyadic rational bounded below by 1/2 and then doubling each dyadic rational that remains, that is,doubling each dyadic rational bounded above by both f(x) and 1/2. The resulting supremum is thus min (1, 2f(x)). That's what f(d(x)) is. And it's also what d(f(x)) is. Same sort of argument for u. A little too easy. The recipe above does work for f but the proof that it works requires work. Note that the above argument requires -- among other things -- that r(L) be a downdeal. (And note that it never invoked the facts that d and u preserve top and bottom nor the fact that d(x) is top or u(x) is bottom for all x.) I think a return to Dedekind works best. Besides defining the "lower" set, L, define the "upper" set U as the subset of {0,1}* consisting of those words w such that M_X(w) sends x to bottom. We have the facts: w:L => w0:L and w1:L (using w:U => w0:U and w1:U ":" w:{0,1}* => w0:L or w1:U for membership) We may infer, just from w:L => w0:L and w:U => w0:U, that if a dyadic rational has a name in either L or U then it does not have a name in the other. Thus we obtain a disjoint pair of sets of dyadic rationals r(L) and r(U). For any pair of dyadic rationals x,y:[0,1) where x is _not_ in r(L) and x < y, it is the case that y is in r(U): it suffices to check, for any word w, that if w0 can be prolonged to a name of x, then w0 is not in L forcing w1 to be in U and, hence, any prolongation of w1 to be in U. It follows that r(U) is an updeal and if there's a dyadic rational in [0,1) that is in neither r(U) nor r(L) then there's only one such dyadic rational, to wit, the greatest lower bound of r(U). It follows that r(L) is a downdeal. The pair r(L) and r(U) thus forms a Dedekind cut and we can use it to name the value of f(x). The compatibility with d and u is a straightforward computation. For uniqueness, first verify that for every pair a < b in I there's a word w:{0,1}* such that M_I(w) sends a to bottom and b to top. If f,f':X -> I were both coalgebra maps, and x:X were such that f(x) < f'(x) let w be as described. Note that M_I(w0) = M_I(w) = M_I(w1). But either M_X(w0) sends x to top or M_X(w1) sends x to bottom. The first case contradicts that M_I(w0) sends f(x) to bottom. The second case contradicts that M_I(w1) sends f'(x) to top.

**Follow-Ups**:**categories: Re: Real coalgebra***From:*Vaughan Pratt <pratt@cs.stanford.edu>

- Prev by Date:
**categories: Category-theoretic generalization of modular commutator** - Next by Date:
**categories: Re: Real coalgebra** - Prev by thread:
**categories: Category-theoretic generalization of modular commutator** - Next by thread:
**categories: Re: Real coalgebra** - Index(es):