
In the Weeks to come I want to talk about quantum gravity, and especially the relation between general relativity and spinors, since Barrett and Crane and I have some new papers out about how you can describe "quantum 4geometries"  geometries of spacetime which have a kind of quantum discreteness at the Planck scale  starting from the mathematics of spinors.
But first I want to say a bit about CTCS '97  a conference on category theory and computer science organized by Eugenio Moggi and Giuseppe Rosolini. It was so wellorganized that they handed us the conference proceedings when we arrived:
1) Eugenio Moggi and Giuseppe Rosolini, eds., Category Theory and Computer Science, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1290, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
It was held in Santa Margherita Ligure, a picturesque little Italian beach town near Genoa  the perfect place to spend all day in the basement of a hotel listening to highly technical lectures. It's near Portofino, famous for its big yachts full of rich tourists, but I didn't get that far. The food was great, though, and it was nice to see the lazy waves of the Mediterranean, so different from the oceans I know and love. The vegetation was surprisingly similar to that in Riverside: lots of palm trees and cacti.
I spoke about ncategories, with only the barest mention of their possible relevance to computer science. But I was just the token mathematical physicist in the crowd; most of the other participants were pretty heavily into "theoretical computer science"  a subject that covers a lot of newfangled aspects of what used to be called "logic". What's neat is that I almost understood some of these talks, thanks to the fact that category theory provides a highly general language for talking about processes.
What's a computer, after all, but a physical process that simulates fairly arbitrary processes  including other physical processes? As we simulate more and more physics with better and better computers based on more and more physics, it seems almost inevitable that physics and computer science will come to be seen as two ends of a more general theory of processes. No?
A nice example of an analogy between theoretical computer science and mathematical physics was provided by Gordon Plotkin (in the plane, on the way back, when I forced him to explain his talk to me). Computer scientists like to define functions recursively. For example, we can define a function from the natural numbers to the natural numbers:
f: N → N
by its value at 0 together with a rule to get its value at n+1 from its value at n:
f(0) = c
f(n+1) = g(f(n))
Similarly, physicists like to define functions by differential equations. For example, we can define a function from the real numbers to the real numbers:
f: R → R
by its value at 0 together with a rule to get its derivative from its value:
f(0) = c
f'(t) = g(f(t))
In both cases a question arises: how do we know we've really defined a function? And in both cases, the answer involves a "fixedpoint theorem". In both cases, the equations above define the function f *in terms of itself*. We can write this using an equation of the form:
f = F(f)
where F is some operator that takes functions to functions. We say f is a "fixed point for F" if this holds. A fixedpoint theorem is something that says there exists a solution, preferably unique, of this sort of equation.
But how do we describe this operator F more precisely in these examples? In the case of the definition by recursion, here's how: for any function f: N → N, we define the function F(f): N → N by
F(f)(0) = c
F(f)(n+1) = g(f(n))
The principle of mathematical induction says that any operator F of this sort has a unique fixed point.
Similarly, we can formulate the differential equation above as a fixed point problem by integrating both sides, obtaining:
f(t) = c + integral_0^t g(f(s)) ds
which is an example of an "integral equation". If we call the function on the right hand side F(f), then this integral equation says
f = F(f)
In this case, "Picard's theorem on the local existence and uniqueness of solutions of ordinary differential equations" is what comes to our rescue and asserts the existence of a unique fixed point.
You might wonder how Picard's theorem is proved. The basic idea of the proof is very beautiful, because it takes advantage of the frightening circularity implicit in the equation f = F(f). I'll sketch this idea, leaving out all the details.
So, how do we solve this equation? Let's see what we can do with it. There's not much to do, actually, except substitute the left side into the right side and get:
f = F(F(f)).
Hmm. Now what? Well, we can do it again:
f = F(F(F(f)))
and again:
f = F(F(F(f)))).
Are we having fun yet? It look like we're getting nowhere fast... or even worse, getting nowhere slowly! Can we repeat this process so much that the f on the righthand side goes away, leaving us with the solution we're after:
f = F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F(F..... ?
