# Cauchy completion and profunctors

###### 14th July, 2019

- Bimodules
- Profunctors, distributors, bimodules, or whatever
- Cauchy completion
- Internal categories
- References

An idea that came up in a few talks at CT2019 was that of ‘spans
whose left leg is a left adjoint’. I managed (luckily) to get a chance
to ask Mike Shulman a few questions about this, as well as post in `#math.CT:matrix.org`

.
What follows are some things that I learnt (mostly from [BD86]).

# Bimodules

↟A good place to begin is with the definition of a
*bimodule*.

## Classically

Given rings R and S, we say that an abelian group M is an *(R,S)-bimodule* if it is a left R-module and a right S-module **in a compatible
way**: we ask that (rm)s=r(ms).

Thinking about this definition a bit (or maybe recalling an algebra
class), we see that this is equivalent to asking that M be a right module over R^{\text{op}}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}S (or,
equivalently, a left module over R\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}S^{\text{op}}), where
R^{\text{op}} is the *opposite*
ring of R, given by just ‘turning the
multiplication around’.^{1}

## Categorically

Modulo a bunch of technical conditions on the categories involved,^{2} a *bimodule* is a \mathcal{V}-functor (i.e. a functor of \mathcal{V}-enriched categories) \mathcal{C}^{\text{op}}\otimes\mathcal{D}\to\mathcal{V}.

We can recover the previous definition similar to how we can recover the definition of an R-module as an \mathsf{Ab}-enriched functor R^{\text{op}}\to\mathsf{Ab}. Or, taking \mathcal{V}=\mathsf{Vect}, and \mathcal{C}=\mathbb{B}A, \mathcal{D}=\mathbb{B}B, with A and B both vector spaces, we recover the notion of a vector space with a left A-action and a right B-action.

A fundamental example that seems a bit different from this algebraic one, however, arises when we take \mathcal{V}=\mathsf{Set} and \mathcal{C}=\mathcal{D} to be arbitrary (small) categories. Then the hom functor \mathcal{C}(-,-)\colon\mathcal{C}^{\text{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\to\mathsf{Set} is a bimodule. This suggests that we should maybe somehow think of bimodules as generalised hom functors, where the objects can live in a different category.

As a small aside, there is some hot debate about whether to use \mathcal{C}^{\text{op}}\otimes\mathcal{D}\to\mathcal{V}
or \mathcal{C}\otimes\mathcal{D}^{\text{op}}\to\mathcal{V},
and although the first seems more natural (in that it corresponds to the
way we write hom functors), the second is slightly nicer in that
functors \mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D} give
you profunctors by composition with the **covariant**
Yoneda embedding, as opposed to the contravariant one. But the two are
formally dual, so it’s really not the biggest of issues.

# Profunctors, distributors, bimodules, or whatever

↟Of course, lots of people have different preferences for names, but a
*profunctor* is (using the convention of Borceux and Dejean) a
functor \mathcal{D}^{\text{op}}\times\mathcal{C}\to\mathsf{Set}.
People often write such a thing as \mathcal{C}\nrightarrow\mathcal{D}. We can
define their compositions via colimits or coends:

Q\circ P=\int^{d\in\mathcal{D}}P(d,-)\otimes Q(-,d)

(although we don’t really care so much about this in this post).

**Edit.** We talk about this a bit more in Part 3 of the series on
Day convolution.

## Yoneda

Every functor F\colon\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D} gives a profunctor F^*\colon\mathcal{C}\nrightarrow\mathcal{D} by setting

F^*(d,c) = \mathcal{D}(d,Fc),

and F^* has a right adjoint F_*\colon\mathcal{D}\nrightarrow\mathcal{C} given by

F_*(c,d) = \mathcal{D}(Fc,d),

where we define adjunctions of profunctors using the classical notion of natural transformations.

