6
$\begingroup$

Here we see the definition of an internal category in a monoidal category. We also know that endofunctor categories support a monoidal product which is actually functor composition. It is the case that a monoid in an endofunctor category is a monad, and so it makes sense that a comonoid is a comonad. We could take the route that an internal category here is a monad on the category of internal comonoids. It also looks to me like, if there is a comonad that is also a monad, we are done, we have an internal category. Does this make sense? Is it the case that if we have Frobenius monads (a monad that can be turned into a comonad) these are the internal categories?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I think the problem with such monoidal structures is that they generally do not preserve equalisers. $\endgroup$ Sep 1, 2014 at 22:28

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

It seems that there was a bit of truth to this question. Here we see Spivak defining Categories as comonoids in the monoidal category $(Poly, \circ, y)$, section 2.5. As I point out, comonoids in an endofunctor category are comonads. I would guess that if you add a monad structure to your comonoids, you still have a category, but you have extra structure. It would be interesting to know what extra stuff you are endowing the category with if you add monad structure.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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