7
$\begingroup$

Multisorted Lawvere's theory consists of

  • sets of sorts $S$
  • small category $T$
  • a preserving-product essentially bijective functor $(\mathrm{finSet}/S)^{\mathrm{op}} \to T$

How is category of multisorted Lawvere's theories correctly defined? I couldn't find it in the literature (the category of one-sort Lawvere's theories is defined, for example, in Martin Hyland, John Power, The Category Theoretic Understanding of Universal Algebra: Lawvere Theories and Monads, see p. 4-5). The first thing that comes to mind is a morphism of sets of sorts $S_1 \to S_2$ and a product-preserving functor $T_1 \to T_2$ so that the corresponding square diagram (involving $(\mathrm{finSet}^{S_i})^{\mathrm{op}}$) is commutative. Is this the correct definition?

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ Just to clarify your question: you already know how the objects here (multisorted Lawvere theories) are defined, you just need the correct notion of morphism? If this is the case, can you perhaps also include the def' of the multisorted theories? This makes the question accessible to a larger audience. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 1, 2023 at 18:22
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I'll add it now, thanks. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 1, 2023 at 18:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is certainly one reasonable category of multisorted algebraic theories. The other has the function between sets and the product-preserving functor going in opposite directions. However, it doesn't make sense to ask which is "correct": they're both interesting to study. $\endgroup$
    – varkor
    Commented Jan 1, 2023 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ One correction: a multisorted algebraic theory is not a functor from $(\mathrm{FinSet}^S)^{\mathrm{op}}$. You need to restrict to the indexed sets with finite support: otherwise you may have infinite products when $S$ is nonfinite. $\endgroup$
    – varkor
    Commented Jan 1, 2023 at 19:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't know of any good references for either category of multisorted algebraic theories. People tend to study those of a fixed sort. You could try looking at Tarlecki–Burstall–Goguen's Some fundamental algebraic tools for the semantics of computation: Part 3. indexed categories, which studies some related constructions. $\endgroup$
    – varkor
    Commented Jan 1, 2023 at 22:41

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

A definition can be found in 4.1 (page 8) of Charles Rezk's paper "Every Homotopy Theory of Simplicial Algebras Admits a Proper Model." The category of $J$-sorted theory is the category of monoids in $\mathcal{S}^{f\mathcal{S}(J)}$, with a product Rezk defines in 3.8.

In Rezk's notation, $\mathcal{S}$ is the category of sets and $f\mathcal{S}$ is a fixed skeleton of the category of finite sets. The category $\mathcal{S}^{f\mathcal{S}}$ is the category of functors from $f\mathcal{S}$ to $\mathcal{S}$.

Fix a set $J$. The category $f\mathcal{S}(J,J)$ is defined above 3.8 and is equivalent to the category of functors from finite $J$-graded sets to $J$-graded sets. Composition gives the monoidal product. This is completely analogous to the situation of $J$-colored operads. Just as you can assemble all the categories of $J$-colored operads into a category of pairs $(J,O)$ where $J$ is a set and $O$ is a $J$-colored operad (e.g., this is a Grothendieck construction), so too can you assemble the categories of $J$-sorted theories into a category of multisorted theories. The morphisms are the same as in any Grothendieck construction.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Categories of $S$-sorted algebraic theories are defined in many references (Rezk is an unusual reference: the original reference is Bénabou). But Rezk does not appear to define a category of multisorted algebraic theories using the Grothendieck construction, so I do not see that this answers the question. $\endgroup$
    – varkor
    Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 18:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is helpful to me, thanks! But that's really a definition in another language and doesn't quite answer my question. I'm looking for any literature that can be referenced that contains the full definition of the category, part of which I wrote down in my question. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 9, 2023 at 6:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .