5 Monads
Suppose we have ,
. How much of the adjunction can
we describe in terms of (supposing
we can’t know anything about ,
or know very little about it)?
We have:
From the triangular identities of Theorem 3.7, we obtain the commutative triangles:
and from
naturality of
we obtain
Definition 5.1 (Monad).
A monad on a category
is a
triple
where ,
and
and
satisfy the commutative diagrams
Example 5.2.
-
(a)
Let
be a monoid. The functor
has a monad structure:
is
and
sends
to .
The three diagrams ‘are’ the unit and associative laws in .
-
(b)
The functor
has a monad structure: the unit
is the mapping
(Example 1.7(c)) and the multiplication
sends a set of subsets of
to their union.
Does every monad come from an adjunction?
Answered by Eilenberg-Moore and by Kleisli (1965).
Note that the monad of Example 5.2(a) is induced by
and that of Example 5.2(b)
is induced by ,
where
is the category of complete semilattices (posets, with arbitrary joins). The free complete semilattice on
is
: every
extends
uniquely to
where .
An -set (respectively a complete
semilattice) is a set equipped
with a suitable mapping
(respectively ).
Definition 5.3 (Eilenberg-Moore algebra).
Let
be a monad on . By an
Eilenberg-Moore algebra for
we mean a pair
where
and
satisfies
A
homomorphism
is a morphism
satisfying
We write
for the
category
of
-algebras
and homomorphisms.
Proposition 5.4.
Assuming that:
Proof.
We define
(an algebra by (2) and (3)) and
(a homomorphism by naturality of ).
Clearly,
is functorial and .
We establish the adjunction using Theorem 3.7: its unit is ,
and the counit
is just
(a homomorphism ,
by (5), and natural by (6)).
The triangular identity
is just
(1), and
is
(4).
Finally, by
definition of . So the
adjunction induces .
□
Note: induces
, we can replace
by its full subcategory
on objects .
So in trying to construct , we may
assume is surjective (indeed,
bijective) on objects. The morphisms
in must correspond
to morphisms
in .
Definition 5.5 (Kleisli category).
Let
be a monad on .
The Kleisli category
is defined by ,
morphsims
in
are morphisms
in .
The identity
is ,
and the composite of
is .
For the unit and associative laws, consider the diagrams
Proposition 5.6.
Assuming that:
Proof.
We define
and .
preserves identities by definintion, and preserves composition by
We
define
,
and
.
preserves identities by
(1), and preserves composites by
We verify the
adjunction
using
Theorem 3.7:
by
(1) so
and we take
as
unit of the
adjunction.
We define
to be .
To verify the naturality square
the lower composite
is
and the upper
one is
, which agree
since
(2) tells us that
.
The triangular identities become
and
Finally,
, so
induces the
monad .
□
Given a monad
on , we write
for the category whose
objects are adjunctions
inducing , and
morphisms
are functors
satisfying
and .
Proof.
Suppose given
in .
We define
by
(an algebra by one of the triangular identities for
and ,
and naturality of ),
(a homomorphism by naturality of ).
is functorial since
is,
is obvious, and .
So
is a morphism of .
Suppose
is another such: then we must have
where
is a natural transformation since
is a homomorphism
for all .
Also, since ,
we have
for all .
For any , we
have naturality squares
whose left edges are equal, and whose top edge is
split epic, so we obtain
for all
. So
.
We define
by and
.
preserves identities and
satisfies , by the first
triangular identity for
and .
preserves the
composite
by
Also
and
|
So is a morphism
of . Note that
is full and faithful,
since it sends to
its traspose across .
If is any
morphism of , we
must have for
all , and since
and the adjunctions
have the same unit,
must send the transpose
of to its
transpose across .
So .
□
has
coproducts if
does, but has few other limits or colimits. In contrast, we have:
Proposition 5.8.
Assuming that:
Then
Proof.
-
(i)
Suppose given ;
write ,
and let
be a limit for .
The composites
form a cone over .
So they induce a unique .
And
is a -algebra
structure on ,
since the identities
and
follow from uniqueness of factorisations through limits and it’s the unique lifting of the limit cone
in
to a cone in .
The fact that it’s a limit cone is straightforward.
-
(ii)
If
creates colimits then it preserves them, but so does
since it’s a left adjoint, so
preserves them too.
Conversely, given
and a colimit cone
under ,
we need to know that
is a colimit cone to obtain
(and that
is a colimit to verify that
is a -algebra
structure). Otherwise, the argument is as before. □
Given ,
, how can we
tell when is
part of an equivalence?
Note: is an equivalence
if and only if
is essentially surjective.
We call (or
the functor )
monadic if
is part of an equivalence.
Lemma 5.9.
Assuming that:
-
-
for every
algebra
,
the pair
has a
coequaliser in
Proof.
Write for the coequaliser.
