-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 63
/
Limits.lagda.md
238 lines (200 loc) · 8.89 KB
/
Limits.lagda.md
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
```agda
open import Cat.Functor.Equivalence.Complete
open import Cat.Functor.Conservative
open import Cat.Functor.Equivalence
open import Cat.Diagram.Limit.Base
open import Cat.Diagram.Terminal
open import Cat.Diagram.Monad
open import Cat.Prelude
import Cat.Reasoning
module Cat.Diagram.Monad.Limits {o ℓ} {C : Precategory o ℓ} {M : Monad C} where
```
<!--
```agda
private
module EM = Cat.Reasoning (Eilenberg-Moore C M)
module C = Cat.Reasoning C
module M = Monad M
open Algebra-hom
open Algebra-on
open Cone-hom
open Cone
```
-->
# Limits in categories of algebras
Suppose that $\ca{C}$ be a category, $M$ be a [monad] on $\ca{C}$, and
$F$ be a $\ca{J}$-shaped diagram of [$M$-algebras][malg] (that is, a
functor $F : \ca{J} \to \ca{C}^M$ into the [Eilenberg-Moore category] of
M). Suppose that an evil wizard has given you a [limit] for the diagram
in $\ca{C}$ which underlies $F$, but they have not (being evil and all)
told you whether $\lim F$ admits an algebra structure at all.
[monad]: Cat.Diagram.Monad.html#monads
[malg]: Cat.Diagram.Monad.html#algebras-over-a-monad
[Eilenberg-Moore category]: Cat.Diagram.Monad.html#eilenberg-moore-category
[limit]: Cat.Diagram.Limit.Base.html
Perhaps we can make this situation slightly more concrete, by working in
a category _equivalent to_ an Eilenberg-Moore category: If we have two
groups $G$, $H$, considered as a discrete diagram, then the limit our
evil wizard would give us is the product $U(G) \times U(H)$ in $\sets$.
But we [already know] we can equip this product with a "pointwise" group
structure! Does this result generalise?
[already know]: Algebra.Group.Cat.FinitelyComplete.html#direct-products
The answer is positive, though this is one of those cases where abstract
nonsense can not help us: gotta roll up our sleeves and calculate away.
Suppose we have a diagram as in the setup --- we'll show that the
functor $U : \ca{C}^M \to \ca{C}$ both preserves and _reflects_ limits,
in that $K$ is a limiting cone if, and only if, $U(K)$ is.
```agda
module _ {jo jℓ} {J : Precategory jo jℓ} (F : Functor J (Eilenberg-Moore C M)) where
private module F = Functor F
Forget-reflects-limits
: (K : Cone F)
→ is-limit (Forget C M F∘ F) (F-map-cone (Forget C M) K)
→ is-limit F K
Forget-reflects-limits K uniq other = contr ! unique where
!′ = uniq (F-map-cone (Forget C M) other) .centre
```
Let $L$ be a cone over $F$: Since $U(K)$ is a limiting cone, then we
have a unique map of $U(L) \to U(K)$, which we must show extends to a
map of _algebras_ $L \to K$, which by definition means $! \nu = \nu
M_1(!)$. But those are maps $M_0(L) \to U(K)$ --- so if $M_0(L)$ was a
cone over $U \circ F$, and those two were maps of cones, then they would
be equal!
```agda
! : Cone-hom _ other K
! .hom .morphism = !′ .hom
! .hom .commutes =
ap hom $ is-contr→is-prop (uniq cone′)
(record { hom = !′ .hom C.∘ apex other .snd .ν
; commutes = λ o → C.pulll (!′ .commutes o)
})
(record { hom = apex K .snd .ν C.∘ M.M₁ (!′ .hom)
; commutes = λ o → C.pulll (K .ψ o .commutes)
·· C.pullr (sym (M.M-∘ _ _) ∙ ap M.M₁ (!′ .commutes o))
·· sym (other .ψ o .commutes)
})
```
The cone structure on $M_0(L)$ is given by composites $\psi_x \nu$,
which commute because $\psi$ is also a cone structure. More explicitly,
what we must show is $F_1(o) \psi_x \nu = \psi_y \nu$, which follows
immediately.
```agda
where
cone′ : Cone (Forget C M F∘ F)
cone′ .apex = M.M₀ (apex other .fst)
cone′ .ψ x = morphism (ψ other x) C.∘ apex other .snd .ν
cone′ .commutes o = C.pulll (ap morphism (commutes other o))
! .commutes o = Algebra-hom-path _
(uniq (F-map-cone (Forget C M) other) .centre .commutes o)
```
For uniqueness, we use that the map $U(L) \to U(K)$ is unique, and that
the functor $U$ is faithful.
```agda
unique : ∀ x → ! ≡ x
unique x = Cone-hom-path _ $ Algebra-hom-path _ $
ap hom (uniq (F-map-cone (Forget _ M) other) .paths hom′)
where
hom′ : Cone-hom _ _ _
hom′ .hom = hom x .morphism
hom′ .commutes o = ap morphism (x .commutes o)
```
I hope you like appealing to uniqueness of maps into limits, by the way.
We now relax the conditions on the theorem above, which relies on the
pre-existence of a cone $K$. In fact, what we have shown is that
`Forget` reflects the property of _being a limit_ --- what we now show
is that it reflects limit _objects_, too: if $U \circ F$ has a limit,
then so does $F$.
