Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pkds5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-19T20:41:26.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gabriel–Ulmer duality and Lawvere theories enriched over a general base

Part of: JFP Research Articles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2009

STEPHEN LACK  and
JOHN POWER
STEPHEN LACK
Affiliation:
School of Computing and Mathematics, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia (e-mail: s.lack@uws.edu.au)
JOHN POWER
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath BA2 7AY, UK (e-mail: a.j.power@bath.ac.uk)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Motivated by the search for a body of mathematical theory to support the semantics of computational effects, we first recall the relationship between Lawvere theories and monads on Set. We generalise that relationship from Set to an arbitrary locally presentable category such as Poset and ωCpo or functor categories such as [Inj, Set] and [Inj, ωCpo]. That involves allowing the arities of Lawvere theories to be extended to being size-restricted objects of the locally presentable category. We develop a body of theory at this level of generality, in particular explaining how the relationship between generalised Lawvere theories and monads extends Gabriel–Ulmer duality.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Functional Programming , Volume 19 , Issue 3-4 , July 2009 , pp. 265 - 286
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

References

Adámek, J. & Rosický, J. (1994) Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 189. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, M. & Wells, C. (1985) Toposes, Triples and Theories. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, M. & Wells, C. (1990) Category Theory for Computing Science. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Benton, N., Hughes, J. & Moggi, E. (2002) Monads and effects. In Advanced Lectures from International Summer School on Applied Semantics, APPSEM 2000 (Caminha, September 2000), Barthe, G., Dybjer, P., Pinto, L. & Saraiva, J. (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2395. Springer, pp. 42–122.Google Scholar
Heckmann, R. (1994) Probabilistic domains. In Proceedings of the 19th Internatinal Colloquium in Trees in Algebra and Programming, CAAP '94 (Edinburgh, April 1994), Tison, S. (ed), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 136. Springer, pp. 21–56.Google Scholar
Hyland, M., Levy, P. B., Plotkin, G. & Power, J. (2007) Combining algebraic effects with continuations, Theor. Comput. Sci., 375 (1–3): 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, M., Plotkin, G. & Power, J. (2006) Combining computational effects: sum and tensor, Theor. Comput. Sci., 357 (1–3): 70–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, M. & Power, J. (2006) Discrete Lawvere theories and computational effects, Theor. Comput. Sci., 366 (1–2): 144–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, M. & Power, J. (2007) The category-theoretic understanding of universal algebra: Lawvere theories and monads. In Computation, Meaning, and Logic: Articles Dedicated to Gordon Plotkin, Cardelli, L., Fiore, M. & Winskel, G. (eds), Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 172. Elsevier, pp. 437–458.Google Scholar
Joyal, A. & Street, R. (1993) Pullbacks equivalent to pseudo-pullbacks, Cahiers Topol. Géom. Différ. Catég., 34 (2): 153–156.Google Scholar
Kelly, G. M. (1982a) Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, G. M. (1982b) Structures defined by finite limits in the enriched context I, Cahiers Topol. Géom. Différ. Catég., 23 (1): 3–42.Google Scholar
Lawvere, F. W. (1963) Functorial semantics of algebraic theories, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 50 (5): 869–872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lüth, C. & Ghani, N. (2002) Monads and modularity. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Frontiers of Combining Systems, FroCoS 2002 (Santa Margherita Ligure, April 2002), Armando, A. (ed), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intellegince, vol. 2309. Springer, pp. 18–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moggi, E. (1989) Computational lambda-calculus and monads. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, LICS '89 (Pacific Grove, CA, June 1989). IEEE CS Press, pp. 14–23.Google Scholar
Moggi, E. (1991) Notions of computation and monads, Inform. Comput., 93 (1): 55–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishizawa, K. & Power, J. (2009) Lawvere theories enriched over a general base, J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 213 (3): 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Hearn, P. W. & Tennent, R. D. (1997) Algol-Like Languages. Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
Plotkin, G. & Power, J. (2002) Notions of computation determine monads. In Proceedings of the 5th International Confernce on Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structures, FOSSACS 2002 (Grenoble, April 2002), Nielsen, M. & Engberg, U. (eds), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2303. Springer, pp. 342–356.Google Scholar
Plotkin, G. & Power, J. (2003) Algebraic operations and generic effects, Appl. Categ. Struct., 11 (1): 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, J. (1995) Why tricategories? Inform. Comput., 120 (2): 251–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Power, J. (2000) Enriched Lawvere theories, Theory Appl. Categ., 6: 83–93.Google Scholar
Power, J. (2006) Semantics for local computational effects. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics, MFPS-XXII (Genova, May 2006), Brookes, S. & Mislove, M. (eds), Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 158. Elsevier, pp. 355–371.Google Scholar
Robinson, E. (2002) Variations on algebra: monadicity and generalisations of equational theories, Formal Aspects Comput., 13 (3–5): 308–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Discussions

No Discussions have been published for this article.