Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userDifferential restriction categories
212
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
We combine two recent ideas: cartesian differential categories, and restriction categories. The result is a new structure which axiomatizes the category of smooth maps defined on open subsets of $R^n$ in a way that is completely algebraic. We also give other models for the resulting structure, discuss what it means for a partial map to be additive or linear, and show that differential restriction structure can be lifted through various completion operations.
rate research
Read More
Restriction categories were introduced to provide an axiomatic setting for the study of partially defined mappings; they are categories equipped with an operation called restriction which assigns to every morphism an endomorphism of its domain, to be thought of as the partial identity that is defined to just the same degree as the original map. In this paper, we show that restriction categories can be identified with emph{enriched categories} in the sense of Kelly for a suitable enrichment base. By varying that base appropriately, we are also able to capture the notions of join and range restriction category in terms of enriched category theory.
Restriction categories were established to handle maps that are partially defined with respect to composition. Tensor topology realises that monoidal categories have an intrinsic notion of space, and deals with objects and maps that are partially defined with respect to this spatial structure. We introduce a construction that turns a firm monoidal category into a restriction category and axiomatise the monoidal restriction categories that arise this way, called tensor-restriction categories.
We exhibit the cartesian differential categories of Blute, Cockett and Seely as a particular kind of enriched category. The base for the enrichment is the category of commutative monoids -- or in a straightforward generalisation, the category of modules over a commutative rig $k$. However, the tensor product on this category is not the usual one, but rather a warping of it by a certain monoidal comonad $Q$. Thus the enrichment base is not a monoidal category in the usual sense, but rather a skew monoidal category in the sense of Szlachanyi. Our first main result is that cartesian differential categories are the same as categories with finite products enriched over this skew monoidal base. The comonad $Q$ involved is, in fact, an example of a differential modality. Differential modalities are a kind of comonad on a symmetric monoidal $k$-linear category with the characteristic feature that their co-Kleisli categories are cartesian differential categories. Using our first main result, we are able to prove our second one: that every small cartesian differential category admits a full, structure-preserving embedding into the cartesian differential category induced by a differential modality (in fact, a monoidal differential modality on a monoidal closed category -- thus, a model of intuitionistic differential linear logic). This resolves an important open question in this area.
We revisit the definition of Cartesian differential categories, showing that a slightly more general version is useful for a number of reasons. As one application, we show that these general differential categories are comonadic over Cartesian categories, so that every Cartesian category has an associated cofree differential category. We also work out the corresponding results when the categories involved have restriction structure, and show that these categories are closed under splitting restriction idempotents.
Cartesian differential categories were introduced to provide an abstract axiomatization of categories of differentiable functions. The fundamental example is the category whose objects are Euclidean spaces and whose arrows are smooth maps. Tensor differential categories provide the framework for categorical models of differential linear logic. The coKleisli category of any tensor differential category is always a Cartesian differential category. Cartesian differential categories, besides arising in this manner as coKleisli categories, occur in many different and quite independent ways. Thus, it was not obvious how to pass from Cartesian differential categories back to tensor differential categories. This paper provides natural conditions under which the linear maps of a Cartesian differential category form a tensor differential category. This is a question of some practical importance as much of the machinery of modern differential geometry is based on models which implicitly allow such a passage, and thus the results and tools of the area tend to freely assume access to this structure. The purpose of this paper is to make precise the connection between the two types of differential categories. As a prelude to this, however, it is convenient to have available a general theory which relates the behaviour of linear maps in Cartesian categories to the structure of Seely categories. The latter were developed to provide the categorical semantics for (fragments of) linear logic which use a storage modality. The general theory of storage, which underlies the results mentioned above, is developed in the opening sections of the paper and is then applied to the case of differential categories.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
