Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math.research
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
A simple, elegant, ab initio firstorder presentation of Category Theory?
Replies:
1
Last Post:
Aug 11, 2017 6:13 AM




A simple, elegant, ab initio firstorder presentation of Category Theory?
Posted:
Jul 18, 2017 8:37 PM


I was looking for different ways to do Category Theory free of settheory in purely firstorder form, so as to also lead quickly (in one fell swoop, as it were) to all the finite presentations and a formal treatment of such things as diagrams and commutative diagrams to boot. There actually is a mathematical concept ready made for this  a 'category without the identities'; a.k.a. a Quiver. But first things first.
The formalization, then the narrative that leads up to it and beyond:
Definition: A category X = (A, B, C) is an algebra consisting of two unary operators A, B and a PARTIAL binary operator C such that: * Rules of Infrastructure:  AAf = Af = BAf and ABf = Bf = BBf  Af = Bg > AC(f,g) = Ag and BC(f,g) = Bf * Algebraic Rules:  C(f,Af) = f = C(Bf,f)  Af = Bg and Ag = Bh > C(f,C(g,h)) = C(C(f,g),h)
The definition for a functor then reduces to the following form: Definition: A functor F: X > X' between categories X = (A, B, C) and X' = (A', B', C') is a map between its morphisms satisfying: * FAf = A'Ff, FBf = B'Ff, FC(f,g) = C'(Ff,Fg).
And now, the longer narrative treatment:
Category theory is normally presented in a way that makes informal use of sets and set theory, like so:
Definition: A category X consists of: * a set X of OBJECTS, and * for any two objects, A, B in X, a set X(A, B) of MORPHISMS, with each f in X(A, B) depicted an an arrow f: A > B when X is understood from context. It is assumed that: * Rules of Infrastructure:  Each object A in X is associated with an IDENTITY morphism 1_A: A > A  Every two morphisms f: B > C, g: A > B yield a COMPOSITION morphism f o g: A > C such that * Algebraic Rules:  For all morphisms f: A > B; f o 1_A = f = 1_B o f  For all morphisms f: C > D, g: B > C, h: A > B; f o (g o h) = (f o g) o h. Definition: A FUNCTOR F: X > Y between categories X and Y consists of: * a map F: X > Y between its objects, and * for any two objects A, B in X, a map F: X(A, B) > Y(A, B) that maps each arrow f: A > B in X to an arrow Ff: FA > FB in Y. such that * for all objects A in X: F 1_A = 1_{FA} * for all morphisms f: B > C, g: A > B in X: F(f o g) = Ff o Fg.
Since category theory is often used as an alternate foundation for mathematics itself, in place of set theory, and (just as importantly) since it is used on collections that are too large to be formalised within set theory, the question naturally arises whether and how it can be defined and axiomatized in a way that removes all references to sets and (even better) whether it can be formalized a purely algebraic theory; i.e. within firstorder logic.
To simplify the presentation, one expedient that is frequently adopted is to reduce the language from twosorted form (with objects and morphisms as the sorts) to just one with just one sort (morphisms alone) by eliminating all references to objects! This can be done because the objects are already reflected by the identity morphisms: A <> 1_A.
This removes the need to mention X.
The second expedient is to remove the need to mention X(A, B) and the arrows f: A > B themselves by DEFINING:  The source "object": Af = 1_A  The destination "object": Bf = 1_B. and to define the composition operator  C(f, g) = f o g: A > C, where f: B > C and g: A > B (i.e. where Af = B = Bg). With these fixes, one may adopt the following axiomatization:
Finally, to recover the notion of OBJECT we can then establish the following results as theorems: Theorem: * If Ag = f then C(g,f) = g * If Bg = f then C(f,g) = g * If Ag = f or Bg = f then Af = f = Bf * Af = f if and only if Bf = f Proof: * Assume Ag = f. Then C(g,f) = C(g,Ag) = g; and Af = AAg = Ag = f, Bf = BAg = Ag = f. * Assume Bg = f. Then C(f,g) = C(Bg,g) = g; and Af = ABg = Bg = f, Bf = BBg = Bg = f. * If Af = f or Bf = f, use the third property, with g replaced by f, to get Af = f = Bf. Definition: A morphism f for which Af = f or Bf = f is an IDENTITY; i.e. an OBJECT.
This accomplishes the main goal, except for the issue of C only being a partial operator.
In formal logic, operators are normally taken to be TOTAL, rather than PARTIAL. To each operator o(a,...,b) is associated a predicate O(a,...,b,c) such that: c = o(a,...,b) <> O(a,...,b,c). And for o(a,...,b) to be defined, one needs the PRECONDITION: there is at least one c such that O(a,...,b,c), with O(a,...,b,o(a,...,b)) automatically holding true. In other words: when operators are present, the language is SapirWorf'ed by having these preconditions slipped in under the cover.