Well, actually, yes, if we're smart. What we do is this. We start by guessing the solution to our equation. How do we guess? Well, our solution f should have f(0) = 0, so just start with any function with this property. Call it f_{1}. Then we improve this initial guess repeatedly by letting
f_{2} = F(f_{1})
f_{3} = F(f_{2})
f_{4} = F(f_{3})
and so on. Now for the fun part: we show that these guesses get closer and closer to each other... so that they converge to some function f with f = F(f)! Voila! With a little more work we can show that no matter what our initial guess was, our subsequent guesses approach the same function f, so that the solution f is unique.
I'm glossing over some details, of course. To prove Picard's theorem we need to assume the function g is reasonably nice (continuous isn't nice enough, we need something like "Lipschitz continuous"), and our initial guess should be reasonably nice (continuous will do here). Also, Picard's theorem only shows that there's a solution defined on some finite time interval, not the whole real line. (This little twist is distressing to Plotkin since it complicates the analogy with mathematical induction. But there must be some slick way to save the analogy; it's too cute not to be important!)
You can read about Picard's theorem and other related fixedpoint theorems in any decent book on analysis. Personally I'm fond of:
2) Michael Reed and Barry Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics. Vol. 1: Functional Analysis. Vol. 2: Fourier Analysis, SelfAdjointness. Vol. 3: Scattering Theory. Vol. 4: Analysis of Operators. Academic Press, New York, 1980.
which is sort of the bible of analysis for mathematical physicists.
Now, it may seem a bit overelaborate to reformulate the principle of mathematical induction as a fixed point theorem. However, this way of looking at recursion is the basis of a lot of theoretical computer science. It applies not only to recursive definitions of functions but also recursive definitions of "types" like those given in "Backus Naur form"  a staple of computer science.
Let me take a simple example that Jim Dolan told me about. Suppose we have some set of "letters" and we want to define the set of all nonempty "words" built from these letters. For example, if our set of letters was L = {a,b,c} then we would get an infinite set W of words like a, ca, bb, bca, cbabba, and on.
In BackusNaur form we might express this as follows:
letter ::= a  b  c
word ::= <letter>  <word> <letter>
In English the first line says "a letter is either a, b, or c", while the second says "a word is either a letter or a word followed by a letter". The second one is the interesting part because it's recursive.
In the language of category theory we could say the same thing as follows. Let L be our set of letters. Given any set S, let
F(S) = L + S x L
where + means disjoint union and x means Cartesian product. Then the set of "words" built from the letters in L satisfies W = F(W), or in other words,
W = L + W x L.
This says "a word is either a letter or an ordered pair consisting of a word followed by a letter." In short, we have a fixed point on our hands!
How do we solve this equation? Well, now I'm going to show you something they never showed you when you first learned set theory. We just use the usual rules of algebra:
W = L + W x L
W  W x L = L
W x (1  L) = L
W = L/(1  L)
and then expand the answer out as a Taylor series, getting
W = L + L x L + L x L x L + ...
This says "a word is either a letter or an ordered pair of letters or an ordered triple of letters or..." Black magic, but it works!
Now, you may wonder exactly what's going on  when we're allowed to subtract and divide sets and expand functions of sets in Taylor series and all that. I'm not an expert on this, but one place to look is in Joyal's work on "analytic functors" (functors that you can expand in Taylor series):
3) Andre Joyal, Une th'eorie combinatoire des s'eries formelles, Advances in Mathematics 42 (1981), 182.
Before I explain a little of the idea behind this black magic, let me do another example. I already said that the principle of mathematical induction could be thought of as guaranteeing the existence of certain fixed points. But underlying this is something still more basic: the set of natural numbers is also defined by a fixed point property! Suppose we take our set of letters above to be set {0} which has only one element. Then our set of words is {0,00,000,0000,0000,...}. We can think of this as a funny way of writing the set of natural numbers, so let's call it N. Also, let's follow von Neumann and define
1 = {0},
which is sensible since it's a set with one element. Then our fixed point equation says:
N = N + 1
This is the basic fixed point property of the natural numbers.
At this point some of you may be squirming... this stuff looks a bit weird when you first see it. To make it more rigorous I need to bring in some category theory, so I'll assume you've read "week73" and "week76" where I explained categories and functors and isomorphisms.
If you've got a function F: S → S from some set to itself, a fixed point of F is just an element x for which F(x) is equal to x. But now suppose we have a functor F: C → C from some category to itself. What's a fixed point of this?
Well, we could define it as an object x of C for which F(x) = x. But if you know a little category theory you'll know that this sort of "strict" fixed point is very boring compared to a "weak" fixed point: an object x of C equipped with an isomorphism
f: F(x) → x
Equality is dull, isomorphism is interesting. It's also very interesting to consider a more general notion: a "lax" fixed point, meaning an object x equipped with just a morphism
f: F(x) → x
Let's consider an example. Take our category C to be the category of sets. And take our functor F to be the functor
F(x) = x + 1
by which we mean "disjoint union of the set x with the oneelement set"  I leave it to you to check that this is a functor. A lax fixed point of F is thus a set x equipped with a function
f: x + 1 → x
so the natural numbers N = {0,00,000,...} is a lax fixed point in an obvious way... in fact a weak fixed point. So when I wrote N = N + 1 above, I was lying: they're not equal, they're just isomorphic. Similarly with those other equations involving sets.
Now, just as any function from a set to itself has a set of fixed points, any functor F from a category C to itself has a category of lax fixed points. An object in this category is just an object x of C equipped with a morphism f: F(x) → x, and a morphism from this object to some other object g: F(y) → y is just a commutative square:
f F(x) > x   F(h)  h   V g V F(y) > y
In our example, the natural numbers is actually the "initial" lax fixed point, meaning that in the category of lax fixed points there is exactly one morphism from this object to any other.
So that's the real meaning of these funny recursive definitions in BackusNaur form: we have a functor F from some category like Set to itself, and we are defining an object by saying that it's the initial lax fixed point of this functor. It's a soupedup version of defining an element of a set as the unique fixed point of a function!
I should warn you that category theorists and theoretical computer scientists usually say "algebra" of a functor instead of "lax fixed point" of a functor. Anyway, this gives a bit of a flavor of what those folks talk about.
Addendum: Here's an interesting email that Doug Merritt sent me after reading the above stuff:
A little web searching and discussion with Andras Kornai yields the following info.The original work on representing grammars as power series is
4) N. Chomsky and M. P. Schutzenberger, The algebraic theory of contextfree languages, in Computer Programming and Formal Systems, NorthHolland Publishing Company, 1963.
...where Schutzenberger supplied the formal power series aspect, basically just as the usual generating function trick.
The algebraic connection was developed through the 60's and 70's, culminating in the work of Samuel Eilenberg, founder of category theory, such as in
5) Samuel Eilenberg, Automata, Languages and Machines, Academic Press, NY, 1974.
A lot of the work in the area comes under the heading "syntactic semigroups", which is fairly selfexplanatory (and yields a lot of hits when web surfing).
The question of expanding a grammar via synthetic division as usual comes down to the question of whether it is represented as a complete division algebra or not. Grammars are typically nonabelian, however in order to use more powerful mathematical machinery, frequently commutativity is often nonetheless assumed, and the grammar forced into that Procrustean bed.
I happened across an interesting recent paper (actually a '94 PhD thesis) that brings all the modern machinery to bear on this sort of thing (e.g. explaining how to represent grammars by power series via the Langrange Inversion Formula, and multinonterminal (multivariable) grammars via the Generalized LIF), and that is even quite readable:
6) Ole Vilhelm Larsen, Computing orderindependent statistical characteristics of stochastic contextfree languages, available as http://cwis.auc.dk/phd/fulltext/larsen/html/index.html or acrobat format in: http://cwis.auc.dk/phd/fulltext/larsen/pdf/larsen.pdf
The html and acrobat thesis is in English, but the web pages are in Danish, which is why I explicitly give both URLs. The abstract is too long to quote here.
You probably know all this better than I, but: As for fixed points, the original theorem by Banach applies only to contractive mappings, but beginning in '68 a flood of new theorems applying to various different noncontractive situations began to appear, and research continues hot and heavy. One danger of simply assuming fixed points is that there may be orbits rather than attractive basins, which I alluded to briefly in my sci.math FAQ entry (which has become somewhat mangled over the years) concerning the numeric solution of f(x) = x^x via direct fixed point recurrence (F(F(F(F(F...(guess)..)))). The orbits cause oscillatory instability in some regions such that it becomes appropriate to switch to a different technique.
Anyway that's merely to say that there are indeed spaces where one can't just assume a fixed point theorem and that this can have practical implications.
Hope that's of some interest.
Doug
Doug Merritt doug@netcom.com Professional Wildeyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
© 1997 John Baez
baez@math.removethis.ucr.andthis.edu
