(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]](https://i.ibb.co/yNpJxws/comp0.jpg)
Given an infinite sequence of consecutive arrows we can use your notation to write the n-truncations.
![[Image: comp1.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/fFL1Gzb/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]](https://i.ibb.co/kcQtdc8/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]](https://i.ibb.co/3CBYRXS/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]](https://i.ibb.co/ZKfjLTt/comp4.jpg)
where we get (correct me if I'm wrong)
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 \(\sigma^+\circ 0=\sigma \circ \sigma^+ \)
\({\rm Grp}_{\rm pt} ({\rm RK}J,G)\cong \mathbb N{\rm Set}_{\rm pt} (J, \Sigma^G)\)

![[Image: image.png]](https://i.ibb.co/dkpwMYN/image.png)