For a partial operator, the precondition is not always true, so one can only state: (there is at least one c such that O(a,...,b,c)) <> O(a,...,b,o(a,...,b)) <> o(a,...,b) is defined. Without the ability to use partial operators in the formal treatment, one would have to replace all partial operators by their predicates and to condition all statements that make reference to partial operators by those predicates.
Here, that would lead to alternate formulation, where h = C(f,g) is replaced by the predicate C(f,g,h): * Rules of Infrastructure:  AAf = Af = BAf and ABf = Bf = BBf  Af = Bg and C(f,g,h) > Ah = Ag and Bh = Bf * Algebraic Rules:  C(f,Af,f) and C(Bf,f,f)  Af = Bg, Ag = Bh, C(f,g,k), C(g,h,l), C(f,l,m), C(k,h,n) > m = n. The corresponding precondition for the operator C(f,g) is: (there is at least one h such that C(f,g,h)) <> Af = Bg.
For expediency it is preferrable to change the rules of logic, itself, to allow for formal systems with partial operators and to always remain mindful of the issue of preconditions by understanding that all statements involving such operators are tacitly premised on whatever preconditions are required to make those operators meaningful.
This is the approach that has already been adopted by those doing category theory.
Example: The "object" category 1. All objects yield 1element subcategories: o. Each object is a 1element subcategory 1 that consists solely of one morphism o that satisfies: * Ao = o = Bo, C(o,o) = o. The functors F: 1 > X to a category X are in onetoone correspondence with the objects of X.
Example: The "morphism" category 2. All morphisms yield 3element subcategories: c: a > b. Each morphism is a 2element subcategory that consists of morphisms (a,b,c) that satisfy: * Aa = a = Ba = Ac, C(a,a) = a * Ab = b = Bb = Bc, C(b,b) = b * C(c,a) = c = C(b,c) with C remaining undefined in all other cases. The functors F: 2 > X to a category X are in onetoone correspondence with the morphisms of X.
Example: Categories generated by a quiver. Definition: A "quiver" Q is a labeled graph where two or more arrows (each with different labels) may pass between any two nodes. This also happens to be the actual infrastructure that is used in most presentations of Category Theory, so we can repeat the key elements here in this definition: * Associated with Q is a set Q of nodes * For any two nodes m, n in Q is a set Q(m,n) of arrows, with a in Q(m,n) depicted as a: m > n.
Definition: Associated with each quiver Q is the PATH CATEGORY Q*; which is the category freely generated from Q as follows: * for each m in Q: A(m) = m = B(m) and C(m, m) = m, * for each m_0,...,m_K in Q and arrows a_0: m_0 > m_1, ..., a_{K1}: m_{K1} > m_K:  a_{K1} ... a_0; with A(a_{K1} ... a_0) = m_0 and B(a_{K1} ... a_0) = m_K,  C(a_{K1} ... a_0, m_0) = a_{K1} ... a_0 = C(m_K, a_{K1} ... a_0).  for each L in K: C(a_{K1} ... a_L, a_{L1} ... a_0) = a_{K1} ... a_0. The length0 paths are treated the same as the nodes in Q, while the paths of lengths 1, 2 and more are sequences of arrows in Q where the tail of each arrow is connected to the head of the next.
This gives us the ability to handle the question of all small presentable categories in one fell swoop. In particular, the category 1 is given simply as a node, while 2 is given as a single arrow connecting two nodes.
Definition: A category X is FINITELY PRESENTED if it is the image under a functor F: Q* > X, for some finite quiver Q.
For all such categories X, where such a functor F: Q* > X is given, we may define the relation rho(F) = { (a,b) in Q* x Q*: Fa = Fb }. The category X, itself, may thus be defined by the presentation: X = Q*/rho where rho is any set of identities in Q* that generates rho(F). If rho can be made finite, the category may then be said to be given by a finitely related finite presentation.
This is enough to recover the notion of categories or subcategories presented by a COMMUTATIVE DIAGRAM. Such a diagram is, itself, a quiver in which some of its arrows are labelled, where it is understood that all paths leading between any two nodes yield the same morphism (i.e, they "commute").
Definition: The category CD(Q) generated from a quiver Q, regarded as a commutative diagram, consists of: * for each m in Q: A(m) = m = B(m) and C(m, m) = m. * for each m, n in Q, where m != n with at least one path connecting m to n in Q*: A((m,n)) = m, B((m,n)) = n. * C(n,(m,n)) = m = C((m,n), m), m is connected to n by at least one path in Q*. * C((n,p),(m,n)) = C(m,p), if m is connected to n and n to p each by at least one path in Q*. As a category, CD(Q) = Q*/rho, where rho = { (f,g) in Q* x Q*: Af = Ag, Bf = Bg }.
Finally, in the coup de grace, categories themselves may all be collected into a category (the "category of all categories") in which the functors, themselves, play the role of morphisms (and the categories, themselves, the objects).



