Category Theory and Computer Programming pp 449-465 | Cite as

# Internal completeness of categories of domains

## Abstract

One of the objectives of category theory is to provide a foundation for itself in particular and mathematics in general which is independent of the traditional use of set theory. A major question in this programme is how to formulate the fact that Set is “complete”, *i.e.* it has all “small” (*i.e.* set- rather than class-indexed) limits (and colimits). The answer to this depends upon first being able to express the notion of a “family” of sets, and indexed category theory was developed for this purpose.

This paper sets out some of the basic ideas of indexed category theory, motivated in the first instance by this problem. Our aim, however, is the application of these techniques to two categories of “domains” for data types in the semantics ofprogramming languages. These **Retr(Λ)**, whose objects are the retracts of a combinatory model of the λ-calculus, and beCont_{ω}, which consists of countably-based boundedly-complete continuous posets. They are (approximately) related by Scott's [1976] Pω model. In the case of Set we would like to be able to define an indexed family of sets as a function from the indexing set to the “set” of all sets. Of course Russell showed long ago that we cannot have this. However there is a trick with disjoint unions and pullbacks which enables us to perform an equivalent construction called a *fibration*.

**Retr(Λ)** and beCont_{ω} do not have all pullbacks. This of course means that they're not strictly speaking complete however we formulate smallness: what we aim to show is that they have all “small” *products*. More importantly, this pullback trick is on the face of it not available to us. They do, on the other hand, have a notion of “universal” set (of which any other is a retract), and indeed of a “set” of sets, though space forbids discussion of this. These we use in stead to provide the indexation.

Having constructed the indexed form of **Retr(Λ)** we discover that it does after all have enough pullbacks to present it as a fibration in the same way as Set. However whereas in Set *any* map may occur as a display map, in this case we have only a restricted class of them. We then identify this class for beContω and find that it consists of the *projections* (continuous surjections with left adjoint) already known to be of importance in the solution of recursive domain equations.

We formulate the abstract notion of a class of display maps and define *relative cartesian closure* with respect to it. The maximal case of this (as applies in Set, where all maps are displays, is known as *local* cartesian closure. The minimal case (where only product projections are displays) is known in computer science as (ordinary) cartesian clsoure, though in category theory it is now more common to use this term only when all pullbacks exist, though not necessarily as displays.

This work will be substantially amplified (including discussion of the “type of types”) in [Taylor 1986?].

## Keywords

Category Theory Continuous Lattice Left Adjoint Product Projection Terminal Object## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## Bibliography

- Arbib, M.A. and Manes, E.G.,
*Arrows, Structures and Functors — the Categorical Imperative*, Academic Press, 1975Google Scholar - Barendregt, H.,
*The Lambda Calculus — its Syntax and Semantics*, North-Holland, 1981Google Scholar - Bénabou, J.,
*Fibrations Pétites et Localement Pétites, Comptes Rendues Acad. Sci. Math.*, Paris,**281**(1975) 831–834 and 897–900Google Scholar - Cohn, P.M.,
*Universal Algebra*, Harper and Row, 1965Google Scholar - Curry, H.B. and Feys, R.,
*Combinatory Logic I*, North-Holland, 1958Google Scholar - Day, A.,
*Filter Monads, Continuous Lattices and Closure Systems, Canad. J. Math.*,**27**(1975) 50–59Google Scholar - Gierz, G., Hofmann, K.H., Keimel, K., Lawson, J.D., Mislove, M. and Scott, D.S.,
*A Compendium of Continuous Lattices*, Springer, 1980Google Scholar - Hyland, J.M.E.,
*Function Spaces in the Category of Locales, Continuous Lattices*, (Ed. Banuschewski, B. and Hoffman, R.-E.), Springer LNM,**871**(1981) 264–281Google Scholar - Hyland, J.M.E.,
*The Effective Topos, L.E.J. Brouwer Centenary Symposium*, (Ed. Troelstra, A.S. and van Dalen, D.), North-Holland, (1982) 165–216Google Scholar - Johnstone, P.T., Paré, R., Roseburgh, R.D., Schumacher, D., Wood, R.D. and Wraith, G.C.,
*Indexed Categories and their Applications*, Springer, 1978Google Scholar - Johnstone, P.T., Hyland, J.M.E. and Pitts, A.M.,
*Tripos Theory, Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.*,**88**(1980) 205–232Google Scholar - Johnstone, P.T.,
*Scott is not always sober, Continuous Lattices*, (Ed. Banuschewski, B. and Hoffman, R.-E.), Springer LNM,**871**(1981) 282–283Google Scholar - Johnstone, P.T. and Joyal, A.,
*Continuous Categories and Exponentiable Toposes, J. Pure Appl. Alg.*,**25**(1982) 255–296Google Scholar - Johnstone, P.T.,
*Fibred Categories*, Part III Lecture Course, Cambridge, Michaelmas 1983Google Scholar - Johnstone, P.T.,
*Stone Spaces*, CUP, 1983Google Scholar - Kock, A. and Reyes, G.E.,
*Doctrines in Categorical Logic, Handbook of Mathematical Logic*, (Ed. Barwise, J.), North-Holland Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics,**90**(1977) 283–313Google Scholar - Koymans, C.P.J.,
*Models of the Lambda Calculus*, Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam,**9**(1984)Google Scholar - Mac Lane, S.,
*Categories for the Working Mathematician*, Springer, 1971Google Scholar - Mitchell, B.,
*Theory of Categories*, Academic Press, 1965Google Scholar - Pitts, A.M.,
*The Theory of Triposes*, Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, 1981Google Scholar - Seely, R.A.G.,
*Natural Deduction and the Beck Condition, Zeitschr. Math. Logik und Grundlagen d. Math.*,**29**(1983) 505–542Google Scholar - Taylor, P., Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge, 1986 (I hope!)Google Scholar