The other day, I (once again) decided that I simply don't understand natural transformations. (Or functor valued functors, for that matter... which greatly disturbs me because I'm usually quite comfortable with function valued functions)(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

So, I sat down to try and figure them out, and I stumbled across this...

Suppose I have functors F, G:A→B.

The defining charactersitic is that if η:F→G is a natural transformation, and f:A→B is a morphism ofA, then:

Eventually it struck me to write everything in terms of the morphism f and natural transformation η. That is, replace the functors and objects with the appropriate "source" and "target" operations:Code (Text):

η(A)

F(A) ------> G(A)

| |

|F(f) |G(f)

| |

V η(B) V

F(B) ------> G(B)

Where, for example, src f = A, and tgt η = G.Code (Text):

η(src f)

(src η)(src f) ----------> (tgt η)(src f)

| |

| (src η)(f) | (tgt η)(f)

| η(tgt f) |

(srg η)(tgt f) ----------> (tgt η)(tgt f)

This is a wonderfully symmetric diagram, which eventually made me realize that the objects ofAcan be regarded as functors from the functor category Funct(A,B) toB, and the morphisms ofAwould be the corresponding natural transformations.

I.E., there's a functorA→Funct(Funct(A,B),B).

But more interestingly, it seems to suggest that it should make sense to define the product ηf as the above commutative diagram. Then if η is an identity natural transformation (and thus a functor), ηf is simply the evaluation of the functor. Similarly, if f is an identity morphism (and thus an object), then ηf is simply the component of the natural transformation at that object.

Generalizing, it seems to make sense to talk about the "outer product" of two categoriesAandB.

Such a "category" (call itC) would be composed of the pairs (a, b) where a is a morphism ofAand b is a morphism ofB. We have two compositions that could possibly be defined: (a, b)(c, b) = (ac, b) and (a, b)(a, c) = (a, bc)

(I'll start writing capital letters for objects, aka identity morphisms)

(A, B) is an object ofC.

(a, B) and (A, b) are "morphisms" of this category, the left and the right morphisms. Unless I've made a silly mistake, either on their own would give a category.

But there's a third type of thing in the "category", we have the things of the form (a, b) which are the commutative squares, and they can be composed if they share a side.

It seems to me that this should be something useful, but I've been having trouble coming up with any actual examples that correspond to ordinary, everyday things like groups or vector spaces...

So I'm wondering if anyone else can offer up a useful interpretation of this sort of thing... or maybe give a better definition of what sort of thing the product of a natural transformation and a morphism ought to be.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Interpretation of categorical construction

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads for Interpretation categorical construction | Date |
---|---|

I Is there a geometric interpretation of orthogonal functions? | Jan 25, 2018 |

I Interpretation of direct product of Hilbert spaces | Jul 30, 2016 |

Interpretation: Solution to a set of Linear Equations | Jan 30, 2016 |

Simple question of interpretation - D&F Ch 10 - Proposition 30 | May 19, 2014 |

Invariants of categorical contingency table data? | Sep 14, 2011 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**