skip to main content
research-article
Free Access

Functorial semantics for partial theories

Published:04 January 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We provide a Lawvere-style definition for partial theories, extending the classical notion of equational theory by allowing partially defined operations. As in the classical case, our definition is syntactic: we use an appropriate class of string diagrams as terms. This allows for equational reasoning about the class of models defined by a partial theory. We demonstrate the expressivity of such equational theories by considering a number of examples, including partial combinatory algebras and cartesian closed categories. Moreover, despite the increase in expressivity of the syntax we retain a well-behaved notion of semantics: we show that our categories of models are precisely locally finitely presentable categories, and that free models exist.

References

  1. J. Adámek, F.W. Lawvere, and J. Rosicky`. 2003. On the duality between varieties and algebraic theories. Algebra universalis 49, 1 ( 2003 ), 35-49.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. J. Adamek and J. Rosicky`. 1994. Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. J. Adámek, J. Rosicky`, and E.M. Vitale. 2011. Algebraic theories. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics 184 ( 2011 ), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. I. Bethke. 1988. Notes on Partial Combinatory Algebras. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universiteit von Amsterdam.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Birkhof. 1935. On the structure of abstract algebras. In Mathematical proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical society, Vol. 31. Cambridge University Press, 433-454.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. S. L. Bloom and Z. Ésik. 1993. Iteration Theories: The Equational Logic of Iterative Processes.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. F. Bonchi, D. Pavlovic, and P. Sobocinski. 2017. Functorial Semantics for Relational Theories. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.08699 ( 2017 ).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. F. Bonchi, P. Sobociński, and F. Zanasi. 2018. Deconstructing Lawvere with Distributive Laws. Journal of Logical and Algebraic Methods in Programming 95 ( 2018 ), 128-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlamp. 2017. 12.002 F. Borceux and D. Dejean. 1986. Cauchy completion in category theory. Cahiers de Topologie et Géométrie Diférentielle Catégoriques 27, 2 ( 1986 ), 133-146.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. A. Carboni. 1991. Matrices, relations, and group representations. Journal of Algebra 136, 2 ( 1991 ), 497-529.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. A. Carboni and R.F.C. Walters. 1987. Cartesian Bicategories I. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 49 ( 1987 ), 11-32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. C. Centazzo. 2004. Generalised Algebraic Models. Presses universitaires de Louvain. https://books.google.cz/books?id= WKTk1n6ggKsCGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. C. Centazzo and E.M. Vitale. 2002. A duality relative to a limit doctrine. Theory and Applications of Categories 10 ( 2002 ), 486-497.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. E. Cheng. 2020. Distributive laws for Lawvere theories. Compositionality 2 ( 2020 ), 1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J.R.B. Cockett, X. Guo, and J.W Hofstra, P. 2012. Range Categories II: towards regularity. Theory and Applications of Categories 26 ( 2012 ), 453-500.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. J.R.B. Cockett and P.J.W. Hofstra. 2008. Introduction to Turing Categories. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 156 ( 2008 ), 183-209.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. J.R.B. Cockett and S. Lack. 2002. Restriction Categories I: categories of partial maps. Theoretical Computer Science 270 ( 2002 ), 223-259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J.R.B. Cockett and S. Lack. 2007. Restriction Categories III: colimits, partial limits, and extensivity. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 17 ( 2007 ), 775-817.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. B. Coecke and R. Duncan. 2008. Interacting Quantum Observables. In ICALP' 08. 298-310.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. P.L. Curien and A. Obtułowicz. 1989. Partiality, Cartesian Closedness, and Toposes. Information and Computation 80 ( 1989 ), 50-95.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. D. Dugger. 2001. Combinatorial model categories have presentations. Advances in Mathematics 164, 1 ( 2001 ), 177-201.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. T. Fox. 1976. Coalgebras and cartesian categories. Communications in Algebra 4 ( 1976 ), 665-667.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. P. Freyd. 1966. Algebra valued functors in general and tensor products in particular. In Colloquium mathematicum, Vol. 14. Institute of Mathematics Polish Academy of Sciences, 89-106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. P. Freyd. 1972. Aspects of topoi. Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society 7, 1 ( 1972 ), 1-76.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. P.J. Freyd and A. Scedrov. 1990. Categories, allegories. North-Holland.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. P. Gabriel and F. Ulmer. 1971. Lokal präsentierbare Kategorien. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. v+ 200 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. B. Giles. 2014. An Investigation of some Theoretical Aspects of Reversible Computing. Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Calgary.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. M. Hyland and J. Power. 2007. The category theoretic understanding of universal algebra: Lawvere theories and monads. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 172 ( 2007 ), 437-458.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. J. Kock. 2003. Frobenius algebras and 2D topological quantum field theories. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. S. Lack. 2004. Composing PROPs. Theory and Applications of Categories 13, 9 ( 2004 ), 147-163.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. F.W. Lawvere. 1963. Functorial semantics of algebraic theories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 50, 5 ( 1963 ), 869.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. F.E.J. Linton. 1966. Some Aspects of Equational Categories. In Proceedings of the Conference on Categorical Algebra, S. Eilenberg, D. K. Harrison, S. MacLane, and H. Röhrl (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 84-94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. J.-L. Loday and B. Vallette. 2012. Algebraic operads. Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], Vol. 346. Springer, Heidelberg. xxiv+ 634 pages. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30362-3 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. S. Mac Lane. 1965. Categorical algebra. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 71, 1 ( 1965 ), 40-106.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. M. Makkai and R. Paré. 1989. Accessible categories: the foundations of categorical model theory. Contemporary Mathematics, Vol. 104. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI. viii+ 176 pages. https://doi.org/10.1090/conm/104 M. Markl, S. Shnider, and J. Stashef. 2002. Operads in algebra, topology and physics. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, Vol. 96. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI. x+ 349 pages.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. E. Palmgren. 2009. Constructivist and Structuralist Foundations: Bishop's and Lawvere's Theories of Sets.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. E. Palmgren and S.J. Vickers. 2007. Partial Horn logic and cartesian categories. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 145 ( 2007 ), 314-353.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. D. Pavlovic. 2013. Monoidal Computer I: Basic Computability by String Diagrams. Information and Computation 226 ( 2013 ), 94-116.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. J. Power. 2006. Countable Lawvere theories and computational efects. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 161 ( 2006 ), 59-71.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. E.P. Robinson and G. Rosolini. 1988. Categories of Partial Maps. Information and Computation 79 ( 1988 ), 94-130.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. R. Street. 1972. The formal theory of monads. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 2, 2 ( 1972 ), 149-168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Functorial semantics for partial theories

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!