10
$\begingroup$

(at.algebraic-topology because I don't know who else thinks about operads)

Let $A$ be an affine space, i.e. a torsor over (the abelian group underlying) a vector space $V$ over a field $K$. Then for any $a_1,\dotsc,a_n \in A$ and any $\lambda_1,\dotsc,\lambda_n\in K$ with $\sum \lambda_i = 1$, we can form the weighted average $$ \lambda_1 a_1 + \dotsb + \lambda_n a_n \in A. $$ I'm trying to work out exactly what structure this exhibits on $A$.

Let's let $Pr_K(n) \subset K^n$ denote the subset of probability vectors, i.e. $n$-tuples which sum to 1. I believe this forms an operad: the map $$ Pr_K(n)\times Pr_K(i_1) \times \dotsb \times Pr_K(i_n) \to Pr_K(i_1 + \dotsb + i_n)$$ sends $$\langle \{\lambda_j\}_{j=1}^n; v_1,\dotsc, v_n\rangle \mapsto \lambda_1 v_1 \mathbin| \dotsb \mathbin| \lambda_n v_n$$ where by $|$ I mean "concatenate these tuples". Then I think $A$ should be an algebra over the operad $Pr_K$.

Is this correct? Is it written down somewhere? What's the standard name for this operad? Can you do anything with this perspective?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It feels more natural to me to describe this structure as an algebraic theory, or more formally as a Lawvere theory. It feels weird to me to describe it as an operad because I have no idea what algebras over it in non-cartesian monoidal categories ought to look like. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Jan 25 '17 at 5:34
  • $\begingroup$ @QiaochuYuan Affine Lawvere theories have been investigated in the paper by Isbell, Klun and Schanuel $\endgroup$ – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Jan 25 '17 at 7:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For $K=\mathbb{R}$ the suboperad of positive $n$-tuples in $Pr_{\mathbb{R}}$ forms a natural suboperad of the little intervals operad (where the little intervals exhaust the big interval). $\endgroup$ – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole Jan 25 '17 at 10:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The distinction between classical operads and cartesian operads that I describe in my answer is that in algebraic theories presented with operads you cannot insert "dummy variables". This means that you will not be able to identify affine combinations like $a x + b y$ and $a x + b y + 0 z$ since all identities in an operad need to have exactly the same set of variables on both sides. $\endgroup$ – Karol Szumiło Jan 25 '17 at 13:09
6
$\begingroup$

In order to present affine spaces in this fashion you need a variation of operads called clones or cartesian operads (which eventually are equivalent to Lawvere theories). You can find some references on nLab.

A clone is like a symmetric operad, but with all maps between finite sets acting not just bijections. However, it is more convenient to phrase the definition as follows. A clone is a functor $C \colon \mathsf{FinSet} \to \mathsf{Set}$ equipped with a family of substitution operators, i.e. for each pair of finite sets $S$ and $T$ we specify a function $(C S)^T \times C T \to C S$ and distinguish projection operations $\pi_s \in C S$ for each $s \in S$. These are supposed to satisfy some axioms (see below).

I will call the clone for affine spaces $\mathbb{A}$. (And I will refrain from using vocabulary from probability theory, this would go better with convex spaces.) For each $S$, $\mathbb{A} S$ is the set of formal affine combinations of elements of $S$, functoriality of $\mathbb{A}$ is given by grouping coefficients of points together when they are identified by a function between finite sets. Substitution operations evaluate affine combinations of affine combinations. If I have a combination $b \in \mathbb{A} T$ and a family $a \colon T \to \mathbb{A}S$, I will denote the resulting substitution by $a \bullet b \in \mathbb{A}S$. (It is really just a shorthand for $s \mapsto \sum_{t \in T} a_{t, s} b_t$.) Moreover, $\pi_s = e_s$ is the trivial combination with coefficient $1$ at $s$ and $0$ elsewhere.

We can now give the following definition. An affine space is a set $E$ equipped with operations $E^S \times \mathbb{A}S \to E$, $(x , a) \mapsto x \bullet a$ subject to the following axioms.

  1. For every finite set $S$ and all $x \colon S \to E$ and $s \in S$, $x \bullet e_s = x_s$.
  2. For every pair of finite sets $S$ and $T$ and all $x \colon S \to E$, $a \colon T \to \mathbb{A} S$ and $b \in \mathbb{A} T$, $x \bullet (a \bullet b) = (x \bullet a) \bullet b$.
  3. For every function between finite sets $\phi \colon S \to S'$ and all $x \colon S' \to E$ and $a \in \mathbb{A} S$, $(x \phi) \bullet a = x \bullet (\phi a)$.

In particular, $\mathbb{A} T$ for a fixed $T$ carries a standard structure of an affine space given by the structure maps of $\mathbb{A}$. In this case, the axioms specialize to some standard facts about formal affine combinations and they are in fact the same as axioms saying that $\mathbb{A}$ is a clone in the first place. This way you can recover the full definition of a clone which I neglected to write down above.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

For $K=\mathbb{R}$, the positive part of your operad (mentioned in Gabriel's comment), and its algebras have been discussed by Tom Leinster and others in connection to entropy. See, for example,

https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2011/05/an_operadic_introduction_to_en.html

http://www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~tl/b.pdf

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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