Theory and Formal Methods 1993 pp 100-114 | Cite as

# Self-duality, Minimal Invariant Objects and Karoubi Invariance in Information Categories

## Abstract

We introduce IP-categories by enriching the notion of I-category (information category) such that every inclusion morphism has a right adjoint or projection. Categories of information systems for various domains in semantics are all examples of IP-categories. We show. that a weak notion of substructure relation between two Scott information systems induces general adjunctions between them. An IP-category with a zero object has the self-dual property that its opposite is again an IP-category. In a complete IP-category with a zero object, limits and colimits of chains of projections and inclusions coincide. As a consequence of the self-duality, a simple characterisation of minimal invariant objects of contravariant and mixed functors on IP-categories is obtained. IP-categories are closed under taking the Karoubi envelope. We use the arrow category of an effectively given IP-category to solve domain equations in categories of continuous information systems effectively.

## Keywords

Information Category Domain Equation Invariant Object Projection Morphism General Adjunction## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [1]S. Abramsky. Domain theory in logical form.
*Annals of Pure and Applied Logic*, 1991Google Scholar - [2]G. Berry and P.-L. Curien. Sequential algorithms on concrete data structures. Technical report, Report of Ecole Nationale Superieure des Mines de Paris, Centre de Mathematiques Appliquées, Sophia Antipolis, 1981.Google Scholar
- [3]A. Edalat. Self duality in information categories. Technical Report Doc 91/42, Department of Computing, Imperial College, 1991.Google Scholar
- [4]A. Edalat. Continuous I-categories. In A. Nerode and M. Taitslin, editors,
*Logical Foundations of Computer Science*, volume 620 of*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, pages 127–138. Springer-Verlag, 1992.Google Scholar - [5]A. Edalat and M. B. Smyth. Categories of information systems. In D. H. Pitt, P. L. Curien, S. Abramsky, A. M. Pitts, A. Poigne, and D. E. Rydeheard, editors,
*Category theory in computer science*, pages 37–52. Springer-Verlag, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [6]A. Edalat and M. B. Smyth. Compact metric information systems. In
*1992 Rex workshop on semantics of programming languages*. Springer-Verlag, 1993. to appear.Google Scholar - [7]A. Edalat and M. B. Smyth. I-categories as a framework for solving domain equations.
*Theoretical Computer Science*,1993. to appear.Google Scholar - [8]A. Edalat and M. B. Smyth. Information Categories.
*Applied Categorical Structures*,1993. to appear.Google Scholar - [9]P. J. Freyd. Algebraically complete categories. In A. Carboni
*et al*, editor,*Proc. 1990 Como Category theory conference*, volume 1488 of*Lec. Notes in Maths*, pages 95–104. Springer Verlag, 1991.Google Scholar - [10]P. J. Freyd. Remarks on algebraically compact categories. In A. M. Pitts M. P. Fourman, P. T. Johnstone, editor,
*Applications of categories in computer science*, number 177 in L.M.S. Lecture notes series, pages 95–106. Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar - [11]C. Gunter.
*Profinite Solutions for Recursive Domain Equations*. PhD thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1985.Google Scholar - [12]A. Jung.
*Cartesian Closed Categories of Domains*. PhD thesis, Technische Hochschule Darmstadt, 1988.MATHGoogle Scholar - [13]K. G. Larsen and G. Winskel. Using information systems to solve recursive domain equations effectively. In D. B. MacQueen G. Kahn and G. Plotkin, editors,
*Semantics of Data Types*, pages 109–130, Berlin, 1984. Springer-Verlag. Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - [14]D. J. Lehmann and M. B. Smyth. Algebraic specification of data types: A synthetic approach.
*Mathematical Systems Theory*, 14: 97–139, 1981.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [15]S. Mac Lane.
*Categories for the Working Mathematician*. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1971.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [16]D. S. Scott. Domains for denotational semantics. In M. Nielson and E. M. Schmidt, editors,
*Automata*,*Languages and Programming: Proceedings 1982*. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1982. Lecture Notes in Computer Science**140**.Google Scholar - [17]M. B. Smyth. I-categories and duality. In M. P. Fourman, P. T. Johnstone, and A. M. Pitts, editors,
*Application of categories in computer science*, volume 177 of*London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series*, pages 270–287. Cambrdge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar - [18]M. B. Smyth and G. D. Plotkin. The category-theoretic solution of recursive domain equations.
*SIAM J. Computing*, 11: 761–783, 1982.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar - [19]P. Taylor.
*Recursive Domains*,*Indexed category Theory and Polymorphism*. PhD thesis, Cambridge University, 1986.Google Scholar - [20]S. J. Vickers. Geometric theories and databases. In P. Johnstone M. P. Fourman and A. M. Pitts, editors,
*Applications of Categories in Computer Science*, pages 288–314. Cambridge University Press, 1991.Google Scholar - [21]G. Q. Zhang. dI-domains as information systems. In G. Ausiello, M. DezaniCiancaglini, and S. Ronchi Della Rocca, editors,
*Automata*,*Languages and Programming*, volume 372 of*Lecture Notes in Computer Science*, pages 773–788, Berlin, 1989. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar