We can generalize the notion of club over a cartesian monad on to a cartesian monad on an object of any 2-category .
Note that the on which the cartesian monad lives does not generalize to the 2-category ; it generalizes to the object . The 2-category generalizes the larger 2-category that contains as an object.
Let be a 2-category and an object that has representable finite limits, meaning that each hom-category has finite limits and the precomposition functors preserve finite limits.
Given morphisms , a 2-cell is called cartesian if for any and 2-cell , the commutative square
is a pullback in . (Note that this is a different notion of “cartesian 2-cell” than the one involved in the notion of fibration in a 2-category.)
A monad on (that is, a 1-morphism equipped with 2-morphisms and that are associative and unital) is cartesian if and are cartesian 2-cells, in the above sense, and preserves pullbacks in the sense that each functor preserves pullbacks.
Now suppose that is cartesian closed — the weak bicategorical sense suffices, i.e. we have equivalences . Suppose further more that has a terminal object and comma objects. To avoid confusion, we will denote by the terminal object of , by the identity morphisms in , and by the representable terminal object of .
Now any monad transposes to a morphism , and we can form the “slice object” by the following comma square:
This has the representable property that , where is the composite .
Similarly, we have (meaning the composite , where is the representable terminal object of ), and we can form the slice . Thus has the representable property , where is the composite . Now “evaluate at 1” yields a morphism , which can be defined representably in a straightforward way.
Given the assumption that has representable pullbacks as well, we claim that the morphism has a right adjoint. This can be constructed representably as follows. A morphism is a morphism together with a 2-cell , and we want a morphism together with a 2-cell . We define to be the pullback
It is straightforward to check that this defines a right adjoint whose counit is fully faithful. It commutes with precomposition (since the pullbacks in do), so it induces a right adjoint whose counit is also fully faithful, i.e. is a “reflective subobject” of .
Moreover, by construction, a morphism factors through just when for the corresponding map , the induced square
is a pullback. Now for any and , consider the rectangle
The factorization property above says that the right-hand square and the outer rectangle are pullbacks, which by the pasting law for pullbacks implies that the left-hand square is also a pullback, i.e. that is a cartesian 2-cell as defined above. On the other hand, if is a cartesian 2-cell, then precomposing with the unique 2-cell yields the above square. Hence, as a subobject of can be said to be the “full subobject consisting of the cartesian transformations into ”. We may call it the object of collections over .
Now, is always a pseudomonoid in , and since is a monoid therein, the comma object inherits a pseudomonoid structure. We claim that if is cartesian, then is closed under this pseudomonoid structure, i.e. is a pseudomonoid and the inclusion is a pseudomonoid morphism.
Firstly, the unit of is the map corresponding to equipped with . Since part of being cartesian means that is a cartesian 2-cell, this certainly factors through .
Secondly, for the tensor product we again argue representably. Suppose given two maps , corresponding to equipped with cartetsian 2-cells to . Their “product” induced by the pseudomonoid structure on is the composite
equipped with the 2-cell
Then we have the composite rectangle
The first square on the left is a pullback since is cartesian. The second is an isomorphism, hence automatically a pullback. The third is a pullback since is cartesian and preserves pullbacks. And the last is a pullback since is cartesian. Thus, the composite rectangle is also a pullback, showing that is also cartesian.
Note that we did not actually need to have all representable pullbacks nor to preserve all of them: we only needed the existence of pullbacks of the form
and to preserve these.
When , we obtain the notion of club over a cartesian monad described at club. The usual subcase of interest is when , and the simple case of clubs over (the permutation category) is the further special case when is the free symmetric (strict) monoidal category monad.
When is the 2-category of (pseudo) double categories, pseudo double functors, and vertical transformations, we obtain essentially the notion of double club from (Garner). Representable pullbacks in can be constructed “levelwise”, by taking pullbacks in the category of objects and vertical arrows, and also in the category of (all) horizontal arrows and cells; except that in general such a pullback may not define a pseudo double functor (it may not preserve identities and composition up to isomorphism). The condition (hps) required by Garner ensures that the specific pullbacks needed above do exist as pseudo double functors. Cartesianness of monads and transformations can also be tested levelwise.
When is the 2-category of virtual equipments (or even just virtual double categories with units) and normal (unit-preserving) functors, we obtain a notion of virtual double club. The units are necessary to have a cartesian closed 2-category (specifically, we need morphisms , where is the terminal object, to correspond to objects of ; and without units and normality such a morphism would instead be a monoid in ). However, we can do without requiring composites to exist or be preserved by functors.
This means that it suffices to assume Garner’s condition (hps2) on units, but not necessarily his condition (hps1) on composites. This is nice because in many cases, such as the double category of categories, functors, and profunctors, (hps2) is automatically true for all monads by (Garner, Proposition 48).
On the other hand, in this context we only get that the “inclusion” is a normal functor of virtual double categories, i.e. lax in the horizontal direction; whereas in Garner’s context it is a strong functor.
Created on April 14, 2016 at 23:18:12. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.