```agda
Forget-lift-limit : Limit (Forget _ M F∘ F) → Limit F
Forget-lift-limit lim-over =
record { top = cone′
; has⊤ = Forget-reflects-limits cone′ $
subst (is-limit _) (sym U$L≡L) (lim-over .has⊤)
}
where
open Terminal
module cone = Cone (lim-over .top)
```
What we must do, essentially, is prove that $\lim (U \circ F)$ admits an
algebra structure, much like we did for products of groups. In this,
we'll use two auxilliary cones over $U \circ F$, one with underlying
object given by $M(\lim (U \circ F))$ and one by $M^2(\lim (U \circ
F))$. We construct the one with a single $M$ first, and re-use its maps
in the construction of the one with $M^2$.
The maps out of $M_0(\lim (U \circ F))$ are given by the composite
below, which assembles into a cone since $F_1(f)$ is a map of algebras
and $\psi$ is a cone.
$$
M_0 (\lim (U \circ F)) \xto{M_1(\psi_x)} M_0 (F_0(x)) \xto{\nu} F_0(x)
$$
```agda
cone₂ : Cone (Forget _ M F∘ F)
cone₂ .apex = M.M₀ cone.apex
cone₂ .ψ x = F.₀ x .snd .ν C.∘ M.M₁ (cone.ψ x)
cone₂ .commutes {x} {y} f =
F.₁ f .morphism C.∘ F.₀ x .snd .ν C.∘ M.M₁ (cone.ψ x) ≡⟨ C.pulll (F.₁ f .commutes) ⟩
(F.₀ y .snd .ν C.∘ M.M₁ (F.₁ f .morphism)) C.∘ M.M₁ (cone.ψ x) ≡⟨ C.pullr (sym (M.M-∘ _ _) ∙ ap M.M₁ (cone.commutes f)) ⟩
F.₀ y .snd .ν C.∘ M.M₁ (cone.ψ y) ∎
```
Below, we can reuse the work we did above by precomposing with $M$'s
multiplication $\mu$.
```agda
cone² : Cone (Forget _ M F∘ F)
cone² .apex = M.M₀ (M.M₀ cone.apex)
cone² .ψ x = cone₂ .ψ x C.∘ M.mult.η _
cone² .commutes f = C.pulll (cone₂ .commutes f)
```
We now define the algebra structure on $\lim (U \circ F)$. It's very
tedious, but the multiplication is uniquely defined since it's a map
$M(\lim (U \circ F)) \to \lim (U \circ F)$ into a limit, and the
algebraic identities follow from again from limits being terminal.
```agda
cone′ : Cone F
cone′ .apex = cone.apex , alg where
```
<!--
```agda
comm1 : ∀ o → _
comm1 o =
C.pulll (lim-over .has⊤ cone₂ .centre .commutes o)
·· C.pullr (sym (M.unit.is-natural _ _ _))
·· C.cancell (F.₀ o .snd .ν-unit)
comm2 : ∀ o → _
comm2 o =
C.pulll (lim-over .has⊤ cone₂ .centre .commutes o)
·· C.pullr (sym (M.M-∘ _ _) ∙ ap M.M₁ (lim-over .has⊤ cone₂ .centre .commutes o) ∙ M.M-∘ _ _)
·· C.extendl (F.₀ o .snd .ν-mult)
·· ap (F.₀ o .snd .ν C.∘_) (M.mult.is-natural _ _ _) ·· C.assoc _ _ _
```
-->
```agda
alg : Algebra-on _ M cone.apex
alg .ν = lim-over .has⊤ cone₂ .centre .hom
alg .ν-unit = ap hom $
is-contr→is-prop (lim-over .has⊤ (lim-over .top))
(record { hom = alg .ν C.∘ M.unit.η cone.apex ; commutes = comm1 })
(record { hom = C.id ; commutes = λ _ → C.idr _ })
alg .ν-mult = ap hom $ is-contr→is-prop (lim-over .has⊤ cone²)
(record { hom = alg .ν C.∘ M.M₁ (alg .ν) ; commutes = comm2 })
(record { hom = alg .ν C.∘ M.mult.η cone.apex
; commutes = λ o → C.pulll (lim-over .has⊤ cone₂ .centre .commutes o)
})
```
The cone maps in $\ca{C}^M$ are given by the cone maps we started with
--- specialising again to groups, we're essentially showing that the
projection map $\pi_1 : G \times H \to G$ _between sets_ is actually a
group homomorphism.
```agda
cone′ .ψ x .morphism = cone.ψ x
cone′ .ψ x .commutes = lim-over .has⊤ cone₂ .centre .commutes x
cone′ .commutes f = Algebra-hom-path _ (cone.commutes f)
U$L≡L : F-map-cone (Forget _ M) cone′ ≡ lim-over .top
U$L≡L = Cone-path _ refl λ o → refl
```
We conclude by saying that, if $\ca{C}$ is a complete category, then so
is $\ca{C}^M$, with no assumptions on $M$.
```agda
Eilenberg-Moore-is-complete
: ∀ {a b} → is-complete a b C → is-complete a b (Eilenberg-Moore _ M)
Eilenberg-Moore-is-complete complete F = Forget-lift-limit F (complete _)
```