Quantcast

Posts tagged with category theory

Categorial decomposition of Galilean spacetime.

Sean Carroll tells us that it was Galileo who first si rese conto che motion can be separated into:

  • motion in the x direction — or x′[t]
  • motion in the y direction — or y′[t]
  • motion in the z direction — ż or z′[t]

and, importantly, that physical laws should be the same for all the 360° × 360° orthonormal choices of (x,y,z). It was Galileo’s idea that you can draw axes, that forces can be decomposed onto those axes, and that forces along one axis behave independently of each other.

For example if you kick a football, it goes forward x′[t], chips up y′[t], and bends left z′[t]. If you kicked it off a cliff, it would retain its exact same forward x'[t] speed even after it dropped y<0 below the plane of the cliff at an ever increasing speed. (NB: That’s not actually true, which is why we say “in a vacuum”.)

 

The traditional way to talk about a path γ is talking in tuples:

  • First, you have some points
  • Then, you have a 3-basis.
  • Then, you have an interval.
  • If you want to talk about kicking the ball, you would probably call the ball a point, say “there is” a vector space tangent to the ball, and your single kick of the ball constitutes a single force-vector applied (instantaneously) to the point, I mean ball. “Then” — by which I mean “at higher values of t∈interval” — the ball “is” chipped up in the air, “then” back on the ground.
  • The path γ is any member of the product (pairing) of 3-basis with interval.

path γ ∈ time × space*

* space in the geographer’s sense; the casual, not mathematical, sense of the word space. Lawvere calls mathematical space a “universe” … like the theoretical universe that the theory lives in

All of this “you have” — it’s a violation of E′. The “false subject” in English sentences that start with “There are” is repeated over, and over, and over again in mathematics (hence the invention of the symbol ∃).

 

Now cometh F William Lawvere, 3 centuries later, with a conceptual breakthrough.

path γ : time  space

The categoryists use labelled dots and labelled arrows to sketch concepts. So in pictures 2 and 3 you can see projection arrows splitting 3-space into a 2-plane (ground) and a 1-line (air). (Arrows sometimes seem backwards in category theory. Galileo projects 3D onto 1D + 2D, so something like “coprojection” would be the natural piecing together of independent sub-motions to get the full picture.)

And the Galileo example is just meant to be a shared thing we can all discuss. But this same thought-pattern — categorial decomposition — I can use on non-chalkboard things from my life as well. Gottman-style 2-eqn relationship dynamics; speculating about some economics in the news; love triangles; the deeper you plant this seed, the more places you see it.

(Source: amazon.com)










Category Theory for Programmers

  • redraw pictures of ƒ(A)=B so that the morphisms look like • and the objects look like →. Hey, why not?
  • string diagrams (process networks) are just as good as algebraic symbology
  • associativity
  • tensor products
  • if switch( switch( • )) ≠ • , then* you’ve got a braided category, which is described by the algebra of knots. “I’m not sure why you would want your programming language to include the algebra of knots at a basic level, but … you could.” I think braided code totally makes sense … in a visualising-a-big-system-of-code kind of way.

*Technically speaking: in Haskell it’s always true for every • input that switch( switch( • )) ≠ • . If we were talking about a language where switch( switch( • )) ≠ • is not always true — sometimes or possibly not true — then that language would be a braided category. ∃x | ¬ p(x) = ¬∀x p(x) — all symbols spoken in the subjunctive.

(Source: nuclearphynance.com)




The definition of toposes has surprisingly powerful consequences. (For example, toposes have all finite colimits.)

Probably the best analogy elsewhere in which a couple of mild-sounding hypotheses pick out a very narrow and interesting class of examples is the way in which the Cauchy-Riemann equations select the analytic functions from all smooth functions of a complex variable.

Michael Barr & Charles Wells, Toposes, Triples, and Theories (p 64)




The existential quantifier of logic (the propositional calculus) and the image operation along a continuous function ƒ from topology turn out to be essentially the same operation: from a categorical point of view they are both adjoint functors.

Steve Awodey, Category Theory (2010)

(I rearranged his words liberally.)




Is there really such a thing as a point? Well, not really….

  • Ask any of our undergraduates, why the real numbers? Can you say there’s something √π centimetres away from here?
    —Well, not really, it’s an approximation….
    —An approximation to what?
  • “We’re not really doing science. We don’t have any data, so we’re just indulging our own mathematical and philosophical prejudices. :)”
  • “If a pile of papers appeared on your desk and claimed to be the correct theory of quantum gravity, how would you know?”
  • “All of the standard formulations of quantum theory, whether it’s whatever you want — all of them more or less presuppose the use of standard real numbers. That’s one issue I find very problematic. … That seems to me very dubious.” 
  • Heidegger asked, What is a thing? And answered, on page ~60, A thing is the bearer of properties.
  • From Heidegger’s perspective, there is no ”way that things are”. (due to the Kochen-Specker theorem)

Slides here.




The theory of universal algebras was well-developed in the twentieth century. [It] provides a basis for model theory, and [provides] an abstract understanding of familiar principles of induction, recursion, and freeness.

The theory of coalgebras is considerably [less] developed. Coalgebras arise naturally, as Kripke models for modal logic, as automata and objects for object oriented programming languages in computer science, and more.




&#8220;Have you ever done acid, kid? This book is like Acid.&#8221;
&#8212;John L. Rhodes, speaking of the book Topos Theory by Peter Johnstone

hi-res





A functor maps dots and arrows (elements and functions), respecting composition.
In category theory, there are no disembodied, “objective” things — every Thing must come with an Interpretation.

hi-res




1st axiom of category theory

1st axiom of category theory




Category Theory is like Set Theory, but supposedly better.  What is it, though?

  • It’s a collection of points, and arrows.
  • Unlike in Set Theory, things can’t just be there, without a meaning attached.
  • No wonder they call it “abstract nonsense“…

An example, then.  Maybe you noticed this when you were learning arithmetic:

I’ll write o for odd and e for even.

o+o=e \\ e+e=e \\ o+e=o \\ e+o=o

I’ll write Pos for positive and Neg for negative.

N×N=P \\ P×P=P \\ N×P=N \\ P×N=N

#####FUNCTOR#####

Maybe you see it already.  Negative numbers play the role in multiplication that odd numbers play in addition.  Similarly, positive numbers serve the same function in multiplication that even numbers serve in addition.

Namely, × positive and + even preserve the state of the thing they operate on, and × negative and + odd change the state.

Interchanging (e,o,+) for (P,N,×) is an example of a functor.  Sounds like function, but it maps categories to categories.

(e,o,+) for (P,N,×)

One more thing: notice that both of these are isomorphic to the cyclic group Z₂, with even or positive as the identity element.

Just to review. In plain English:  “What evens and odds do in addition, positives and negatives do in multiplication.”  In Category Theory:  “There is an isomorphic functor between the categories {even, odd, +}and {positive, negative, ×}.”

%%%MEANINGS%%%%

So what’s the big deal?  There is a philosophical difference between Sets and Categories:  Categories require that the relationships between the objects come along for the ride.  I could just say “Consider the set { {set of odds}, {set of evens} }.”  But that’s not a Category.

I would have to go on to define outside stuff, relate it to the inside stuff — it would be like bad object-oriented programming and it would certainly be hard to read.  With Categories the interpretation comes along for the ride, what-you-do-with-it is part of the what-it-is just like good OOP.

It’s almost Post-Modern.  Nothing comes without a context.  Things only have meaning within a context.  You have to bring the operator and the operated-on — the subject and the object — up at the same time.