Category Theory

Category theory
en.wikipedia.org
Chapter 1
Cartesian closed category
In category theory, a category is considered Cartesian closed if, roughly speaking, any morphism dened on a
product of two objects can be naturally identied with a morphism dened on one of the factors. These categories
are particularly important in mathematical logic and the theory of programming, in that their internal language is the
simply typed lambda calculus. They are generalized by closed monoidal categories, whose internal language, linear
type systems, are suitable for both quantum and classical computation.[1]
1.1 Denition
The category C is called Cartesian closed[2] if and only if it satises the following three properties:
It has a terminal object.

Any two objects X and Y of C have a product XY in C.
Any two objects Y and Z of C have an exponential Z Y in C.
The rst two conditions can be combined to the single requirement that any nite (possibly empty) family of objects
of C admit a product in C, because of the natural associativity of the categorical product and because the empty
product in a category is the terminal object of that category.
The third condition is equivalent to the requirement that the functor Y (i.e. the functor from C to C that maps
objects X to XY and morphisms to idY) has a right adjoint, usually denoted Y , for all objects Y in C. For
locally small categories, this can be expressed by the existence of a bijection between the hom-sets
Hom(X Y, Z)
= Hom(X, Z Y )
which is natural in both X and Z.

If a category is such that all its slice categories are Cartesian closed, then it is called locally Cartesian closed.
1.2 Examples
Examples of Cartesian closed categories include:
The category Set of all sets, with functions as morphisms, is Cartesian closed. The product XY is the Cartesian
product of X and Y, and Z Y is the set of all functions from Y to Z. The adjointness is expressed by the following
fact: the function f : XY Z is naturally identied with the curried function g : X Z Y dened by g(x)(y)
= f(x,y) for all x in X and y in Y.
The category of nite sets, with functions as morphisms, is Cartesian closed for the same reason.
2
1.3. APPLICATIONS 3
If G is a group, then the category of all G-sets is Cartesian closed. If Y and Z are two G-sets, then Z Y is the
set of all functions from Y to Z with G action dened by (g.F)(y) = g.(F(g1 .y)) for all g in G, F:Y Z and y
in Y.
The category of nite G-sets is also Cartesian closed.
The category Cat of all small categories (with functors as morphisms) is Cartesian closed; the exponential C D is
given by the functor category consisting of all functors from D to C, with natural transformations as morphisms.
If C is a small category, then the functor category SetC consisting of all covariant functors from C into the
category of sets, with natural transformations as morphisms, is Cartesian closed. If F and G are two functors
from C to Set, then the exponential F G is the functor whose value on the object X of C is given by the set of
all natural transformations from (X,) G to F.
The earlier example of G-sets can be seen as a special case of functor categories: every group can be
considered as a one-object category, and G-sets are nothing but functors from this category to Set
The category of all directed graphs is Cartesian closed; this is a functor category as explained under
functor category.
In algebraic topology, Cartesian closed categories are particularly easy to work with. Neither the category of
topological spaces with continuous maps nor the category of smooth manifolds with smooth maps is Cartesian
closed. Substitute categories have therefore been considered: the category of compactly generated Hausdor
spaces is Cartesian closed, as is the category of Frlicher spaces.
In order theory, complete partial orders (cpos) have a natural topology, the Scott topology, whose continuous
maps do form a Cartesian closed category (that is, the objects are the cpos, and the morphisms are the Scott
continuous maps). Both currying and apply are continuous functions in the Scott topology, and currying,
together with apply, provide the adjoint.[3]
A Heyting algebra is a Cartesian closed (bounded) lattice. An important example arises from topological
spaces. If X is a topological space, then the open sets in X form the objects of a category O(X) for which there
is a unique morphism from U to V if U is a subset of V and no morphism otherwise. This poset is a Cartesian
closed category: the product of U and V is the intersection of U and V and the exponential U V is the interior
of U(X\V).
A category with a zero object is Cartesian closed if and only if it is equivalent to a category with only one object
and one identity morphism. Indeed, if 0 is an initial object and 1 is a nal object and we have 0 = 1 , then
Hom(X, Y ) = Hom(1, Y X ) = Hom(0, Y X ) = 1 which has only one element.[4]
In particular, any non-trivial category with a zero object, such as an abelian category, is not Cartesian
closed. So the category of modules over a ring is not Cartesian closed. However, the functor tensor
product M with a xed module does have a right adjoint. The tensor product is not a categorical
product, so this does not contradict the above. We obtain instead that the category of modules is monoidal
closed.
1.3 Applications
In Cartesian closed categories, a function of two variables (a morphism f : XY Z) can always be represented
as a function of one variable (the morphism f : X Z Y ). In computer science applications, this is known as
currying; it has led to the realization that simply-typed lambda calculus can be interpreted in any Cartesian closed
category.
The Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence provides a deep isomorphism between intuitionistic logic, simply-typed
lambda calculus and Cartesian closed categories.
Certain Cartesian closed categories, the topoi, have been proposed as a general setting for mathematics, instead of
traditional set theory.
The renowned computer scientist John Backus has advocated a variable-free notation, or Function-level programming,
which in retrospect bears some similarity to the internal language of Cartesian closed categories. CAML is more
consciously modelled on Cartesian closed categories.
4 CHAPTER 1. CARTESIAN CLOSED CATEGORY
1.4 Equational theory

In every Cartesian closed category (using exponential notation), (XY )Z and (XZ )Y are isomorphic for all objects X, Y
and Z. We write this as the equation
(xy )z = (xz )y .
One may ask what other such equations are valid in all Cartesian closed categories. It turns out that all of them follow
logically from the following axioms:[5]
x(yz) = (xy)z
xy = yx
x1 = x (here 1 denotes the terminal object of C)
1x = 1
x1 = x
(xy)z = xz yz
(xy )z = x(yz)
Bicartesian closed categories extend Cartesian closed categories with binary coproducts and an initial object, with
products distributing over coproducts. Their equational theory is extended with the following axioms:
x+y=y+x
(x + y) + z = x + (y + z)
x(y + z) = xy + xz
x(y + z) = xy xz
0+x=x
x0 = 0
x0 = 1
Note however that the above list is not complete; type isomorphism in the free BCCC is not nitely axiomatizable,
and its decidability is still an open problem.[6]
1.5 References
[1] John C. Baez and Mike Stay, "Physics, Topology, Logic and Computation: A Rosetta Stone", (2009) ArXiv 0903.0340 in
New Structures for Physics, ed. Bob Coecke, Lecture Notes in Physics vol. 813, Springer, Berlin, 2011, pp. 95-174.
[2] S. Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician
[3] H. P. Barendregt, The Lambda Calculus, (1984) North-Holland ISBN 0-444-87508-5 (See theorem 1.2.16)
[4] http://mathoverflow.net/a/136480/
[5] S. Soloviev. Category of Finite Sets and Cartesian Closed Categories, Journal of Soviet Mathematics, 22, 3 (1983)
[6] Fiore, Cosmo, and Balat. Remarks on Isomorphisms in Typed Lambda Calculi with Empty and Sum Types
1.6 External links

Cartesian closed category in nLab
Chapter 2
Categorical logic
This article is about mathematical logic in the context of category theory. For Aristotles system of logic, see term
logic.
Categorical logic is the branch of mathematics in which tools and concepts from category theory are applied to
the study of mathematical logic. It is also notable for its connections to theoretical computer science. In broad
terms, categorical logic represents both syntax and semantics by a category, and an interpretation by a functor. The
categorical framework provides a rich conceptual background for logical and type-theoretic constructions. The subject
has been recognisable in these terms since around 1970.
2.1 Overview
There are three important themes in the categorical approach to logic:
Categorical semantics Categorical logic introduces the notion of structure valued in a category C with the classical
model theoretic notion of a structure appearing in the particular case where C is the category of sets and
functions. This notion has proven useful when the set-theoretic notion of a model lacks generality and/or is
inconvenient. R.A.G. Seely's modeling of various impredicative theories, such as system F is an example of
the usefulness of categorical semantics.
It was found that the connectives of pre-categorical logic were more clearly understood using the concept
of adjoint functor, and that the quantiers were also best understood using adjoint functors.[1]
Internal languages This can be seen as a formalization and generalization of proof by diagram chasing. One denes
a suitable internal language naming relevant constituents of a category, and then applies categorical semantics
to turn assertions in a logic over the internal language into corresponding categorical statements. This has been
most successful in the theory of toposes, where the internal language of a topos together with the semantics
of intuitionistic higher-order logic in a topos enables one to reason about the objects and morphisms of a
topos as if they were sets and functions. This has been successful in dealing with toposes that have sets
with properties incompatible with classical logic. A prime example is Dana Scott's model of untyped lambda
calculus in terms of objects that retract onto their own function space. Another is the MoggiHyland model of
system F by an internal full subcategory of the eective topos of Martin Hyland.
Term-model constructions In many cases, the categorical semantics of a logic provide a basis for establishing a
correspondence between theories in the logic and instances of an appropriate kind of category. A classic
example is the correspondence between theories of -equational logic over simply typed lambda calculus
and Cartesian closed categories. Categories arising from theories via term-model constructions can usually be
characterized up to equivalence by a suitable universal property. This has enabled proofs of meta-theoretical
properties of some logics by means of an appropriate categorical algebra. For instance, Freyd gave a proof of
the existence and disjunction properties of intuitionistic logic this way.
5
6 CHAPTER 2. CATEGORICAL LOGIC
2.2 See also

History of topos theory
2.3 References
Books
Abramsky, Samson; Gabbay, Dov (2001). Handbook of Logic in Computer Science: Logic and algebraic meth-
ods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-853781-6.
Gabbay, Dov (2012). Handbook of the History of Logic: Sets and extensions in the twentieth century. Oxford:
Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-51621-3.
Kent, Allen; Williams, James G. (1990). Encyclopedia of Computer Science and Technology. New York:
Marcel Dekker Inc. ISBN 0-8247-2272-8.
Barr, M. and Wells, C. (1990), Category Theory for Computing Science. Hemel Hempstead, UK.
Lambek, J. and Scott, P.J. (1986), Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Lawvere, F.W., and Rosebrugh, R. (2003), Sets for Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK.
Lawvere, F.W. (2000), and Schanuel, S.H., Conceptual Mathematics: A First Introduction to Categories. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997. Reprinted with corrections, 2000.
Seminal papers
Lawvere, F.W., Functorial Semantics of Algebraic Theories. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
50, No. 5 (November 1963), 869-872.
Lawvere, F.W., Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
52, No. 6 (December 1964), 1506-1511.
Lawvere, F.W., Quantiers and Sheaves. In Proceedings of the International Congress on Mathematics (Nice
1970), Gauthier-Villars (1971) 329-334.
2.4 Notes
[1] Lawvere, Quantiers and Sheaves
2.5 Further reading

Michael Makkai and Gonzalo E. Reyes, 1977, First order categorical logic, Springer-Verlag.
Lambek, J. and Scott, P. J., 1986. Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic. Fairly accessible introduc-
tion, but somewhat dated. The categorical approach to higher-order logics over polymorphic and dependent
types was developed largely after this book was published.
Jacobs, Bart (1999). Categorical Logic and Type Theory. Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics
141. North Holland, Elsevier. ISBN 0-444-50170-3. A comprehensive monograph written by a computer
scientist; it covers both rst-order and higher-order logics, and also polymorphic and dependent types. The
focus is on bred category as universal tool in categorical logic, which is necessary in dealing with polymorphic
and dependent types.
2.6. EXTERNAL LINKS 7
John Lane Bell (2005) The Development of Categorical Logic. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume 12.
Springer. Version available online at John Bells homepage.
Jean-Pierre Marquis and Gonzalo E. Reyes (2012). The History of Categorical Logic 19631977. Handbook
of the History of Logic: Sets and Extensions in the Twentieth Century, Volume 6, D. M. Gabbay, A. Kanamori
& J. Woods, eds., North-Holland, pp. 689800. A preliminary version is available at .
2.6 External links

