Subject: Re: Algebraic Theories/Operads

From: categories <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 16:12:08 -0400 (AST)

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 18:54:36 +0000 (GMT)
From: Tom Leinster <[email-masked]>

>
> I'm looking for a good reference on the relation between
> algebraic theories (a la Lawvere) and operads.
>
> David Metzler

I think the relationship between algebraic theories and (non-symmetric,
non-topological) operads is quite simply described. Loosely, algebras for
operads are just the same as algebras for strongly regular theories. To be
more precise: any operad gives rise to a monad on Set, the algebras for which
are the algebras for the operad; a monad on Set arises from an operad iff it
arises from a strongly regular theory. So -

	operadic monads are strongly regular theories.

Carboni & Johnstone (1995) call an equation _strongly regular_ if on each
side the same variables appear in the same order, without repetition (e.g.
(x.y).z=x.(y.z) and x-(y-z)=(x-y)+z, but not x.y=x, x.y=y.x or
(x.x).y=x.(x.y)). A theory is called strongly regular if it can be presented
by operators and strongly regular equations - for instance, the theory of
monoids. They show that a monad (T, eta, mu) on Set is from a s.r. theory
("is s.r.") iff
	(i)   T is finitary
	(ii)  T preserves wide pullbacks
      & (iii) eta and mu are cartesian.
(A wide pullback is a limit over a diagram (X_i --> X) where i ranges over
some set I, e.g. if I=2 it's an ordinary pullback.)

1. Operadic => strongly regular

If A is an operad, with the function A --> N={natural numbers}, then the
functor part of the induced monad T on Set is defined by the pullback square

	T(X) ----> W(X)
	 |          |
	 |          | W(!)
	 |          |
	 V          V
	 A ------> W(1)=N

 where X is a set and W (for Words) is the free-monoid monad. One can show
(e.g. my (1997, sec 4.6)) that the unit and multiplication of T are
cartesian. Moreover, one can also show that
	(a) if W preserves colimits of a given shape then so does T
      & (b) if W preserves I-ary pullbacks then so does T.
Since the theory of monoids is s.r., W preserves all filtered colimits (i.e.
is finitary) and all wide pullbacks. So T satisfies (i)-(iii) and is
therefore s.r.. 

2. Strongly regular => operadic

Conversely, take a s.r. theory T. Any s.r. presentation of T gives rise to a
natural transformation T --> W which is cartesian and preserves the monad
structure. It follows by my (1997, sec 4.6) that the monad T comes from some
operad A.

References:

A Carboni, P T Johnstone (1995), Connected limits, familial representability 
        and Artin glueing. Math Struct in Comp Science, vol 5, 
        pp 441-459.
T Leinster (1997, updated 3 Dec), General operads and multicategories.
        http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~leinster.

I've heard tell that these ideas were explored by Kelly in his work on
clubs - can anyone enlighten me?

Tom Leinster

---

From: categories <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 13:42:05 -0400 (AST)

Date: Mon, 8 Dec 1997 20:15:23 +1100 (EST)
From: Barry Jay <[email-masked]>

Tom,

you may care to look at my paper "Languages for monoidal categories"

@Article(Jay89b,
	Author={Jay, C.B.},
	Title={Languages for monoidal categories},
	Journal=jpaa,
	Volume=59,
	Year=1989,
	Pages={61--85})

and its successors (see my ftp site below).

Barry Jay

*************************************************************************
| Associate Professor C.Barry Jay, 					|
| Reader in Computing Sciences		Phone: (61 2) 9514 1814		|
| Head, Algorithms and Languages Group,	Fax:   (61 2) 9514 1807		|
| University of Technology, Sydney,	e-mail: [email-masked]	|
| P.O. Box 123 Broadway, 2007,		www: linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~cbj	|
| Australia.			     ftp: ftp.socs.uts.edu.au/Users/cbj |
*************************************************************************