MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168266035 · doi:10.70930/tac/y9rglypb

Cartesian Differential Categories

2009· article· en· W2168266035 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richard Blute, J.R.B. Cockett, R. A. G. Seely

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and applications of categories · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphismMathematicsSymmetric monoidal categoryPure mathematicsCartesian closed categoryEnriched categoryAlgebra over a fieldDifferential (mechanical device)Functor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper revisits the authors' notion of a differential category from a different perspective.A differential category is an additive symmetric monoidal category with a comonad (a "coalgebra modality") and a differential combinator.The morphisms of a differential category should be thought of as the linear maps; the differentiable or smooth maps would then be morphisms of the coKleisli category.The purpose of the present paper is to directly axiomatize differentiable maps and thus to move the emphasis from the linear notion to structures resembling the coKleisli category.The result is a setting with a more evident and intuitive relationship to the familiar notion of calculus on smooth maps.Indeed a primary example is the category whose objects are Euclidean spaces and whose morphisms are smooth maps.A Cartesian differential category is a Cartesian left additive category which possesses a Cartesian differential operator.The differential operator itself must satisfy a number of equations, which guarantee, in particular, that the differential of any map is "linear" in a suitable sense.We present an analysis of the basic properties of Cartesian differential categories.We show that under modest and natural assumptions, the coKleisli category of a differential category is Cartesian differential.Finally we present a (sound and complete) term calculus for these categories which allows their structure to be analysed using essentially the same language one might use for traditional multi-variable calculus.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and applications of categoriesSame topicHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic TopologyFrench-language works237,207