Categorical Logic lecture notes by Steve Awodey
Chapter 3
Domain theory
Domain theory is a branch of mathematics that studies special kinds of partially ordered sets (posets) commonly
called domains. Consequently, domain theory can be considered as a branch of order theory. The eld has ma-
jor applications in computer science, where it is used to specify denotational semantics, especially for functional
programming languages. Domain theory formalizes the intuitive ideas of approximation and convergence in a very
general way and has close relations to topology. An alternative important approach to denotational semantics in
computer science is that of metric spaces.
3.1 Motivation and intuition
The primary motivation for the study of domains, which was initiated by Dana Scott in the late 1960s, was the
search for a denotational semantics of the lambda calculus. In this formalism, one considers functions specied by
certain terms in the language. In a purely syntactic way, one can go from simple functions to functions that take other
functions as their input arguments. Using again just the syntactic transformations available in this formalism, one can
obtain so called xed-point combinators (the best-known of which is the Y combinator); these, by denition, have
the property that f(Y(f)) = Y(f) for all functions f.
To formulate such a denotational semantics, one might rst try to construct a model for the lambda calculus, in which
a genuine (total) function is associated with each lambda term. Such a model would formalize a link between the
lambda calculus as a purely syntactic system and the lambda calculus as a notational system for manipulating concrete
mathematical functions. The combinator calculus is such a model. However, the elements of the combinator calculus
are functions from functions to functions; in order for the elements of a model of the lambda calculus to be of arbitrary
domain and range, they could not be true functions, only partial functions.
Scott got around this diculty by formalizing a notion of partial or incomplete information to represent compu-
tations that have not yet returned a result. This was modeled by considering, for each domain of computation (e.g. the
natural numbers), an additional element that represents an undened output, i.e. the result of a computation that
never ends. In addition, the domain of computation is equipped with an ordering relation, in which the undened
result is the least element.
The important step to nd a model for the lambda calculus is to consider only those functions (on such a partially
ordered set) which are guaranteed to have least xed points. The set of these functions, together with an appropriate
ordering, is again a domain in the sense of the theory. But the restriction to a subset of all available functions has
another great benet: it is possible to obtain domains that contain their own function spaces, i.e. one gets functions
that can be applied to themselves.
Beside these desirable properties, domain theory also allows for an appealing intuitive interpretation. As mentioned
above, the domains of computation are always partially ordered. This ordering represents a hierarchy of information
or knowledge. The higher an element is within the order, the more specic it is and the more information it contains.
Lower elements represent incomplete knowledge or intermediate results.
Computation then is modeled by applying monotone functions repeatedly on elements of the domain in order to rene
a result. Reaching a xed point is equivalent to nishing a calculation. Domains provide a superior setting for these
ideas since xed points of monotone functions can be guaranteed to exist and, under additional restrictions, can be
8
3.2. A GUIDE TO THE FORMAL DEFINITIONS 9
approximated from below.
3.2 A guide to the formal denitions

In this section, the central concepts and denitions of domain theory will be introduced. The above intuition of
domains being information orderings will be emphasized to motivate the mathematical formalization of the theory.
The precise formal denitions are to be found in the dedicated articles for each concept. A list of general order-
theoretic denitions which include domain theoretic notions as well can be found in the order theory glossary. The
most important concepts of domain theory will nonetheless be introduced below.
3.2.1 Directed sets as converging specications
As mentioned before, domain theory deals with partially ordered sets to model a domain of computation. The goal is
to interpret the elements of such an order as pieces of information or (partial) results of a computation, where elements
that are higher in the order extend the information of the elements below them in a consistent way. From this simple
intuition it is already clear that domains often do not have a greatest element, since this would mean that there is an
element that contains the information of all other elementsa rather uninteresting situation.
A concept that plays an important role in the theory is that of a directed subset of a domain; a directed subset is a non-
empty subset of the order in which any two elements have an upper bound that is an element of this subset. In view of
our intuition about domains, this means that any two pieces of information within the directed subset are consistently
extended by some other element in the subset. Hence we can view directed subsets as consistent specications, i.e.
as sets of partial results in which no two elements are contradictory. This interpretation can be compared with the
notion of a convergent sequence in analysis, where each element is more specic than the preceding one. Indeed, in
the theory of metric spaces, sequences play a role that is in many aspects analogous to the role of directed sets in
domain theory.
Now, as in the case of sequences, we are interested in the limit of a directed set. According to what was said above,
this would be an element that is the most general piece of information that extends the information of all elements of
the directed set, i.e. the unique element that contains exactly the information that was present in the directed set, and
nothing more. In the formalization of order theory, this is just the least upper bound of the directed set. As in the
case of limits of sequences, least upper bounds of directed sets do not always exist.
Naturally, one has a special interest in those domains of computations in which all consistent specications converge,
i.e. in orders in which all directed sets have a least upper bound. This property denes the class of directed-complete
partial orders, or dcpo for short. Indeed, most considerations of domain theory do only consider orders that are at
least directed complete.
From the underlying idea of partially specied results as representing incomplete knowledge, one derives another
desirable property: the existence of a least element. Such an element models that state of no informationthe place
where most computations start. It also can be regarded as the output of a computation that does not return any result
at all.
3.2.2 Computations and domains
Now that we have some basic formal descriptions of what a domain of computation should be, we can turn to the
computations themselves. Clearly, these have to be functions, taking inputs from some computational domain and
returning outputs in some (possibly dierent) domain. However, one would also expect that the output of a function
will contain more information when the information content of the input is increased. Formally, this means that we
want a function to be monotonic.
When dealing with dcpos, one might also want computations to be compatible with the formation of limits of a
directed set. Formally, this means that, for some function f, the image f(D) of a directed set D (i.e. the set of the
images of each element of D) is again directed and has as a least upper bound the image of the least upper bound of
D. One could also say that f preserves directed suprema. Also note that, by considering directed sets of two elements,
such a function also has to be monotonic. These properties give rise to the notion of a Scott-continuous function.
Since this often is not ambiguous one also may speak of continuous functions.
10 CHAPTER 3. DOMAIN THEORY
3.2.3 Approximation and niteness

Domain theory is a purely qualitative approach to modeling the structure of information states. One can say that
something contains more information, but the amount of additional information is not specied. Yet, there are some
situations in which one wants to speak about elements that are in a sense much simpler (or much more incomplete)
than a given state of information. For example, in the natural subset-inclusion ordering on some powerset, any innite
element (i.e. set) is much more informative than any of its nite subsets.
If one wants to model such a relationship, one may rst want to consider the induced strict order < of a domain
with order . However, while this is a useful notion in the case of total orders, it does not tell us much in the case
of partially ordered sets. Considering again inclusion-orders of sets, a set is already strictly smaller than another,
possibly innite, set if it contains just one less element. One would, however, hardly agree that this captures the
notion of being much simpler.
3.2.4 Way-below relation

A more elaborate approach leads to the denition of the so-called order of approximation, which is more sugges-
tively also called the way-below relation. An element x is way below an element y, if, for every directed set D with
supremum such that
y sup D
there is some element d in D such that
xd
Then one also says that x approximates y and writes
xy
This does imply that
xy
since the singleton set {y} is directed. For an example, in an ordering of sets, an innite set is way above any of its
nite subsets. On the other hand, consider the directed set (in fact: the chain) of nite sets
{0}, {0, 1}, {0, 1, 2}, . . .
Since the supremum of this chain is the set of all natural numbers N, this shows that no innite set is way below N.
However, being way below some element is a relative notion and does not reveal much about an element alone. For
example, one would like to characterize nite sets in an order-theoretic way, but even innite sets can be way below
some other set. The special property of these nite elements x is that they are way below themselves, i.e.
xx
An element with this property is also called compact. Yet, such elements do not have to be nite nor compact in
any other mathematical usage of the terms. The notation is nonetheless motivated by certain parallels to the respective
notions in set theory and topology. The compact elements of a domain have the important special property that they
cannot be obtained as a limit of a directed set in which they did not already occur.
Many other important results about the way-below relation support the claim that this denition is appropriate to
capture many important aspects of a domain.
3.3. IMPORTANT RESULTS 11
3.2.5 Bases of domains
The previous thoughts raise another question: is it possible to guarantee that all elements of a domain can be obtained
as a limit of much simpler elements? This is quite relevant in practice, since we cannot compute innite objects but
we may still hope to approximate them arbitrarily closely.
More generally, we would like to restrict to a certain subset of elements as being sucient for getting all other elements
as least upper bounds. Hence, one denes a base of a poset P as being a subset B of P, such that, for each x in P, the
set of elements in B that are way below x contains a directed set with supremum x. The poset P is a continuous poset
if it has some base. Especially, P itself is a base in this situation. In many applications, one restricts to continuous
(d)cpos as a main object of study.
Finally, an even stronger restriction on a partially ordered set is given by requiring the existence of a base of compact
elements. Such a poset is called algebraic. From the viewpoint of denotational semantics, algebraic posets are
particularly well-behaved, since they allow for the approximation of all elements even when restricting to nite ones.
As remarked before, not every nite element is nite in a classical sense and it may well be that the nite elements
constitute an uncountable set.
In some cases, however, the base for a poset is countable. In this case, one speaks of an -continuous poset.
Accordingly, if the countable base consists entirely of nite elements, we obtain an order that is -algebraic.
3.2.6 Special types of domains
A simple special case of a domain is known as an elementary or at domain. This consists of a set of incomparable
elements, such as the integers, along with a single bottom element considered smaller than all other elements.
One can obtain a number of other interesting special classes of ordered structures that could be suitable as domains.
We already mentioned continuous posets and algebraic posets. More special versions of both are continuous and
algebraic cpos. Adding even further completeness properties one obtains continuous lattices and algebraic lattices,
which are just complete lattices with the respective properties. For the algebraic case, one nds broader classes of
posets which are still worth studying: historically, the Scott domains were the rst structures to be studied in domain
theory. Still wider classes of domains are constituted by SFP-domains, L-domains, and binite domains.
All of these classes of orders can be cast into various categories of dcpos, using functions which are monotone, Scott-
continuous, or even more specialized as morphisms. Finally, note that the term domain itself is not exact and thus is
only used as an abbreviation when a formal denition has been given before or when the details are irrelevant.
3.3 Important results

A poset D is a dcpo if and only if each chain in D has a supremum.
If f is a continuous function on a domain D then it has a least xed point, given as the least upper bound of all nite
iterations of f on the least element :

fix(f ) = f n ()
nN
This is the Kleene xed-point theorem. The symbol is the directed join.
3.4 Generalizations
Synthetic domain theory. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.55.903 .
Topological domain theory
A continuity space is a generalization of metric spaces and posets, that can be used to unify the notions of
metric spaces and domains.
12 CHAPTER 3. DOMAIN THEORY
3.5 See also

Scott domain
Scott information system

Type theory
Category theory
3.6 Further reading

G. Gierz; K. H. Hofmann; K. Keimel; J. D. Lawson; M. Mislove; D. S. Scott (2003). Continuous Lattices
and Domains. Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. 93. Cambridge University Press. ISBN
0-521-80338-1.
Samson Abramsky, Achim Jung (1994). Domain theory (PDF). In S. Abramsky; D. M. Gabbay; T. S. E.
Maibaum. Handbook of Logic in Computer Science. III. Oxford University Press. pp. 1168. ISBN 0-19-
853762-X. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
Alex Simpson (20012002). Part III: Topological Spaces from a Computational Perspective. Mathematical
Structures for Semantics. Retrieved 2007-10-13.
D. S. Scott (1975). Data types as lattices. Proceedings of the International Summer Institute and Logic
Colloquium, Kiel, in Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag. 499: 579651.
Carl A. Gunter (1992). Semantics of Programming Languages. MIT Press.

