Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:02:15.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Free compact 2-categories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2007

ANNE PRELLER  and
JOACHIM LAMBEK
ANNE PRELLER
Affiliation:
LIRMM/CNRS Montpellier, France Email: [email protected]
JOACHIM LAMBEK
Affiliation:
McGill University Montréal, QC, Canada Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before one can attach a meaning to a sentence, one must distinguish different ways of parsing it. When analysing a language with pregroup grammars, we are thus led to replace the free pregroup by a free compact strict monoidal category. Since a strict monoidal category is a 2-category with one 0-cell, we investigate the free compact 2-category generated by a given category, and describe its 2-cells as labelled transition systems. In particular, we obtain a decision procedure for the equality of 2-cells in the free compact 2-category.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 2007 , pp. 309 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Altenkirch, T., Hofman, M. and Streicher, T. (1995) Categorical reconstruction of a reduction-free normalization proof. In: Pitt, D., Rydeheard, D. E. and Johnstone, P. (eds.) Category Theory and Computer Science. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 953 182–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, M. (1995) Non-symmetric *-autonomous categories. Theoretical Computer Science 139 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buszkowski, W. (2002) Cut elimination for the Lambek calculus of adjoints. In: Abrusci, M. and Casadio, C. (eds.) Papers in formal linguistics and logic, Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Degeilh, S. and Preller, A. (2005) Efficiency of pregroups and the French noun phrase. JoLLI.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Došen, K. (1999) Cut elimination in categories. Trends in Logic, Kluwer.Google Scholar
Došen, K. (2002) Simplicial Endomorphisms, Mathematical Institute, SANU (available at http://arXiv.org/math.GT/0301302).Google Scholar
Došen, K. and Petrić, Z. (2004) Proof theoretical coherence, Preprint of Mathematical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Belgrade.Google Scholar
Eilenberg, S. (1972) Automata, Languages and Machines A, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eilenberg, S. (1976) Automata, Languages and Machines B, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, G. M. and Laplaza, M. I. (1980) Coherence for compact closed categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambek, J. (1999) Type Grammar revisited. In: Lecomte, A. Lecomte, A., Lamarche, F. and Perrier, G. (eds.) Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1582 1–27.Google Scholar
Lambek, J. (2004) Bicategories in algebra and linguistics. In: Ehrhard, T., Girard, J.-Y., Ruet, P. and Scott, P. (eds.) Linear logic in computer science, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 316, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1971) Categories for the working mathematician, Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seely, R. (1979) Weak adjointness in proof theory. In: Fourman, M. P., Mulvey, C. J. and Scott, D. S. (eds.) Applications of sheaves. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Mathematics 753 697–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar