Unbiased monoidal categories

Many algebraic definitions are biased : they exist at every finite arity but are explicitly defined only at arities 2 and 0 (binary and nullary operators). In an “unbiased” definition, all finite arities are directly postulated.

Advantages of unbiasedness:

Disadvantages:

Examples

First examples of biased definitions: variations on the monoid structure

  • Monoid (classical): binary product and unit
  • Monoidal product of a monoidal category: binary product and monoidal unit
  • Internal monoid in monoidal category (e.g. coproduct category): merging and creation
  • Internal comonoid in monoidal category (e.g. cartesian category): duplication and deletion

Algorithmically, debiasing monoids leads to a list-based normal form, where the associativity and unit axioms are implicit in the representation.

More examples of biased definitions:

  • Compositions in a category: binary composition and identity
  • Action of braid category on braided monoidal category: braiding and identity
  • Action of permutation category on symmetric monoidal category: braiding and identity

The last two formulations are sloppy: I mean the “permutation-like maps” formed by taking arbitrary compositions and products of braidings and identities, generalizing the transposition decomposition of a permutation.

Literature

  • Deligne and Milne, 1982: Tannakian Categories, Proposition 1.5 (pdf)
  • Leinster, 2004: Operads in higher-dimensional category theory, Sec 1.2: Unbiased bicategories (pdf, arxiv)
  • Leinster, 2004: Higher Operads, Higher Categories, Sec 3.1: Unbiased monoidal categories and Appendix A: Symmetric structures (arxiv)
  • Brandenburg, 2011 (unpublished notes): Unbiased symmetric monoidal categories (Math.SE , pdf)