B. A. Davey; H. A. Priestley (2002). Introduction to Lattices and Order (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 0-521-78451-4.
Carl Hewitt; Henry Baker (August 1977). Actors and Continuous Functionals. Proceedings of IFIP Working
Conference on Formal Description of Programming Concepts.
V. Stoltenberg-Hansen; I. Lindstrom; E. R. Grior (1994). Mathematical Theory of Domains. Cambridge

University Press. ISBN 0-521-38344-7.
3.7 External links

Introduction to Domain Theory by Graham Hutton, University of Nottingham
Chapter 4
Enriched category
In category theory, a branch of mathematics, an enriched category generalizes the idea of a category by replacing
hom-sets with objects from a general monoidal category. It is motivated by the observation that, in many practical
applications, the hom-set often has additional structure that should be respected, e.g., that of being a vector space
of morphisms, or a topological space of morphisms. In an enriched category, the set of morphisms (the hom-set)
associated with every pair of objects is replaced by an opaque object in some xed monoidal category of hom-
objects. In order to emulate the (associative) composition of morphisms in an ordinary category, the hom-category
must have a means of composing hom-objects in an associative manner: that is, there must be a binary operation on
objects giving us at least the structure of a monoidal category, though in some contexts the operation may also need
to be commutative and perhaps also to have a right adjoint (i.e., making the category symmetric monoidal or even
symmetric closed monoidal, respectively).
Enriched category theory thus encompasses within the same framework a wide variety of structures including
ordinary categories where the hom-set carries additional structure beyond being a set. That is, there are oper-
ations on, or properties of morphisms that need to be respected by composition (e.g., the existence of 2-cells
between morphisms and horizontal composition thereof in a 2-category, or the addition operation on mor-
phisms in an abelian category)
category-like entities that don't themselves have any notion of individual morphism but whose hom-objects
have similar compositional aspects (e.g., preorders where the composition rule ensures transitivity, or Lawveres
metric spaces, where the hom-objects are numerical distances and the composition rule provides the triangle
inequality).
In the case where the hom-object category happens to be the category of sets with the usual cartesian product, the
denitions of enriched category, enriched functor, etc... reduce to the original denitions from ordinary category
theory.
An enriched category with hom-objects from monoidal category M is said to be an enriched category over M or an
enriched category in M, or simply an M-category. Due to Mac Lanes preference for the letter V in referring to
the monoidal category, enriched categories are also sometimes referred to generally as V-categories.
4.1 Denition
Let (M, , I, , , ) be a monoidal category. Then an enriched category C (alternatively, in situations where the
choice of monoidal category needs to be explicit, a category enriched over M, or M-category), consists of
a class ob(C) of objects of C,
an object C(a, b) of M for every pair of objects a, b in C,
an arrow ida : I C(a, a) in M designating an identity for every object a in C, and
13
14 CHAPTER 4. ENRICHED CATEGORY
an arrow abc : C(b, c) C(a, b) C(a, c) in M designating a composition for each triple of objects a, b, c in
C, together with three commuting diagrams, discussed below. The rst diagram expresses the associativity of
composition:
That is, the associativity requirement is now taken over by the associator of the hom-category M.
For the case that M is the category of sets and (, I, , , ) is the monoidal structure (, {}, ) given by the
cartesian product, the terminal single-point set, and the canonical isomorphisms they induce, then each C(a,b) is a set
whose elements may be thought of as individual morphisms of C, while , now a function, denes how consecutive
morphisms compose. In this case, each path leading to C(a, d) in the rst diagram corresponds to one of the two
ways of composing three consecutive individual morphisms from a b c d from C(a, b), C(b, c) and C(c,
d). Commutativity of the diagram is then merely the statement that both orders of composition give the same result,
exactly as required for ordinary categories.
What is new here is that the above expresses the requirement for associativity without any explicit reference to in-
dividual morphisms in the enriched category C again, these diagrams are for morphisms in hom-category M,
and not in C thus making the concept of associativity of composition meaningful in the general case where the
hom-objects C(a, b) are abstract, and C itself need not even have any notion of individual morphism.
The notion that an ordinary category must have identity morphisms is replaced by the second and third diagrams,
which express identity in terms of left and right unitors:
and
Returning to the case where M is the category of sets with cartesian product, the morphisms ida: I C(a, a) become
functions from the one-point set I and must then, for any given object a, identify a particular element of each set C(a,
4.2. EXAMPLES OF ENRICHED CATEGORIES 15
a), something we can then think of as the identity morphism for a in C". Commutativity of the latter two diagrams is
then the statement that compositions (as dened by the functions ) involving these distinguished individual identity
morphisms in C" behave exactly as per the identity rules for ordinary categories.
Note that there are several distinct notions of identity being referenced here:
the monoidal identity object I of M, being an identity for only in the monoid-theoretic sense, and even then
only up to canonical isomorphism (, ).
the identity morphism 1Ca, b : C(a, b) C(a, b) that M has for each of its objects by virtue of it being (at
least) an ordinary category.
the enriched category identity ida : I C(a, a) for each object a in C, which is again a morphism of M which,
even in the case where C is deemed to have individual morphisms of its own, is not necessarily identifying a
specic one.
4.2 Examples of enriched categories

Ordinary categories are categories enriched over (Set, , {}), the category of sets with Cartesian product as
the monoidal operation, as noted above.
2-Categories are categories enriched over Cat, the category of small categories, with monoidal structure being
given by cartesian product. In this case the 2-cells between morphisms a b and the vertical-composition rule
that relates them correspond to the morphisms of the ordinary category C(a, b) and its own composition rule.
Locally small categories are categories enriched over (SmSet, ), the category of small sets with Cartesian
product as the monoidal operation. (A locally small category is one whose hom-objects are small sets.)
Locally nite categories, by analogy, are categories enriched over (FinSet, ), the category of nite sets with
Cartesian product as the monoidal operation.
Preordered sets are categories enriched over a certain monoidal category, 2, consisting of two objects and
a single nonidentity arrow between them that we can write as FALSE TRUE, conjunction as the monoid
operation, and TRUE as its monoidal identity. The hom-objects 2(a, b) then simply deny or arm a particular
binary relation on the given pair of objects (a, b); for the sake of having more familiar notation we can write
this relation as a b. The existence of the compositions and identity required for a category enriched over 2
immediately translate to the following axioms respectively
a b and b c a c (transitivity)
TRUE a a (reexivity)
which are none other than the axioms for being a preorder. And since all diagrams in 2 commute, this
is the sole content of the enriched category axioms for categories enriched over 2.
William Lawvere's generalized metric spaces, also known as pseudoquasimetric spaces, are categories enriched
over the nonnegative extended real numbers R+ , where the latter is given ordinary category structure via the
inverse of its usual ordering (i.e., there exists a morphism r s i r s) and a monoidal structure via addition
(+) and zero (0). The hom-objects R+ (a,b) are essentially distances d(a,b), and the existence of composition
and identity translate to
d(b,c) + d(a,b) d(a,c) (triangle inequality)

0 d(a,a)
Categories with zero morphisms are categories enriched over (Set*, ), the category of pointed sets with
smash product as the monoidal operation; the special point of a hom-object Hom(A,B) corresponds to the zero
morphism from A to B.
Preadditive categories are categories enriched over (Ab, ), the category of abelian groups with tensor product
as the monoidal operation.
16 CHAPTER 4. ENRICHED CATEGORY
4.3 Relationship with monoidal functors

If there is a monoidal functor from a monoidal category M to a monoidal category N, then any category enriched over
M can be reinterpreted as a category enriched over N. Every monoidal category M has a monoidal functor M(I, ) to
the category of sets, so any enriched category has an underlying ordinary category. In many examples (such as those
above) this functor is faithful, so a category enriched over M can be described as an ordinary category with certain
additional structure or properties.
4.4 Enriched functors

An enriched functor is the appropriate generalization of the notion of a functor to enriched categories. Enriched
functors are then maps between enriched categories which respect the enriched structure.
If C and D are M-categories (that is, categories enriched over monoidal category M), an M-enriched functor T: C
D is a map which assigns to each object of C an object of D and for each pair of objects a and b in C provides
a morphism in M Tab : C(a, b) D(T(a), T(b)) between the hom-objects of C and D (which are objects in M),
satisfying enriched versions of the axioms of a functor, viz preservation of identity and composition.
Because the hom-objects need not be sets in an enriched category, one cannot speak of a particular morphism. There is
no longer any notion of an identity morphism, nor of a particular composition of two morphisms. Instead, morphisms
from the unit to a hom-object should be thought of as selecting an identity and morphisms from the monoidal product
should be thought of as composition. The usual functorial axioms are replaced with corresponding commutative
diagrams involving these morphisms.
In detail, one has that the diagram
commutes, which amounts to the equation
Taa ida = idT (a) ,
where I is the unit object of M. This is analogous to the rule F(ida) = idFa for ordinary functors. Additionally, one
demands that the diagram
commute, which is analogous to the rule F(fg)=F(f)F(g) for ordinary functors.

4.5. SEE ALSO 17
4.5 See also

Internal category
Isbell conjugacy
4.6 References
Kelly,G.M. Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series
No.64 (C.U.P., 1982)
Mac Lane, Saunders (September 1998). Categories for the Working Mathematician (second ed.). Springer.
ISBN 0-387-98403-8. (Volume 5 in the series Graduate Texts in Mathematics)
Lawvere,F.W. Metric Spaces, Generalized Logic, and Closed Categories, Reprints in Theory and Applica-
tions of Categories, No. 1, 2002, pp. 137.
Enriched category in nLab

Chapter 5
Group theory
This article covers advanced notions. For basic topics, see Group (mathematics).
For group theory in social sciences, see social group.
In mathematics and abstract algebra, group theory studies the algebraic structures known as groups. The concept of
a group is central to abstract algebra: other well-known algebraic structures, such as rings, elds, and vector spaces,
can all be seen as groups endowed with additional operations and axioms. Groups recur throughout mathematics, and
the methods of group theory have inuenced many parts of algebra. Linear algebraic groups and Lie groups are two
branches of group theory that have experienced advances and have become subject areas in their own right.
Various physical systems, such as crystals and the hydrogen atom, may be modelled by symmetry groups. Thus
group theory and the closely related representation theory have many important applications in physics, chemistry,
and materials science. Group theory is also central to public key cryptography.
One of the most important mathematical achievements of the 20th century[1] was the collaborative eort, taking
up more than 10,000 journal pages and mostly published between 1960 and 1980, that culminated in a complete
classication of nite simple groups.
5.1 Main classes of groups

