Is there a connection between tropical mathematics and the Lawvere enriched category theory approach to metric spaces? I guess I will give a partial answer to this below, but I mean can they be formally be put on the same level in some sense?
In the Lawverian point of view one does category theory with the extended non-negative real numbers, [0,∞] or R≥0∪∞, equipped with + as the 'tensor' product and max as the 'categorical' product or sum. In tropical mathematics you work (it seems) with the the extended reals R∪∞ equipped with the 'product' + and the 'sum' max (or min depending on your point of view I think).
In the enriched category theory approach to metric spaces, one has the notion of a kernel (or bimodule or profunctor depending on your point of view) between two metric spaces X and Y which is just a distance non-increasing function K:X×Y->[0,∞]. The correct notion of function on a metric space here is a distance non-increasing function φ:X->[0,∞]. Then the transform of a function φ by a kernel K is a function on Y defined by
K(φ)(y):= infxεX ( φ(x) + K(x,y) ).
There is similarly a dual notion which takes functions on Y to functions on X.
K^(ψ)(x):= supyεY ( ψ(y) - K(x,y) ).
This is explained in a bit more detail in a post in at the n-Category Café.
It was pointed out to me that these look similar to the Legendre transform. And looking on the internet I found that tropical mathematics is one way to interpret the Legendre transform as an 'integral transform'.
So has anyone ever considered any formal connections between these two points of view?
No comments:
Post a Comment