Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My first question here.

Accordingly to M. Barr "Coequalizers and free triples" by a free triple (or free monad) generated by an endofunctor $R: X\rightarrow{X}$ we mean a triple $T=(T,\eta,\nu)$ and a natural transformation $p: R\rightarrow{T}$ such that if $T'= (T',\eta',\nu')$ is another triple and $p': R\rightarrow{T'}$ is a natural transformation, then $p'=\tau{p}$, where $\tau:T\rightarrow{T'}$ is a map of triples.

On the other hand we have always a monad in the form $(GF,\eta,G\epsilon{F})$ when we have an adjunction $F\dashv{G}$ where $\eta$ is the unit and $\epsilon$ de counit of the adjunction.

Can the endofunctor $R$ have the form of an adjunction (for example between a free and a forgetful functor) in the first definition? When does it happen and which is the relationship between the adjunction and the free monad after all?

share|improve this question
    
What do you mean by an endofunctor "having the form of an adjunction"? –  Mike Shulman May 23 '10 at 6:14
    
Being for exemple in the form $U\circ{F}$ where $F\dashv{U}$. –  user6250 May 23 '10 at 8:41
    
By the way, the correct spelling is "example" not "exemple" –  David White Jan 12 '13 at 19:47
add comment

2 Answers

There seems to be some confusion here regarding language. In your first paragraph, you define the free monad generated by an endofunctor $R$, i.e. one first fixes $R$ then gets the monad. A good toy example for such $R$ would be $U\circ F$ where $F:X\to Y$ is the free functor into some category $Y$ which is well understood and $U:Y\to X$ is the forgetful functor. So the answer to your first question is yes, it can take this form and that's a nice case to play with. But in general $R$ need not take this form. Theorem 5.5 in the paper you cite gives a sufficient condition on an endofunctor $R$ so that free monad on $R$ exists. That condition has nothing to do with $R$ coming from an adjunction.

I can interpret your second question in a couple of ways. One way is as "when is $T$ of the form $U\circ F$?'' This is trivial; it's well-known that a monad $T$ is always of the form $U\circ F$ (see wikipedia), often for more than one choice of $U,F$. A better way to interpret your question is "given a monad $T$, how do I determine if it's the free monad generated by some $R$ which takes the form $U\circ F$?" This appears to be a non-trivial problem. Theorem 5.4 in the paper gives one situation where you can determine that your monad is free and recover $R$, but this doesn't classify all such situations. Anyway, even in this nice case where you get $R$ in hand, there are plenty of times such $R$ could fail to be in the form $U\circ F$. For instance, this MO answer shows that any such $R$ would need to be a homotopy equivalence on the nerve of $X$. It should not be too hard to construct an endofunctor for which this fails, since there are plenty of self-maps of simplicial complexes which are not homotopy equivalences.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I put this idea:

a monad in a (small) category $\mathcal{C}$ is equivalent to a 2-funtor $Mnd\to Cat$ form the free monad $Mnd$ to the 2-category $Cat$. A concrete description of Mnd is: it has one object $\ast$, the hom-category Mnd(0, 0) is the category $\Delta$ of finite ordinals and order-preserving functions, and composition $\Delta \times \Delta\to \Delta$ is ordinal sum. We have the 2-subcategory $L\subset \Delta$ ($L$ for loop) with the unique object $\ast$, full as subcategory, locally discrete.THis inclusion induce the forgetful functor $U: (T, \mu, \eta)\mapsto T$. Now the Left-Kan-extention (as Cat-enriched functor i.e. 2-functor) give the left adjoint of $U$ or in poor words the free-monad of a endofunctor.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.