For any homomorphism
the two left hand squares in
commute, so
we get a unique
making the right hand square commute. As usual, uniqueness implies functoriality of
.
For any , morphisms
correspond to
morphisms
satisfying .
If is the
transpose of
across , then
transposes
to , whereas
transposes to
. But we can write
by the proof of
Theorem 3.7, so .
So if
and only if
commutes, which
happens if and only if
in
.
Naturality of the bijection follows from that of .
□
Note that since ,
we have by
Corollary 3.6, and
preserves coequalisers.
Definition 5.10 (Reflexive / split coequaliser diagram / -split).
Theorem 5.12 (Crude Monadicity Theorem).
Assuming that:
Proof.
-
(5.11, )
Necessity of
is obvious. For the other condition, it’s enough to show that
creates coequalisers
of -split
pairs. This is a re-run of Proposition 5.8(ii): if
are such that
is a split coequaliser diagram, the coequaliser is preserved by
and
by , so
acquires a unique
algebra structure
making a
homomorphism, and
is a coequaliser in .
-
(5.11 and 5.12)
Either set of hypotheses implies that
has the coequalisers needed for Lemma 5.9, so
has a left
adjoint .
So we need to show that the unit and counit of
are isomorphisms.
The unit is the
factorisation of
through the (-split)
coequaliser
of .
But either set of hypothesis implies that
preserves the
equaliser of ,
so this factorisation is an isomorphism.
The counit is the
factorisation of through
the coequaliser of .
The hypotheses of Theorem 5.11 imply that
is a coequaliser of this pair, so the counit is an isomorphism. Those of
Theorem 5.12 imply that the factorisation is mapped to an isomorphism by
,
so it’s an isomorphism. □
Remark 5.13.
-
(1)
Reflexive coequalisers are colimits of shape ,
where
is the category satisfying
,
and
.
-
(2)
All colimits can be constructed from coproducts and reflexive coequalisers. This was proved in Proposition 4.4:
the pair
appearing in that proof is coreflexive with common left inverse
defined
by for
all .
-
(3)
If is
reflexive, then in any commutative square we
have .
So a pushout for is a coequaliser
for .
-
(4)
In , or more generally in a
cartesian closed category, if
() are reflexive
coequalisers, then
is also a coequaliser. To see this, consider in
which all rows and columns are coequalisers. Then the lower right square is a pushout; but if
coequalises
, then is also
coequalises
and ,
so if factors through the top and left edges of the lower right square, and hence through
.
Example 5.14.
-
(a)
The forgetful functor
is monadic, and satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 5.12. If
is a reflexive pair in ,
with coequaliser
in ,
then
is a coequaliser, so the multiplication
induces a binary operation ,
which is the unique group multiplication on
making
a homomorphism, and it makes
into a coequaliser in .
The same argument works for ,
,
,
,
….
It doesn’t work for categories like
or ,
but here we can use Theorem 5.11 provided the forgetful functor has a left adjoint.
-
(b)
Any reflection is monadic: this can be proved using Theorem 5.11. If
is a reflective
subcategory, and
is a pair in
for which there exists in
satisfying the equaitions of
Definition 5.10(b), then
since is
full, so
is in ,
but
is closed under splittings of idempotents by Example 4.7(d), so
belongs to it.
-
(c)
Consider the composite adjunction where
is the adjunction
of Example 3.11(b). The two factors are monadic, but the composite isn’t since free abelian groups are torsion free, so
and its category
of algebras is .
-
(d)
The contravariant power-set functor
is monadic, and satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 5.12. Its left adjoint is
by
Example 3.2(i), and it reflects isomorphisms by Example 2.9(a).
Let be a coreflexive
equaliser diagram in .
Then
is
a pullback by Remark 5.13(c), so commutes. But
we also have
and
since
and
are injective, so is
a split coequaliser diagram.
-
(e)
The fogetful functor is
not monadic; the monad on
induced by is
so its category
of algebras is .
-
(f)
The composite adjunction
is monadic. We’ll prove this using Theorem 5.11: suppose given
in
and
a split coequaliser in
. The quotient topology
on is the unique
topology making into
a coequaliser in , and
it’s compact, so will
be a coequaliser in
provided
is Hausdorff. It is also the unique topology that could make
into a
morphism of .
But, given an equivalence relation
on a compact Hausdorff space ,
is Hausdorff
if and only if
is closed in .
In our case, if
(i.e. )
then
and
satisfy ,
and
.
Conversely, if we have
and as
above, then ,
so
where
is . But
is closed in
since it’s the
equaliser of .
So is compact,
so is
compact, so
is closed in .
Definition 5.15 (Monadic tower).
Let
be an adjunction where has reflexive
coequalisers. The monadic tower of
is the diagram
where
is the
monad
induced by
,
and
and
are as in
Theorem 5.7
and
Lemma 5.9, and
is
the
monad induced by
and so on.
We say has monadic
length if we reach
an equivalence after
steps.