Main article: Group (mathematics)
The range of groups being considered has gradually expanded from nite permutation groups and special examples
of matrix groups to abstract groups that may be specied through a presentation by generators and relations.
5.1.1 Permutation groups
The rst class of groups to undergo a systematic study was permutation groups. Given any set X and a collection G
of bijections of X into itself (known as permutations) that is closed under compositions and inverses, G is a group
acting on X. If X consists of n elements and G consists of all permutations, G is the symmetric group Sn; in general,
any permutation group G is a subgroup of the symmetric group of X. An early construction due to Cayley exhibited
any group as a permutation group, acting on itself (X = G) by means of the left regular representation.
In many cases, the structure of a permutation group can be studied using the properties of its action on the corre-
sponding set. For example, in this way one proves that for n 5, the alternating group An is simple, i.e. does not
admit any proper normal subgroups. This fact plays a key role in the impossibility of solving a general algebraic
equation of degree n 5 in radicals.
5.1.2 Matrix groups
The next important class of groups is given by matrix groups, or linear groups. Here G is a set consisting of invertible
matrices of given order n over a eld K that is closed under the products and inverses. Such a group acts on the
18
5.1. MAIN CLASSES OF GROUPS 19
The popular puzzle Rubiks cube invented in 1974 by Ern Rubik has been used as an illustration of permutation groups.
n-dimensional vector space K n by linear transformations. This action makes matrix groups conceptually similar to
permutation groups, and the geometry of the action may be usefully exploited to establish properties of the group G.
5.1.3 Transformation groups
Permutation groups and matrix groups are special cases of transformation groups: groups that act on a certain space
X preserving its inherent structure. In the case of permutation groups, X is a set; for matrix groups, X is a vector
space. The concept of a transformation group is closely related with the concept of a symmetry group: transformation
groups frequently consist of all transformations that preserve a certain structure.
The theory of transformation groups forms a bridge connecting group theory with dierential geometry. A long
line of research, originating with Lie and Klein, considers group actions on manifolds by homeomorphisms or
dieomorphisms. The groups themselves may be discrete or continuous.
20 CHAPTER 5. GROUP THEORY
5.1.4 Abstract groups

Most groups considered in the rst stage of the development of group theory were concrete, having been realized
through numbers, permutations, or matrices. It was not until the late nineteenth century that the idea of an abstract
group as a set with operations satisfying a certain system of axioms began to take hold. A typical way of specifying
an abstract group is through a presentation by generators and relations,
G = S|R.
A signicant source of abstract groups is given by the construction of a factor group, or quotient group, G/H, of a
group G by a normal subgroup H. Class groups of algebraic number elds were among the earliest examples of factor
groups, of much interest in number theory. If a group G is a permutation group on a set X, the factor group G/H is
no longer acting on X; but the idea of an abstract group permits one not to worry about this discrepancy.
The change of perspective from concrete to abstract groups makes it natural to consider properties of groups that are
independent of a particular realization, or in modern language, invariant under isomorphism, as well as the classes of
group with a given such property: nite groups, periodic groups, simple groups, solvable groups, and so on. Rather
than exploring properties of an individual group, one seeks to establish results that apply to a whole class of groups.
The new paradigm was of paramount importance for the development of mathematics: it foreshadowed the creation
of abstract algebra in the works of Hilbert, Emil Artin, Emmy Noether, and mathematicians of their school.
5.1.5 Topological and algebraic groups

An important elaboration of the concept of a group occurs if G is endowed with additional structure, notably, of
a topological space, dierentiable manifold, or algebraic variety. If the group operations m (multiplication) and i
(inversion),
m : G G G, (g, h) 7 gh, i : G G, g 7 g 1 ,
are compatible with this structure, i.e. are continuous, smooth or regular (in the sense of algebraic geometry) maps,
then G becomes a topological group, a Lie group, or an algebraic group.[2]
The presence of extra structure relates these types of groups with other mathematical disciplines and means that
more tools are available in their study. Topological groups form a natural domain for abstract harmonic analysis,
whereas Lie groups (frequently realized as transformation groups) are the mainstays of dierential geometry and
unitary representation theory. Certain classication questions that cannot be solved in general can be approached
and resolved for special subclasses of groups. Thus, compact connected Lie groups have been completely classied.
There is a fruitful relation between innite abstract groups and topological groups: whenever a group can be realized
as a lattice in a topological group G, the geometry and analysis pertaining to G yield important results about . A
comparatively recent trend in the theory of nite groups exploits their connections with compact topological groups
(pronite groups): for example, a single p-adic analytic group G has a family of quotients which are nite p-groups
of various orders, and properties of G translate into the properties of its nite quotients.
5.2 Branches of group theory
5.2.1 Finite group theory

Main article: Finite group
During the twentieth century, mathematicians investigated some aspects of the theory of nite groups in great depth,
especially the local theory of nite groups and the theory of solvable and nilpotent groups. As a consequence, the
complete classication of nite simple groups was achieved, meaning that all those simple groups from which all
nite groups can be built are now known.
During the second half of the twentieth century, mathematicians such as Chevalley and Steinberg also increased our
understanding of nite analogs of classical groups, and other related groups. One such family of groups is the family
5.2. BRANCHES OF GROUP THEORY 21
of general linear groups over nite elds. Finite groups often occur when considering symmetry of mathematical or
physical objects, when those objects admit just a nite number of structure-preserving transformations. The theory
of Lie groups, which may be viewed as dealing with "continuous symmetry", is strongly inuenced by the associated
Weyl groups. These are nite groups generated by reections which act on a nite-dimensional Euclidean space. The
properties of nite groups can thus play a role in subjects such as theoretical physics and chemistry.
5.2.2 Representation of groups

Main article: Representation theory
Saying that a group G acts on a set X means that every element of G denes a bijective map on the set X in a
way compatible with the group structure. When X has more structure, it is useful to restrict this notion further: a
representation of G on a vector space V is a group homomorphism:
: G GL(V),
where GL(V) consists of the invertible linear transformations of V. In other words, to every group element g is
assigned an automorphism (g) such that (g) (h) = (gh) for any h in G.
This denition can be understood in two directions, both of which give rise to whole new domains of mathematics.[3]
On the one hand, it may yield new information about the group G: often, the group operation in G is abstractly given,
but via , it corresponds to the multiplication of matrices, which is very explicit.[4] On the other hand, given a well-
understood group acting on a complicated object, this simplies the study of the object in question. For example,
if G is nite, it is known that V above decomposes into irreducible parts. These parts in turn are much more easily
manageable than the whole V (via Schurs lemma).
Given a group G, representation theory then asks what representations of G exist. There are several settings, and the
employed methods and obtained results are rather dierent in every case: representation theory of nite groups and
representations of Lie groups are two main subdomains of the theory. The totality of representations is governed by
the groups characters. For example, Fourier polynomials can be interpreted as the characters of U(1), the group of
complex numbers of absolute value 1, acting on the L2 -space of periodic functions.
5.2.3 Lie theory

Main article: Lie group
A Lie group is a group that is also a dierentiable manifold, with the property that the group operations are com-
patible with the smooth structure. Lie groups are named after Sophus Lie, who laid the foundations of the theory
of continuous transformation groups. The term groupes de Lie rst appeared in French in 1893 in the thesis of Lies
student Arthur Tresse, page 3.[5]
Lie groups represent the best-developed theory of continuous symmetry of mathematical objects and structures,
which makes them indispensable tools for many parts of contemporary mathematics, as well as for modern theoretical
physics. They provide a natural framework for analysing the continuous symmetries of dierential equations (dierential
Galois theory), in much the same way as permutation groups are used in Galois theory for analysing the discrete sym-
metries of algebraic equations. An extension of Galois theory to the case of continuous symmetry groups was one of
Lies principal motivations.
5.2.4 Combinatorial and geometric group theory

Main article: Geometric group theory
Groups can be described in dierent ways. Finite groups can be described by writing down the group table consisting
of all possible multiplications g h. A more compact way of dening a group is by generators and relations, also called
the presentation of a group. Given any set F of generators {gi}i I, the free group generated by F subjects onto the
group G. The kernel of this map is called subgroup of relations, generated by some subset D. The presentation is
usually denoted by F | D . For example, the group Z = a | can be generated by one element a (equal to +1 or
1) and no relations, because n 1 never equals 0 unless n is zero. A string consisting of generator symbols and their
inverses is called a word.
Combinatorial group theory studies groups from the perspective of generators and relations.[6] It is particularly useful
where niteness assumptions are satised, for example nitely generated groups, or nitely presented groups (i.e. in
addition the relations are nite). The area makes use of the connection of graphs via their fundamental groups. For
example, one can show that every subgroup of a free group is free.
There are several natural questions arising from giving a group by its presentation. The word problem asks whether
two words are eectively the same group element. By relating the problem to Turing machines, one can show that
there is in general no algorithm solving this task. Another, generally harder, algorithmically insoluble problem is the
group isomorphism problem, which asks whether two groups given by dierent presentations are actually isomorphic.
For example, the additive group Z of integers can also be presented by
x, y | xyxyx = e ;
it may not be obvious that these groups are isomorphic.[7]
e a
The Cayley graph of x, y , the free group of rank 2.
Geometric group theory attacks these problems from a geometric viewpoint, either by viewing groups as geometric
objects, or by nding suitable geometric objects a group acts on.[8] The rst idea is made precise by means of the
5.3. CONNECTION OF GROUPS AND SYMMETRY 23
Cayley graph, whose vertices correspond to group elements and edges correspond to right multiplication in the group.
Given two elements, one constructs the word metric given by the length of the minimal path between the elements.
A theorem of Milnor and Svarc then says that given a group G acting in a reasonable manner on a metric space X,
for example a compact manifold, then G is quasi-isometric (i.e. looks similar from a distance) to the space X.
5.3 Connection of groups and symmetry

Main article: Symmetry group
Given a structured object X of any sort, a symmetry is a mapping of the object onto itself which preserves the structure.
This occurs in many cases, for example
1. If X is a set with no additional structure, a symmetry is a bijective map from the set to itself, giving rise to
permutation groups.
2. If the object X is a set of points in the plane with its metric structure or any other metric space, a symmetry
is a bijection of the set to itself which preserves the distance between each pair of points (an isometry). The
corresponding group is called isometry group of X.
3. If instead angles are preserved, one speaks of conformal maps. Conformal maps give rise to Kleinian groups,
for example.
4. Symmetries are not restricted to geometrical objects, but include algebraic objects as well. For instance, the
equation
x2 3 = 0

has the two solutions + 3 , and 3 . In this case, the group that exchanges the two roots is the Galois
group belonging to the equation. Every polynomial equation in one variable has a Galois group, that is
a certain permutation group on its roots.
The axioms of a group formalize the essential aspects of symmetry. Symmetries form a group: they are closed
because if you take a symmetry of an object, and then apply another symmetry, the result will still be a symmetry.
The identity keeping the object xed is always a symmetry of an object. Existence of inverses is guaranteed by undoing
the symmetry and the associativity comes from the fact that symmetries are functions on a space, and composition of
functions are associative.
Fruchts theorem says that every group is the symmetry group of some graph. So every abstract group is actually the
symmetries of some explicit object.
The saying of preserving the structure of an object can be made precise by working in a category. Maps preserving
the structure are then the morphisms, and the symmetry group is the automorphism group of the object in question.
5.4 Applications of group theory

Applications of group theory abound. Almost all structures in abstract algebra are special cases of groups. Rings, for
example, can be viewed as abelian groups (corresponding to addition) together with a second operation (corresponding
to multiplication). Therefore, group theoretic arguments underlie large parts of the theory of those entities.
5.4.1 Galois theory
Main article: Galois theory

Galois theory uses groups to describe the symmetries of the roots of a polynomial (or more precisely the automor-
phisms of the algebras generated by these roots). The fundamental theorem of Galois theory provides a link between
algebraic eld extensions and group theory. It gives an eective criterion for the solvability of polynomial equations
in terms of the solvability of the corresponding Galois group. For example, S 5 , the symmetric group in 5 elements,
is not solvable which implies that the general quintic equation cannot be solved by radicals in the way equations of
lower degree can. The theory, being one of the historical roots of group theory, is still fruitfully applied to yield new
results in areas such as class eld theory.
5.4.2 Algebraic topology
Main article: Algebraic topology
Algebraic topology is another domain which prominently associates groups to the objects the theory is interested in.
There, groups are used to describe certain invariants of topological spaces. They are called invariants because they
are dened in such a way that they do not change if the space is subjected to some deformation. For example, the
fundamental group counts how many paths in the space are essentially dierent. The Poincar conjecture, proved in
2002/2003 by Grigori Perelman, is a prominent application of this idea. The inuence is not unidirectional, though.
For example, algebraic topology makes use of EilenbergMacLane spaces which are spaces with prescribed homotopy
groups. Similarly algebraic K-theory relies in a way on classifying spaces of groups. Finally, the name of the torsion
subgroup of an innite group shows the legacy of topology in group theory.
A torus. Its abelian group structure is induced from the map C C/Z + Z, where is a parameter living in the upper half plane.
5.4.3 Algebraic geometry and cryptography
Main articles: Algebraic geometry and Cryptography
Algebraic geometry and cryptography likewise uses group theory in many ways. Abelian varieties have been in-
troduced above. The presence of the group operation yields additional information which makes these varieties
particularly accessible. They also often serve as a test for new conjectures.[9] The one-dimensional case, namely
elliptic curves is studied in particular detail. They are both theoretically and practically intriguing.[10] Very large
5.4. APPLICATIONS OF GROUP THEORY 25
The cyclic group Z26 underlies Caesars cipher.
groups of prime order constructed in elliptic curve cryptography serve for public-key cryptography. Cryptographical
methods of this kind benet from the exibility of the geometric objects, hence their group structures, together with
the complicated structure of these groups, which make the discrete logarithm very hard to calculate. One of the
earliest encryption protocols, Caesars cipher, may also be interpreted as a (very easy) group operation. In another
direction, toric varieties are algebraic varieties acted on by a torus. Toroidal embeddings have recently led to advances
in algebraic geometry, in particular resolution of singularities.[11]
5.4.4 Algebraic number theory
Main article: Algebraic number theory
Algebraic number theory is a special case of group theory, thereby following the rules of the latter. For example,
Eulers product formula
1 1
=
n s 1 ps
n1 pprime
captures the fact that any integer decomposes in a unique way into primes. The failure of this statement for more
general rings gives rise to class groups and regular primes, which feature in Kummers treatment of Fermats Last
Theorem.
5.4.5 Harmonic analysis
Main article: Harmonic analysis
Analysis on Lie groups and certain other groups is called harmonic analysis. Haar measures, that is, integrals invariant
under the translation in a Lie group, are used for pattern recognition and other image processing techniques.[12]
5.4.6 Combinatorics
In combinatorics, the notion of permutation group and the concept of group action are often used to simplify the
counting of a set of objects; see in particular Burnsides lemma.
The circle of fths may be endowed with a cyclic group structure
5.4.7 Music
The presence of the 12-periodicity in the circle of fths yields applications of elementary group theory in musical set
theory.
5.4.8 Physics
In physics, groups are important because they describe the symmetries which the laws of physics seem to obey.
According to Noethers theorem, every continuous symmetry of a physical system corresponds to a conservation
law of the system. Physicists are very interested in group representations, especially of Lie groups, since these
representations often point the way to the possible physical theories. Examples of the use of groups in physics
include the Standard Model, gauge theory, the Lorentz group, and the Poincar group.
5.4. APPLICATIONS OF GROUP THEORY 27
5.4.9 Chemistry and materials science
In chemistry and materials science, groups are used to classify crystal structures, regular polyhedra, and the symmetries
of molecules. The assigned point groups can then be used to determine physical properties (such as polarity and
chirality), spectroscopic properties (particularly useful for Raman spectroscopy, infrared spectroscopy, circular dichro-
ism spectroscopy, magnetic circular dichroism spectroscopy, UV/Vis spectroscopy, and uorescence spectroscopy),
and to construct molecular orbitals.
Molecular symmetry is responsible for many physical and spectroscopic properties of compounds and provides rel-
evant information about how chemical reactions occur. In order to assign a point group for any given molecule, it is
necessary to nd the set of symmetry operations present on it. The symmetry operation is an action, such as a rota-
tion around an axis or a reection through a mirror plane. In other words, it is an operation that moves the molecule
such that it is indistinguishable from the original conguration. In group theory, the rotation axes and mirror planes
are called symmetry elements. These elements can be a point, line or plane with respect to which the symmetry
operation is carried out. The symmetry operations of a molecule determine the specic point group for this molecule.
Water molecule with symmetry axis
In chemistry, there are ve important symmetry operations. The identity operation (E) consists of leaving the molecule
as it is. This is equivalent to any number of full rotations around any axis. This is a symmetry of all molecules,
whereas the symmetry group of a chiral molecule consists of only the identity operation. Rotation around an axis
(Cn) consists of rotating the molecule around a specic axis by a specic angle. For example, if a water molecule
rotates 180 around the axis that passes through the oxygen atom and between the hydrogen atoms, it is in the same
conguration as it started. In this case, n = 2, since applying it twice produces the identity operation. Other symmetry
operations are: reection, inversion and improper rotation (rotation followed by reection).[13]
5.4.10 Statistical mechanics

Group theory can be used to resolve the incompleteness of the statistical interpretations of mechanics developed by
Willard Gibbs, relating to the summing of an innite number of probabilities to yield a meaningful solution.[14]
5.5 History
Main article: History of group theory
Group theory has three main historical sources: number theory, the theory of algebraic equations, and geometry. The
number-theoretic strand was begun by Leonhard Euler, and developed by Gausss work on modular arithmetic and
additive and multiplicative groups related to quadratic elds. Early results about permutation groups were obtained
by Lagrange, Runi, and Abel in their quest for general solutions of polynomial equations of high degree. variste
Galois coined the term group and established a connection, now known as Galois theory, between the nascent
theory of groups and eld theory. In geometry, groups rst became important in projective geometry and, later,
non-Euclidean geometry. Felix Klein's Erlangen program proclaimed group theory to be the organizing principle of
geometry.
Galois, in the 1830s, was the rst to employ groups to determine the solvability of polynomial equations. Arthur
Cayley and Augustin Louis Cauchy pushed these investigations further by creating the theory of permutation groups.
The second historical source for groups stems from geometrical situations. In an attempt to come to grips with
possible geometries (such as euclidean, hyperbolic or projective geometry) using group theory, Felix Klein initiated
the Erlangen programme. Sophus Lie, in 1884, started using groups (now called Lie groups) attached to analytic
problems. Thirdly, groups were, at rst implicitly and later explicitly, used in algebraic number theory.
The dierent scope of these early sources resulted in dierent notions of groups. The theory of groups was unied
starting around 1880. Since then, the impact of group theory has been ever growing, giving rise to the birth of
abstract algebra in the early 20th century, representation theory, and many more inuential spin-o domains. The
classication of nite simple groups is a vast body of work from the mid 20th century, classifying all the nite simple
groups.
5.6 See also

List of group theory topics
Examples of groups
5.7 Notes
[1] Elwes, Richard, "An enormous theorem: the classication of nite simple groups," Plus Magazine, Issue 41, Decem-
ber 2006.
[2] This process of imposing extra structure has been formalized through the notion of a group object in a suitable category.
Thus Lie groups are group objects in the category of dierentiable manifolds and ane algebraic groups are group objects
in the category of ane algebraic varieties.
[3] Such as group cohomology or equivariant K-theory.
[4] In particular, if the representation is faithful.
[5] Arthur Tresse (1893). Sur les invariants direntiels des groupes continus de transformations. Acta Mathematica. 18:
188. doi:10.1007/bf02418270.
[6] Schupp & Lyndon 2001

5.8. REFERENCES 29
[7] Writing z = xy, one has G = z, y | z3 = y = z .
[8] La Harpe 2000
[9] For example the Hodge conjecture (in certain cases).
[10] See the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, one of the millennium problems
[11] Abramovich, Dan; Karu, Kalle; Matsuki, Kenji; Wlodarczyk, Jaroslaw (2002), Torication and factorization of bira-
tional maps, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, 15 (3): 531572, MR 1896232, doi:10.1090/S0894-0347-
02-00396-X
[12] Lenz, Reiner (1990), Group theoretical methods in image processing, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 413, Berlin, New
York: Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-0-387-52290-6, doi:10.1007/3-540-52290-5
[13] Shriver, D.F.; Atkins, P.W. Qumica Inorgnica, 3 ed., Porto Alegre, Bookman, 2003.
[14] Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, ISBN 978-0262730099 ,
Ch 2
5.8 References
Borel, Armand (1991), Linear algebraic groups, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 126 (2nd ed.), Berlin, New
York: Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-0-387-97370-8, MR 1102012
Carter, Nathan C. (2009), Visual group theory, Classroom Resource Materials Series, Mathematical Associa-
tion of America, ISBN 978-0-88385-757-1, MR 2504193
Cannon, John J. (1969), Computers in group theory: A survey, Communications of the Association for Com-
puting Machinery, 12: 312, MR 0290613, doi:10.1145/362835.362837
Frucht, R. (1939), Herstellung von Graphen mit vorgegebener abstrakter Gruppe, Compositio Mathematica,
6: 23950, ISSN 0010-437X
Golubitsky, Martin; Stewart, Ian (2006), Nonlinear dynamics of networks: the groupoid formalism, Bull.
Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), 43 (03): 305364, MR 2223010, doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-06-01108-6 Shows the
advantage of generalising from group to groupoid.
Judson, Thomas W. (1997), Abstract Algebra: Theory and Applications An introductory undergraduate text in
the spirit of texts by Gallian or Herstein, covering groups, rings, integral domains, elds and Galois theory.
Free downloadable PDF with open-source GFDL license.
Kleiner, Israel (1986), The evolution of group theory: a brief survey, Mathematics Magazine, 59 (4): 195
215, ISSN 0025-570X, JSTOR 2690312, MR 863090, doi:10.2307/2690312
La Harpe, Pierre de (2000), Topics in geometric group theory, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-
31721-2
Livio, M. (2005), The Equation That Couldn't Be Solved: How Mathematical Genius Discovered the Language of
Symmetry, Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-7432-5820-7 Conveys the practical value of group theory by explaining
how it points to symmetries in physics and other sciences.
Mumford, David (1970), Abelian varieties, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-560528-0, OCLC 138290
Ronan M., 2006. Symmetry and the Monster. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-280722-6. For lay readers.
Describes the quest to nd the basic building blocks for nite groups.
Rotman, Joseph (1994), An introduction to the theory of groups, New York: Springer-Verlag, ISBN 0-387-
94285-8 A standard contemporary reference.
Schupp, Paul E.; Lyndon, Roger C. (2001), Combinatorial group theory, Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag,
ISBN 978-3-540-41158-1
Scott, W. R. (1987) [1964], Group Theory, New York: Dover, ISBN 0-486-65377-3 Inexpensive and fairly
readable, but somewhat dated in emphasis, style, and notation.
Shatz, Stephen S. (1972), Pronite groups, arithmetic, and geometry, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-
691-08017-8, MR 0347778
Weibel, Charles A. (1994). An introduction to homological algebra. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathe-
matics. 38. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-55987-4. MR 1269324. OCLC 36131259.
5.9 External links

History of the abstract group concept
Higher dimensional group theory This presents a view of group theory as level one of a theory which extends
in all dimensions, and has applications in homotopy theory and to higher dimensional nonabelian methods for
local-to-global problems.
Plus teacher and student package: Group Theory This package brings together all the articles on group theory
from Plus, the online mathematics magazine produced by the Millennium Mathematics Project at the University
of Cambridge, exploring applications and recent breakthroughs, and giving explicit denitions and examples
of groups.
Chapter 6
Higher category theory
In mathematics, higher category theory is the part of category theory at a higher order, which means that some
equalities are replaced by explicit arrows in order to be able to explicitly study the structure behind those equalities.
6.1 Strict higher categories

An ordinary category has objects and morphisms. A 2-category generalizes this by also including 2-morphisms
between the 1-morphisms. Continuing this up to n-morphisms between (n1)-morphisms gives an n-category.
Just as the category known as Cat, which is the category of small categories and functors is actually a 2-category with
natural transformations as its 2-morphisms, the category n-Cat of (small) n-categories is actually an (n+1)-category.
An n-category is dened by induction on n by:
A 0-category is a set,
An (n+1)-category is a category enriched over the category n-Cat.
So a 1-category is just a (locally small) category.

The monoidal structure of Set is the one given by the cartesian product as tensor and a singleton as unit. In fact
any category with nite products can be given a monoidal structure. The recursive construction of n-Cat works ne
because if a category C has nite products, the category of C-enriched categories has nite products too.
While this concept is too strict for some purposes in for example, homotopy theory, where weak structures arise in
the form of higher categories,[1] strict cubical higher homotopy groupoids have also arisen as giving a new foundation
for algebraic topology on the border between homology and homotopy theory, see the book Nonabelian algebraic
topology referenced below.
6.2 Weak higher categories

Main article: Weak n-category
In weak n-categories, the associativity and identity conditions are no longer strict (that is, they are not given by
equalities), but rather are satised up to an isomorphism of the next level. An example in topology is the composition
of paths, where the identity and association conditions hold only up to reparameterization, and hence up to homotopy,
which is the 2-isomorphism for this 2-category. These n-isomorphisms must well behave between hom-sets and
expressing this is the diculty in the denition of weak n-categories. Weak 2-categories, also called bicategories,
were the rst to be dened explicitly. A particularity of these is that a bicategory with one object is exactly a monoidal
category, so that bicategories can be said to be monoidal categories with many objects. Weak 3-categories, also
called tricategories, and higher-level generalizations are increasingly harder to dene explicitly. Several denitions
have been given, and telling when they are equivalent, and in what sense, has become a new object of study in category
theory.
31
32 CHAPTER 6. HIGHER CATEGORY THEORY
6.3 Quasi-categories
Main article: quasi-category
Weak Kan complexes, or quasi-categories, are simplicial sets satisfying a weak version of the Kan condition. Andr
Joyal showed that they are a good foundation for higher category theory. Recently the theory has been systematized
further by Jacob Lurie who simply calls them innity categories, though the latter term is also a generic term for all
models of (innity,k) categories for any k.
6.4 Simplicially enriched categories

Main article: Simplicially enriched category
Simplicially enriched categories, or simplicial categories, are categories enriched over simplicial sets. However, when
we look at them as a model for (innity,1)-categories, then many categorical notions (e.g., limits) do not agree with
the corresponding notions in the sense of enriched categories. The same for other enriched models like topologically
enriched categories.
6.5 Topologically enriched categories

Main article: topological category
Topologically enriched categories (sometimes simply topological categories) are categories enriched over some con-
venient category of topological spaces, e.g. the category of compactly generated Hausdor topological spaces.
6.6 Segal categories

Main article: Segal category
These are models of higher categories introduced by Hirschowitz and Simpson in 1998,[2] partly inspired by results
of Graeme Segal in 1974.
6.7 See also

Higher-dimensional algebra
6.8 Notes
[1] Baez, p 6
[2] Andr Hirschowitz, Carlos Simpson (1998), Descente pour les n-champs (Descent for n-stacks)
6.9 References
John C. Baez; James Dolan (1998). Categorication. arXiv:math/9802029 .
Tom Leinster (2004). Higher Operads, Higher Categories. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-53215-9.
arXiv:math.CT/0305049 .
Carlos Simpson, Homotopy theory of higher categories, draft of a book arXiv:1001.4071 (alternative URL
with hyperTeX-ed crosslinks: pdf)
Jacob Lurie, Higher topos theory, arXiv:math.CT/0608040, published version: pdf
nLab, the collective and open wiki notebook project on higher category theory and applications in physics,
mathematics and philosophy
Joyals Catlab, a wiki dedicated to polished expositions of categorical and higher categorical mathematics with
proofs
Ronald Brown; Philip J. Higgins; Rafael Sivera (2011). Nonabelian algebraic topology: ltered spaces, crossed
complexes, cubical homotopy groupoids. Tracts in Mathematics. 15. European Mathematical Society. ISBN
978-3-03719-083-8.
6.10 External links

John Baez Tale of n-Categories
The n-Category Cafe - a group blog devoted to higher category theory.
A Perspective on Higher Category Theory

Chapter 7
Higher-dimensional algebra
This article is about higher-dimensional algebra in generalized category theory, super-category theory,
and also its extensions in nonabelian algebraic topology and metamathematics.[1]
7.1 Higher-Dimensional Categories
Main article: Category theory Higher-dimensional categories
A rst step towards dening higher dimensional algebras is the concept of 2-category of higher category theory,
followed by the more 'geometric' concept of double category.[2][3]
A higher level concept is thus dened as a category of categories, or super-category, which generalises to higher
dimensions the notion of category regarded as any structure which is an interpretation of Lawvere's axioms of the
elementary theory of abstract categories (ETAC).[4][5] Ll.
,[6][7] Thus, a supercategory and also a super-category, can be regarded as natural extensions of the concepts of meta-
category,[8] multicategory, and multi-graph, k-partite graph, or colored graph (see a color gure, and also its denition
in graph theory).
Supercategories were rst introduced in 1970,[9] and were subsequently developed for applications in theoretical
physics (especially quantum eld theory and topological quantum eld theory) and mathematical biology or mathematical
biophysics.[10]
Other pathways in HDA involve: bicategories, homomorphisms of bicategories, variable categories (aka, indexed, or
parametrized categories), topoi, eective descent, and enriched and internal categories.
7.2 Double groupoids
In higher-dimensional algebra (HDA), a double groupoid is a generalisation of a one-dimensional groupoid to two

dimensions,[11] and the latter groupoid can be considered as a special case of a category with all invertible arrows, or
morphisms.
Double groupoids are often used to capture information about geometrical objects such as higher-dimensional man-
ifolds (or n-dimensional manifolds).[12] In general, an n-dimensional manifold is a space that locally looks like an
n-dimensional Euclidean space, but whose global structure may be non-Euclidean.
Double groupoids were rst introduced by Ronald Brown in 1976, in ref.[12] and were further developed towards
applications in nonabelian algebraic topology.[13][14][15][16] A related, 'dual' concept is that of a double algebroid, and
the more general concept of R-algebroid.
34
7.3. NONABELIAN ALGEBRAIC TOPOLOGY 35
7.3 Nonabelian algebraic topology

Many of the higher dimensional algebraic structures are noncommutative and, therefore, their study is a very signi-
cant part of nonabelian category theory, and also of Nonabelian Algebraic Topology (NAAT)[17][18] which generalises
to higher dimensions ideas coming from the fundamental group.[19] Such algebraic structures in dimensions greater
than 1 develop the nonabelian character of the fundamental group, and they are in a precise sense more nonabelian
than the groups .[17][20] These noncommutative, or more specically, nonabelian structures reect more accurately
the geometrical complications of higher dimensions than the known homology and homotopy groups commonly en-
countered in classical algebraic topology. An important part of nonabelian algebraic topology is concerned with
the properties and applications of homotopy groupoids and ltered spaces. Noncommutative double groupoids and
double algebroids are only the rst examples of such higher dimensional structures that are nonabelian. The new
methods of Nonabelian Algebraic Topology (NAAT) ``can be applied to determine homotopy invariants of spaces,
and homotopy classication of maps, in cases which include some classical results, and allow results not available by
classical methods.[21] Cubical omega-groupoids, higher homotopy groupoids, crossed modules, crossed complexes
and Galois groupoids are key concepts in developing applications related to homotopy of ltered spaces, higher di-
mensional space structures, the construction of the fundamental groupoid of a topos E in the general theory of topoi,
and also in their physical applications in nonabelian quantum theories, and recent developments in quantum gravity,
as well as categorical and topological dynamics.[22] Further examples of such applications include the generalisa-
tions of noncommutative geometry formalizations of the noncommutative standard models via fundamental double
groupoids and spacetime structures even more general than topoi or the lower-dimensional noncommutative space-
times encountered in several topological quantum eld theories and noncommutative geometry theories of quantum
gravity.
A fundamental result in NAAT is the generalised, higher homotopy van Kampen theorem proven by R. Brown which
states that ``the homotopy type of a topological space can be computed by a suitable colimit or homotopy colimit over
homotopy types of its pieces'. A related example is that of van Kampen theorems for categories of covering morphisms
in lextensive categories.[23] Other reports of generalisations of the van Kampen theorem include statements for 2-
categories[24] and a topos of topoi . Important results in HDA are also the extensions of the Galois theory in categories
and variable categories, or indexed/`parametrized' categories.[25][26] The Joyal-Tierney representation theorem for
topoi is also a generalisation of the Galois theory.[27] Thus, indexing by bicategories in the sense of Benabou one also
includes here the Joyal-Tierney theory.[28]
7.4 Applications
7.4.1 Theoretical Physics

In quantum eld theory, there exist quantum categories.[29][30][31] and quantum double groupoids.[32] / One can con-
sider quantum double groupoids to be fundamental groupoids dened via a 2-functor, which allows one to think about
the physically interesting case of quantum fundamental groupoids (QFGs) in terms of the bicategory Span(Groupoids),
and then constructing 2-Hilbert spaces and 2-linear maps for manifolds and cobordisms. At the next step, one obtains
cobordisms with corners via natural transformations of such 2-functors. A claim was then made that, with the gauge
group SU(2), "the extended TQFT, or ETQFT, gives a theory equivalent to the Ponzano-Regge model of quantum grav-
ity";[32] similarly, the Turaev-Viro model would be then obtained with representations of SU_q(2). Therefore, one
can describe the state space of a gauge theory or many kinds of quantum eld theories (QFTs) and local quantum
physics, in terms of the transformation groupoids given by symmetries, as for example in the case of a gauge theory,
by the gauge transformations acting on states that are, in this case, connections. In the case of symmetries related to
quantum groups, one would obtain structures that are representation categories of quantum groupoids,[29] instead of
the 2-vector spaces that are representation categories of groupoids.
7.5 See also

