Coherence for Skew-Monoidal Categories

I motivate a variation (due to K. Szlach\'{a}nyi) of monoidal categories called skew-monoidal categories where the unital and associativity laws are not required to be isomorphisms, only natural transformations. Coherence has to be formulated differently than in the well-known monoidal case. In my (to my knowledge new) version, it becomes a statement of uniqueness of normalizing rewrites. I present a proof of this coherence theorem and also formalize it fully in the dependently typed programming language Agda.Comment: In Proceedings MSFP 2014, arXiv:1406.153

Coinductive Big-Step Semantics for Concurrency

In a paper presented at SOS 2010, we developed a framework for big-step semantics for interactive input-output in combination with divergence, based on coinductive and mixed inductive-coinductive notions of resumptions, evaluation and termination-sensitive weak bisimilarity. In contrast to standard inductively defined big-step semantics, this framework handles divergence properly; in particular, runs that produce some observable effects and then diverge, are not "lost". Here we scale this approach for shared-variable concurrency on a simple example language. We develop the metatheory of our semantics in a constructive logic.Comment: In Proceedings PLACES 2013, arXiv:1312.221

The Sequent Calculus of Skew Monoidal Categories

International audienc

Directed Containers as Categories

Directed containers make explicit the additional structure of those containers whose set functor interpretation carries a comonad structure. The data and laws of a directed container resemble those of a monoid, while the data and laws of a directed container morphism those of a monoid morphism in the reverse direction. With some reorganization, a directed container is the same as a small category, but a directed container morphism is opcleavage-like. We draw some conclusions for comonads from this observation, considering in particular basic constructions and concepts like the opposite category and a groupoid.Comment: In Proceedings MSFP 2016, arXiv:1604.0038

Variations on Noetherianness

In constructive mathematics, several nonequivalent notions of finiteness exist. In this paper, we continue the study of Noetherian sets in the dependently typed setting of the Agda programming language. We want to say that a set is Noetherian, if, when we are shown elements from it one after another, we will sooner or later have seen some element twice. This idea can be made precise in a number of ways. We explore the properties and connections of some of the possible encodings. In particular, we show that certain implementations imply decidable equality while others do not, and we construct counterexamples in the latter case. Additionally, we explore the relation between Noetherianness and other notions of finiteness.Comment: In Proceedings MSFP 2016, arXiv:1604.0038

On streams that are finitely red

Mixing induction and coinduction, we study alternative definitions of streams being finitely red. We organize our definitions into a hierarchy including also some well-known alternatives in intuitionistic analysis. The hierarchy collapses classically, but is intuitionistically of strictly decreasing strength. We characterize the differences in strength in a precise way by weak instances of the Law of Excluded Middle

Structured general corecursion and coinductive graphs [extended abstract]

Bove and Capretta's popular method for justifying function definitions by general recursive equations is based on the observation that any structured general recursion equation defines an inductive subset of the intended domain (the "domain of definedness") for which the equation has a unique solution. To accept the definition, it is hence enough to prove that this subset contains the whole intended domain. This approach works very well for "terminating" definitions. But it fails to account for "productive" definitions, such as typical definitions of stream-valued functions. We argue that such definitions can be treated in a similar spirit, proceeding from a different unique solvability criterion. Any structured recursive equation defines a coinductive relation between the intended domain and intended codomain (the "coinductive graph"). This relation in turn determines a subset of the intended domain and a quotient of the intended codomain with the property that the equation is uniquely solved for the subset and quotient. The equation is therefore guaranteed to have a unique solution for the intended domain and intended codomain whenever the subset is the full set and the quotient is by equality.Comment: In Proceedings FICS 2012, arXiv:1202.317

When is a container a comonad?

Abbott, Altenkirch, Ghani and others have taught us that many parameterized datatypes (set functors) can be usefully analyzed via container representations in terms of a set of shapes and a set of positions in each shape. This paper builds on the observation that datatypes often carry additional structure that containers alone do not account for. We introduce directed containers to capture the common situation where every position in a data-structure determines another data-structure, informally, the sub-data-structure rooted by that position. Some natural examples are non-empty lists and node-labelled trees, and data-structures with a designated position (zippers). While containers denote set functors via a fully-faithful functor, directed containers interpret fully-faithfully into comonads. But more is true: every comonad whose underlying functor is a container is represented by a directed container. In fact, directed containers are the same as containers that are comonads. We also describe some constructions of directed containers. We have formalized our development in the dependently typed programming language Agda