category with duals (list of them)
dualizable object (what they have)
ribbon category, a.k.a. tortile category
monoidal dagger-category?
Just as we can convolve functions where is a group, or more generally a monoid, we can convolve functors where is a monoidal category. So, for any monoidal category , the functor category becomes a monoidal category in its own right. The tensor product in is called Day convolution, named after Brian Day.
We can generalize this idea by replacing Set with a more general cocomplete symmetric monoidal category . The technical condition is that the tensor product must preserve colimits in the separate arguments and ; that is, that the functors and must preserve colimits. This occurs when for instance is symmetric monoidal closed (so that these functors are left adjoints).
For a monoidal category and two presheaves on , their Day convolution product is the presheaf given by the coend
Let be the Yoneda embedding.
With the tensor unit of , the presheaf is a unit for the Day convolution product.
For a small monoidal category, regard the category of presheaves as a monoidal category with tensor product the Day convolution product and unit the unit of under the Yoneda embedding .
Then
is a closed monoidal category;
the Yoneda embedding constitutes a strong monoidal functor .
In analogy to the cartesian closed monoidal structure on presheaves we see that if the internal hom in exists at all, (with right adjoint to ) then by the Yoneda lemma it has to be given by
…
In Day’s original paper, a stronger form of the Day convolution is discussed, in which is assumed only to be a promonoidal category.
Let be a Benabou cosmos, and a small -enriched category.
There is an equivalence of categories between the category of pro-monoidal structures on with strong pro-monoidal functors between them and the category of biclosed monoidal structures on with strong monoidal functors between them.
…
Then the above convolution product is
Notice that if we regard the presheaves and here, assuming they take values in finite sets, as categorifications of -valued functions , where is the cardinality operation on finite sets, then this reproduces precisely the ordinary convolution product of these -valued functions
This uses in particular that for every object the functor
is in this sense the Kronecker delta-function on the set supported at . Precisely because by assumption has only identity morphisms.
There is an obvious monoidal structure on the cube category. By Day convolution this induces a monoidal structure on cubical sets. This in turn induces a monoidal structure on strict omega-categories.
If is a large category in one universe, then its universe enlargement to a bigger universe can be given a closed monoidal structure via Day convolution.
The semantics of linear logic obtained from Girard’s “phase spaces”, or more generally from ternary frames, is essentially Day convolution for posets.
Eric says: When I see “convolution”, I think “Fourier transform”. Is Day convolution somehow related to a categorified version of Fourier transforms?
Todd says: Yes, something like that. I talk a little about this in the article on operads, in the detailed theoretical section.
The usual Fourier transform (for periodic functions) passes between Fourier coefficients and functions on . One way of categorifying this is to pass from the category of functors (considered as a monoidal category with respect to Day convolution) to their so-called “analytic functors” , mapping a set to . The “categorified Fourier transform” takes Day convolution products to (pointwise) cartesian products.
If the “Fourier transform” is properly formulated (using enriched tensor products), then the same holds for any monoidal category in place of the discrete monoidal category .
AnonymousCoward says: The passage to analytic functors seems more like a z-transform or Laplace transform. In the particular case of species, it is the Laplace transform formula that applies to the analytic functor of a derivative of a species, not the Fourier transform one involving multiplication by the imaginary unit.
The use of hom above is reminiscent of the Dirac delta. Is there a connection?
John Baez says: It’s true that the passage from a sequence to a power series is precisely the -transform. If we set , we get the Fourier transform — but as you note this makes use of the imaginary unit , which plays no evident role in Day convolution. So, the analogies Todd is discussing become most precise if we work with the -transform. But the Fourier transform is closely related.
On the other hand, I’ve discovered that many ‘pure mathematicians’ don’t know about the -transform — at least, not under that name. I think it’s ‘engineers’ who talk most about the -transform. So, if you’re trying to explain Day convolution to pure mathematicians, it’s pedagogically best to start talking about the Fourier transform, and then later mention the -transform.
In general is a categorified version of an inner product. I’m too lazy to figure out how this is related to the Dirac delta, but I would not be surprised if there were a connection.
Urs: maybe all that “anonymous coward” is looking for is this statement:
if is a discrete category (i.e. just a set regarded as a category with only identity morphisms) then a functor is like a -valued function on the set and then for every object in the functor is the Kronecker delta on at , in that
I have added this remark now explicitly to the entry above.