Timeline of category theory and related mathematics
Higher category theory
Category theory
36 CHAPTER 7. HIGHER-DIMENSIONAL ALGEBRA
Ronald Brown
Algebraic topology
Lie algebroid
Groupoid
2-category
Double groupoid
Quantum Algebraic Topology
Seifertvan Kampen theorem
Chain complex
Homological algebra
Homology theory
Cohomology
Galois theory
Anabelian geometry
Quantum geometry
Noncommutative geometry
Abstract algebra
Categorical algebra
Grothendiecks Galois theory
Grothendieck topology
Topological dynamics
Topological quantum eld theory
Local quantum eld theory
Categorical dynamics
Quantum group
Quantum gravity
Categorical group
Fundamental group
Crossed module
Pursuing stacks
Esquisse d'un Programme
Metatheory
Metalogic
Metamathematics
Colored graphs
Multicategory
Enriched category
7.6. NOTES 37
7.6 Notes
[1] Roger Bishop Jones. 2008. The Category of Categories http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/pp/doc/t018.pdf
[2] Brown, R.; Loday, J.-L. (1987). Homotopical excision, and Hurewicz theorems, for n-cubes of spaces. Proceedings of
the London Mathematical Society. 54 (1): 176192. doi:10.1112/plms/s3-54.1.176.
[3] Batanin, M.A. (1998). Monoidal Globular Categories As a Natural Environment for the Theory of Weak n-Categories.
Advances in Mathematics. 136 (1): 39103. doi:10.1006/aima.1998.1724.
[4] Lawvere, F. W. (1964). An Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America. 5 (2): 15061511.
[5] Lawvere, F. W.: 1966, The Category of Categories as a Foundation for Mathematics., in Proc. Conf. Categorical Algebra
La Jolla., Eilenberg, S. et al., eds. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Heidelberg and New York., pp. 120. http://myyn.org/m/
article/william-francis-lawvere/
[6] http://planetphysics.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=420
[7] Lawvere, F. W. (1969b). Adjointness in Foundations. Dialectica. 23: 281295. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1969.tb01194.x.
[8] http://planetphysics.org/encyclopedia/AxiomsOfMetacategoriesAndSupercategories.html
[9] Supercategory theory @ PlanetMath
[10] http://planetphysics.org/encyclopedia/MathematicalBiologyAndTheoreticalBiophysics.html
[11] Brown, R.; Spencer, C.B. (1976). Double groupoids and crossed modules. Cahiers Top. Gom. Di. 17: 343362.
[12] Brown, R.; Spencer, C.B. (1976). Double groupoids and crossed modules (PDF). Cahiers Top. Gom. Di. 17: 343
362.
[13] http://planetphysics.org/encyclopedia/NAAT.html
[14] Non-Abelian Algebraic Topology book
[15] Nonabelian Algebraic Topology: Higher homotopy groupoids of ltered spaces
[16] Brown, R.; et al. (2009). Nonabelian Algebraic Topology: Higher homotopy groupoids of ltered spaces (in press).
[17] Brown, R.; Higgins, P.J.; Sivera, R. (2008). Non-Abelian Algebraic Topology. 1. (Downloadable PDF)
[18] http://www.ems-ph.org/pdf/catalog.pdf Ronald Brown, Philip Higgins, Rafael Sivera, Nonabelian Algebraic Topology:
Filtered spaces, crossed complexes, cubical homotopy groupoids, in Tracts in Mathematics vol. 15 (2010), European
Mathematical Society, 670 pages, ISBN 978-3-03719-083-8
[19] http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0407275 Nonabelian Algebraic Topology by Ronald Brown. 15 Jul 2004
[20] http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2009/06/nonabelian_algebraic_topology.html Nonabelian Algebraic Topology posted

by John Baez
[21] http://planetphysics.org/?op=getobj&from=books&id=374 Nonabelian Algebraic Topology: Filtered Spaces, Crossed Com-

plexes and Cubical Homotopy groupoids, by Ronald Brown, Bangor University, UK, Philip J. Higgins, Durham University,
UK Rafael Sivera, University of Valencia, Spain
[22] http://www.springerlink.com/content/92r13230n3381746/ A Conceptual Construction of Complexity Levels Theory in Space-

time Categorical Ontology: Non-Abelian Algebraic Topology, Many-Valued Logics and Dynamic Systems by R. Brown et al.,
Axiomathes, Volume 17, Numbers 3-4, 409-493, doi:10.1007/s10516-007-9010-3
[23] Ronald Brown and George Janelidze, van Kampen theorems for categories of covering morphisms in lextensive categories,
J. Pure Appl. Algebra. 119:255263, (1997)
[24] https://web.archive.org/web/20050720094804/http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/stevel/papers/vkt.ps.gz Marta Bunge and

Stephen Lack. Van Kampen theorems for 2-categories and toposes
[25] http://www.springerlink.com/content/gug14u1141214743/ George Janelidze, Pure Galois theory in categories, J. Alg.

132:270286, 199
[26] http://www.springerlink.com/content/gug14u1141214743/ Galois theory in variable categories., by George Janelidze, Di-

etmar Schumacher and Ross Street, in APPLIED CATEGORICAL STRUCTURES, Volume 1, Number 1, 103-110, doi:10.1007/BF00872989
38 CHAPTER 7. HIGHER-DIMENSIONAL ALGEBRA
[27] Joyal, Andres; Tierney, Myles (1984). An extension of the Galois theory of Grothendieck. 309. American Mathematical
Society. ISBN 0-8218-2312-4.
[28] MSC(1991): 18D30,11R32,18D35,18D05
[29] http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/QuantumCategory.html Quantum Categories of Quantum Groupoids
[30] http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/AssociativityIsomorphism.html Rigid Monoidal Categories
[31] http://theoreticalatlas.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/a-note-on-quantum-groupoids/
[32] http://theoreticalatlas.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/a-note-on-quantum-groupoids/ March 18, 2009. A Note on Quantum
Groupoids, posted by Jerey Morton under C*-algebras, deformation theory, groupoids, noncommutative geometry, quan-
tization
7.7 Further reading

Brown, R.; Higgins, P.J.; Sivera, R. (2011). Nonabelian Algebraic Topology: ltered spaces, crossed complexes,
cubical homotopy groupoids. Tracts Vol 15. European Mathematical Society. ISBN 978-3-03719-083-8.
doi:10.4171/083. (Downloadable PDF available)
Brown, R.; Spencer, C.B. (1976). Double groupoids and crossed modules. Cahiers Top. Gom. Di. 17:
343362.
Brown, R.; Mosa, G.H. (1999). Double categories, thin structures and connections. Theory and Applications
of Categories. 5: 163175.
Brown, R. (2002). Categorical Structures for Descent and Galois Theory. Fields Institute.
Brown, R. (1987). From groups to groupoids: a brief survey (PDF). Bulletin of the London Mathematical
Society. 19 (2): 113134. doi:10.1112/blms/19.2.113. This give some of the history of groupoids, namely the
origins in work of Heinrich Brandt on quadratic forms, and an indication of later work up to 1987, with 160
references.
Brown, R. Higher dimensional group theory.. A web article with many references explaining how the
groupoid concept has led to notions of higher-dimensional groupoids, not available in group theory, with ap-
plications in homotopy theory and in group cohomology.
Brown, R.; Higgins, P.J. (1981). On the algebra of cubes. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra. 21 (3):
233260. doi:10.1016/0022-4049(81)90018-9.
Mackenzie, K.C.H. (2005). General theory of Lie groupoids and Lie algebroids. Cambridge University Press.
R., Brown (2006). Topology and groupoids. Booksurge. ISBN 1-4196-2722-8. Revised and extended edition
of a book previously published in 1968 and 1988. E-version available from http://www.kagi.com
Borceux, F.; Janelidze, G. (2001). Galois theories. Cambridge University Press. Shows how generalisations of
Galois theory lead to Galois groupoids.
Baez, J.; Dolan, J. (1998). Higher-Dimensional Algebra III. n-Categories and the Algebra of Opetopes.
Advances in Mathematics. 135 (2): 145206. doi:10.1006/aima.1997.1695.
Baianu, I.C. (1970). Organismic Supercategories: II. On Multistable Systems. Bulletin of Mathematical
Biophysics. 32 (4): 53961. PMID 4327361. doi:10.1007/BF02476770. External link in |journal= (help)
Baianu, I.C.; Marinescu, M. (1974). On A Functorial Construction of (M, R)-Systems. Revue Roumaine de
Mathmatiques Pures et Appliques. 19: 388391.
Baianu, I.C. (1987). Computer Models and Automata Theory in Biology and Medicine. In M. Witten.
Mathematical Models in Medicine. 7. Pergamon Press. pp. 15131577. CERN Preprint No. EXT-2004-072.
Higher dimensional Homotopy @ PlanetPhysics. Archived from the original on 2009-08-13.
George Janelidze, Pure Galois theory in categories, J. Alg. 132:270286, 1990.
Galois theory in variable categories., by George Janelidze, Dietmar Schumacher and Ross Street, in APPLIED
CATEGORICAL STRUCTURESVolume 1, Number 1, 103-110, doi:10.1007/BF00872989.
Chapter 8
Higher-order logic
In mathematics and logic, a higher-order logic is a form of predicate logic that is distinguished from rst-order logic
by additional quantiers and, sometimes, stronger semantics. Higher-order logics with their standard semantics are
more expressive, but their model-theoretic properties are less well-behaved than those of rst-order logic.
The term higher-order logic, abbreviated as HOL, is commonly used to mean higher-order simple predicate
logic. Here simple indicates that the underlying type theory is simple, not polymorphic or dependent.[1]
8.1 Quantication scope
First-order logic quanties only variables that range over individuals; second-order logic, in addition, also quanties
over sets; third-order logic also quanties over sets of sets, and so on. For example, the second-order sentence
P ((0 P i(i P i + 1 P )) n(n P ))
expresses the principle of mathematical induction. Higher-order logic is the union of rst-, second-, third-, ,
nth-order logic; i.e., higher-order logic admits quantication over sets that are nested arbitrarily deeply.
8.2 Semantic
There are two possible semantics for higher order logic.

In the standard or full semantics, quantiers over higher-type objects range over all possible objects of that type.
For example, a quantier over sets of individuals ranges over the entire powerset of the set of individuals. Thus, in
standard semantics, once the set of individuals is specied, this is enough to specify all the quantiers. HOL with
standard semantics is more expressive than rst-order logic. For example, HOL admits categorical axiomatizations
of the natural numbers, and of the real numbers, which are impossible with rst-order logic. However, by a result of
Gdel, HOL with standard semantics does not admit an eective, sound, and complete proof calculus.[2]
The model-theoretic properties of HOL with standard semantics are also more complex than those of rst-order logic.
For example, the Lwenheim number of second-order logic is already larger than the rst measurable cardinal, if such
a cardinal exists.[3] The Lwenheim number of rst-order logic, in contrast, is 0 , the smallest innite cardinal.
In Henkin semantics, a separate domain is included in each interpretation for each higher-order type. Thus, for
example, quantiers over sets of individuals may range over only a subset of the powerset of the set of individuals.
HOL with these semantics is equivalent to many-sorted rst-order logic, rather than being stronger than rst-order
logic. In particular, HOL with Henkin semantics has all the model-theoretic properties of rst-order logic, and has a
complete, sound, eective proof system inherited from rst-order logic.
39
40 CHAPTER 8. HIGHER-ORDER LOGIC
8.3 Examples and properties

Higher order logics include the oshoots of Church's Simple Theory of Types[4] and the various forms of Intuitionistic
type theory. Grard Huet has shown that uniability is undecidable in a type theoretic avor of third-order logic,[5][6][7]
that is, there can be no algorithm to decide whether an arbitrary equation between third-order (let alone arbitrary
higher-order) terms has a solution.
Up to a certain notion of isomorphism, the powerset operation is denable in second-order logic. Using this observa-
tion, Hintikka established in 1955 that second-order logic can simulate higher-order logics in the sense that for every
formula of a higher order-logic one can nd an equisatisable formula for it in second-order logic.[8]
The term higher-order logic is assumed in some context to refer to classical higher-order logic. However, modal
higher-order logic has been studied as well. According to several logicians, Gdels ontological proof is best studied
(from a technical perspective) in such a context.[9]
8.4 See also

