Composition, bullet notation and the general role of categories
#5
(02/02/2021, 08:57 AM)JmsNxn Wrote: Fucking Beautiful PDF MphLee. Fucking Beautiful. That's just like my notation for compositional integrals. Never even thought for a second it was THAT categorical. Just Fucking, fucking Gordon Ramsey needs to speak to the chef about how FUCKING beautiful it was. I need to time to reallllly think about this. Thank you for the diagrams!

Oh ahahahah xD!
Omg!
I was in the writing mode when you posted this... I missed it... hahahah
ROTFLING
(02/02/2021, 08:57 AM)JmsNxn Wrote: I need to time to reallllly think about this. Thank you for the diagrams!

Take all the time you need. Eventually going down this rabbit hole and while I ascend more to the analytic holy heights we will meet midway! haha!

(02/02/2021, 08:57 AM)JmsNxn Wrote: That's just like my notation for compositional integrals. Never even thought for a second it was THAT categorical.

It is even more than you think. Given a finite sequence of \( n \) consecutive arrows we can think of it like a functor from the ordinal number \( n+1 \) to the context we are working in, e.g. complex numbers

[Image: comp0.jpg]

Given an infinite sequence of consecutive arrows we can use your notation to write the n-truncations.

[Image: comp1.jpg]

I want to convince you that we have a functor assigning to every pair \( (m,n) \), s.t. \( m< n \), a function \( X_m\to X_{n+1} \)

[Image: comp2.jpg]

and this is functorial (I can prove it), i.e. the law that holds for integral has a deep categorical origin.

[Image: comp3.jpg]

LET'S GO BACK ON THE POINTS AS MORPHISMS PARADIGM!

If we say that points of a space (elements of a set) are just morphisms from the point to the space we can obtain this



[Image: comp4.jpg]

where we get (correct me if I'm wrong)
[Image: image.png]

Now, this can be seen as a sterile change of notation. I believe it isn't, I feel and bet it isn't.
In all of this you see as the index is always a \( j\in{\mathbb N} \)... but what if we replace the naturals with the reals? Or with arbitrary monoids? That's what I want to discover and apply to the superfunction trick.


ps: as a side note that I'll expand soon, from a categorical point of view the outer composition is more natural and the inner composition is contravariant, i.e. it inverts the orientation of arrows.

Mother Law \(\sigma^+\circ 0=\sigma \circ \sigma^+ \)

\({\rm Grp}_{\rm pt} ({\rm RK}J,G)\cong \mathbb N{\rm Set}_{\rm pt} (J, \Sigma^G)\)
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Composition, bullet notation and the general role of categories - by MphLee - 02/02/2021, 09:27 AM

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  another infinite composition gaussian method clone tommy1729 2 5,830 01/24/2023, 12:53 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  Consistency in the composition of iterations Daniel 9 14,186 06/08/2022, 05:02 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  Categories of Tetration and Iteration andydude 13 48,310 04/28/2022, 09:14 AM
Last Post: MphLee
  Improved infinite composition method tommy1729 5 11,577 07/10/2021, 04:07 AM
Last Post: JmsNxn
  A Notation Question (raising the highest value in pow-tower to a different power) Micah 8 29,528 02/18/2019, 10:34 PM
Last Post: Micah
  Inverse super-composition Xorter 11 43,778 05/26/2018, 12:00 AM
Last Post: Xorter
  [2014] composition of 3 functions. tommy1729 0 5,796 08/25/2014, 12:08 AM
Last Post: tommy1729
  composition lemma tommy1729 1 8,509 04/29/2012, 08:32 PM
Last Post: tommy1729
  A notation for really big numbers Tai Ferret 4 21,680 02/14/2012, 10:48 PM
Last Post: Tai Ferret
  General question on function growth dyitto 2 12,956 03/08/2011, 04:41 PM
Last Post: dyitto



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)