If we write \mathbb{1} to mean the category with one object and one (identity) (endo)morphism then any (small) category \mathcal{C} can be identified with the functor category \mathsf{Fun}(\mathbb{1},\mathcal{C}), and the presheaf category \hat{\mathcal{C}}:=\mathsf{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\text{op}},\mathsf{Set}) is just the category \mathsf{Profun}(\mathbb{1},\mathcal{C}). Then the Yoneda embedding is the inclusion

\mathsf{Fun}(\mathbb{1},\mathcal{C})\to\mathsf{Profun}(\mathbb{1},\mathcal{C})

given by F\mapsto F^*.

## Recovering functors

**Theorem.** A profunctor \mathbb{1}\nrightarrow\mathcal{C} is a
functor (via Yoneda^{3}) if and only if it admits a right
adjoint. More generally, a profunctor \mathcal{A}\nrightarrow\mathcal{C}, for any
small category \mathcal{A}, is a
functor (via Yoneda) if and only if it admits a right adjoint.

**Proof.** [Theorem 2, BD86].

We will come back to this fact later.

# Cauchy completion

↟The *Cauchy completion* of a (small) category \mathcal{C} can be defined in many ways (as
described in [BD86]), but we pick the following: the Cauchy completion
of \mathcal{C} is the full subcategory
\overline{\mathcal{C}} of \hat{\mathcal{C}}:=\mathsf{Fun}(\mathcal{C}^{\text{op}},\mathsf{Set})
spanned by *absolutely presentable*^{4}
presheaves.

The idea of Cauchy completeness for a category is in some sense meant to mirror that of Cauchy completeness of real numbers: if we think of a metric space as a category enriched over (the poset of) non-negative real numbers, then we recover this analytic notion (see [Example 3, BD86]).

**Lemma.** A presheaf \mathcal{F}\in\hat{\mathcal{C}} is absolutely
presentable if and only if it admits a right adjoint.

**Proof.** [Propositions 2 and 4, BD86].

# Internal categories

↟Recall that [Theorem 2, BD86] tells us that the profunctors that are functors (via Yoneda) are exactly those that admit right adjoints (which, by [Propositions 2 and 4, BD86], are exactly those (in the case where \mathcal{A}=\mathbb{1}) that are in the Cauchy completion of \mathcal{C}).

Now for what motivated me to write this post: something I saw in Bryce Clarke’s talk Internal
lenses as monad morphisms at CT2019.^{5}

Given some category \mathcal{E} with
pullbacks, we can define an *internal category of \mathcal{E}* as a monad in the 2-category
\mathsf{Span}(\mathcal{E}), but it is
**not** the case that internal functors are just (colax)
morphisms of monads: **we need to require that the 1-cell admits a
right adjoint** (which reduces to asking that the left leg of the
corresponding span is an identity/isomorphism).

This is now not so much of a surprising condition, since we’ve already seen that this left-adjoint condition is what ensures that profunctors are actually functors!

What happens then, we may well ask, if we don’t ask for this
condition? We recover the idea of a **Mealy morphism**.^{6}

# References

↟- [BD86] F. Borceux and D. Dejean. “Cauchy completion in category theory”. Cahiers de Topologie et Géométrie Différentielle Catégoriques, Volume 27 (1986) no. 2, pp. 133-146.
- J. Baez,
*Bimodules Versus Spans*, n-Category Café. - M. Shulman.
*Framed bicategories and monoidal fibrations*. arXiv:`0706.1286v2`

[math.CT]. - R. Garner and M. Shulman.
*Enriched categories as a free cocompletion*. arXiV:`1301.3191v2`

[math.CT].

x\cdot_{R^{\text{op}}}y:=y\cdot_R x.↩︎

To construct \mathcal{C}^{\text{op}} we need V to be braided; to be able to compose bimodules we need cocompleteness of V, with \otimes cocontinuous in both arguments, etc.↩︎

That is, of the form F^* for some functor F\colon\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D}.↩︎

That is, preserves all (small) colimits.↩︎

If you prefer more of an article-style thing to slides then take a look at the pre-proceedings from ACT2019.↩︎

Thanks again to Bryce Clarke for answering this question.↩︎