First-order logic
Second-order logic
Higher-order grammar
Higher-order logic programming
Intuitionistic Type Theory
Many-sorted logic
Typed lambda calculus
Modal Logic
8.5 References
[1] Jacobs, 1999, chapter 5
[2] Shapiro 1991, p. 87.
[3] Menachem Magidor and Jouko Vnnen. "On Lwenheim-Skolem-Tarski numbers for extensions of rst order logic",
Report No. 15 (2009/2010) of the Mittag-Leer Institute.
[4] Alonzo Church, A formulation of the simple theory of types, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5(2):5668 (1940)
[5] Huet, Grard P. (1973). The Undecidability of Unication in Third Order Logic (PDF). Information and Control. 22:
257267. doi:10.1016/s0019-9958(73)90301-x.
[6] Huet, Grard (Sep 1976). Resolution d'Equations dans des Langages d'Ordre 1,2,... (Ph.D.) (in French). Universite de
Paris VII.
[7] Huet, Grard (2002). Higher Order Unication 30 years later. In Carreo, V.; Muoz, C.; Tahar, S. Proceedings, 15th
International Conference TPHOL (PDF). LNCS. 2410. Springer. pp. 312.
[8] entry on HOL
[9] Fitting, Melvin (2002). Types, Tableaus, and Gdels God. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 139. ISBN 978-
1-4020-0604-3. Godels argument is modal and at least second-order, since in his denition of God there is an explicit
quantication over properties. [...] [AG96] showed that one could view a part of the argument not as second-order, but as
third-order.
Andrews, Peter B. (2002). An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth Through Proof,
2nd ed, Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 1-4020-0763-9
Stewart Shapiro, 1991, Foundations Without Foundationalism: A Case for Second-Order Logic. Oxford
University Press., ISBN 0-19-825029-0
Stewart Shapiro, 2001, Classical Logic II: Higher Order Logic, in Lou Goble, ed., The Blackwell Guide to
Philosophical Logic. Blackwell, ISBN 0-631-20693-0
Lambek, J. and Scott, P. J., 1986. Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic, Cambridge University Press,
ISBN 0-521-35653-9
141. North Holland, Elsevier. ISBN 0-444-50170-3.
Benzmuller, Christoph; Miller, Dale (2014). Automation of Higher-Order Logic. In Gabbay, Dov M.;
Siekmann, Jrg H.; Woods, John. Handbook of the History of Logic, Volume 9: Computational Logic. Elsevier.
ISBN 978-0-08-093067-1.
8.6 External links

Andrews, Peter B, Churchs Type Theory in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Miller, Dale, 1991, "Logic: Higher-order," Encyclopedia of Articial Intelligence, 2nd ed.
Herbert B. Enderton, Second-order and Higher-order Logic in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, published
Dec 20, 2007; substantive revision Mar 4, 2009.
Chapter 9
Intuitionistic logic
Intuitionistic logic, sometimes more generally called constructive logic, refers to systems of symbolic logic that
dier from the systems used for classical logic by more closely mirroring the notion of constructive proof. In partic-
ular, systems of intuitionistic logic do not include the law of the excluded middle and double negation elimination,
which are fundamental inference rules in classical logic.
Formalized intuitionistic logic was originally developed by Arend Heyting to provide a formal basis for Brouwer's
programme of intuitionism. From a proof-theoretic perspective, Heytings calculus is a restriction of classical logic
in which the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination have been removed. Excluded middle and
double negation elimination can still be proved for some propositions on a case by case basis, however, but do not
hold universally as they do with classical logic.
Several systems of semantics for intuitionistic logic have been studied. One semantics mirrors classical Boolean-
valued semantics but uses Heyting algebras in place of Boolean algebras. Another semantics uses Kripke models.
These, however, are technical means for studying Heytings deductive system rather than formalizations of Brouwers
original informal semantic intuitions. Semantical systems with better claims to capture such intuitions, due to of-
fering meaningful concepts of constructive truth (rather than merely validity or provability), are Gdels dialectica
interpretation, Kleenes realizability, Medvedevs logic of nite problems,[1] or Japaridzes computability logic. Yet
such semantics persistently induce logics properly stronger than Heytings logic. Some authors have argued that this
might be an indication of inadequacy of Heytings calculus itself, deeming the latter incomplete as a constructive
logic.[2]
9.1 Mathematical constructivism

In the semantics of classical logic, propositional formulae are assigned truth values from the two-element set {, }
(true and false respectively), regardless of whether we have direct evidence for either case. This is referred to as
the 'law of excluded middle', because it excludes the possibility of any truth value besides 'true' or 'false'. In contrast,
propositional formulae in intuitionistic logic are not assigned a denite truth value and are only considered true
when we have direct evidence, hence proof. (We can also say, instead of the propositional formula being true
due to direct evidence, that it is inhabited by a proof in the CurryHoward sense.) Operations in intuitionistic logic
therefore preserve justication, with respect to evidence and provability, rather than truth-valuation .
Intuitionistic logic is one of the set of approaches of constructivism in mathematics. The use of constructivist logics
in general has been a controversial topic among mathematicians and philosophers (see, for example, the Brouwer
Hilbert controversy). A common objection to their use is the above-cited lack of two central rules of classical logic,
the law of excluded middle and double negation elimination. These are considered to be so important to the practice
of mathematics that David Hilbert wrote of them: Taking the principle of excluded middle from the mathematician
would be the same, say, as proscribing the telescope to the astronomer or to the boxer the use of his sts. To prohibit
existence statements and the principle of excluded middle is tantamount to relinquishing the science of mathematics
altogether. [3]
Despite the serious challenges presented by the inability to utilize the valuable rules of excluded middle and double
negation elimination, intuitionistic logic has practical use. One reason for this is that its restrictions produce proofs
that have the existence property, making it also suitable for other forms of mathematical constructivism. Informally,
42
9.2. SYNTAX 43
this means that if there is a constructive proof that an object exists, that constructive proof may be used as an algorithm
for generating an example of that object, a principle known as the CurryHoward correspondence between proofs and
algorithms. One reason that this particular aspect of intuitionistic logic is so valuable is that it enables practitioners to
utilize a wide range of computerized tools, known as proof assistants. These tools assist their users in the verication
(and generation) of large-scale proofs, whose size usually precludes the usual human-based checking that goes into
publishing and reviewing a mathematical proof. As such, the use of proof assistants (such as Agda or Coq) is enabling
modern mathematicians and logicians to develop and prove extremely complex systems, beyond those which are
feasible to create and check solely by hand. One example of a proof which was impossible to formally verify before
the advent of these tools is the famous proof of the four color theorem. This theorem stumped mathematicians for
more than a hundred years, until a proof was developed which ruled out large classes of possible counterexamples,
yet still left open enough possibilities that a computer program was needed to nish the proof. That proof was
controversial for some time, but it was nally veried using Coq.
9.2 Syntax
The RiegerNishimura lattice. Its nodes are the propositional formulas in one variable up to intuitionistic logical equivalence, ordered
by intuitionistic logical implication.
The syntax of formulas of intuitionistic logic is similar to propositional logic or rst-order logic. However, intuition-
istic connectives are not denable in terms of each other in the same way as in classical logic, hence their choice
matters. In intuitionistic propositional logic (IPL) it is customary to use , , , as the basic connectives, treating
A as an abbreviation for (A ). In intuitionistic rst-order logic both quantiers , are needed.
44 CHAPTER 9. INTUITIONISTIC LOGIC
9.2.1 Weaker than Classical Logic

Intuitionistic logic is weaker than classical logic. Each theorem of intuitionistic logic is a theorem in classical logic.
Many tautologies in classical logic are not theorems in intuitionistic logic. Examples include the law of excluded
middle p p, Peirces law ((p q) p) p, and double negation elimination p p. But double negation
introduction p p is a theorem.
Rejecting excluded middle may seem strange to those more familiar with classical logic. To prove it in intuitionistic
logic, it is necessary to prove the truth or falsity of all possible propositional formulae, which is impossible for a variety
of reasons.
9.2.2 Sequent calculus

Main article: Sequent calculus
Gentzen discovered that a simple restriction of his system LK (his sequent calculus for classical logic) results in a
system which is sound and complete with respect to intuitionistic logic. He called this system LJ. In LK any number
of formulas is allowed to appear on the conclusion side of a sequent; in contrast LJ allows at most one formula in this
position.
Other derivatives of LK are limited to intuitionisitic derivations but still allow multiple conclusions in a sequent. LJ'[4]
is one example.
9.2.3 Hilbert-style calculus

Intuitionistic logic can be dened using the following Hilbert-style calculus. This is similar to a way of axiomatizing
classical propositional logic.
In propositional logic, the inference rule is modus ponens
MP: from and infer
and the axioms are
THEN-1: ( )
THEN-2: ( ( )) (( ) ( ))
AND-1:
AND-2:
AND-3: ( ( ))
OR-1:
OR-2:
OR-3: ( ) (( ) ( ))
FALSE:
To make this a system of rst-order predicate logic, the generalization rules
-GEN: from infer (x ) , if x is not free in

-GEN: from infer (x ) , if x is not free in
are added, along with the axioms
PRED-1: (x (x)) (t) , if the term t is free for substitution for the variable x in (i.e., if no occurrence
of any variable in t becomes bound in (t) )
PRED-2: (t) (x (x)) , with the same restriction as for PRED-1
9.2. SYNTAX 45
Optional connectives
Negation If one wishes to include a connective for negation rather than consider it an abbreviation for ,
it is enough to add:
NOT-1': ( )
NOT-2': ( )
There are a number of alternatives available if one wishes to omit the connective (false). For example, one may
replace the three axioms FALSE, NOT-1', and NOT-2' with the two axioms
NOT-1: ( ) (( ) )
NOT-2: ( )
as at Propositional calculus#Axioms. Alternatives to NOT-1 are ( ) ( ) or ( ) .
Equivalence The connective for equivalence may be treated as an abbreviation, with standing for
( ) ( ) . Alternatively, one may add the axioms
IFF-1: ( ) ( )
IFF-2: ( ) ( )
IFF-3: ( ) (( ) ( ))
IFF-1 and IFF-2 can, if desired, be combined into a single axiom ( ) (( ) ( )) using
conjunction.
Relation to classical logic
The system of classical logic is obtained by adding any one of the following axioms:
(Law of the excluded middle. May also be formulated as ( ) (( ) ) .)
(Double negation elimination)
(( ) ) (Peirces law)
( ) ( ) (Law of contraposition)
In general, one may take as the extra axiom any classical tautology that is not valid in the two-element Kripke frame
(in other words, that is not included in Smetanichs logic).
Another relationship is given by the GdelGentzen negative translation, which provides an embedding of classical
rst-order logic into intuitionistic logic: a rst-order formula is provable in classical logic if and only if its Gdel
Gentzen translation is provable intuitionistically. Therefore, intuitionistic logic can instead be seen as a means of
extending classical logic with constructive semantics.
In 1932, Kurt Gdel dened a system of logics intermediate between classical and intuitionistic logic; Gdel logics
are concomitantly known as intermediate logics.
9.2.4 Non-interdenability of operators

In classical propositional logic, it is possible to take one of conjunction, disjunction, or implication as primitive, and
dene the other two in terms of it together with negation, such as in ukasiewicz's three axioms of propositional logic.
It is even possible to dene all four in terms of a sole sucient operator such as the Peirce arrow (NOR) or Sheer
stroke (NAND). Similarly, in classical rst-order logic, one of the quantiers can be dened in terms of the other
and negation.
These are fundamentally consequences of the law of bivalence, which makes all such connectives merely Boolean
functions. The law of bivalence does not hold in intuitionistic logic, only the law of non-contradiction. As a result,
none of the basic connectives can be dispensed with, and the above axioms are all necessary. Most of the classical
identities are only theorems of intuitionistic logic in one direction, although some are theorems in both directions.
They are as follows:
Conjunction versus disjunction:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
Conjunction versus implication:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
Disjunction versus implication:
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
Universal versus existential quantication:
(x (x)) (x (x))
(x (x)) (x (x))
(x (x)) (x (x))
(x (x)) (x (x))
So, for example, a or b is a stronger propositional formula than if not a, then b, whereas these are classically
interchangeable. On the other hand, not (a or b)" is equivalent to not a, and also not b.
If we include equivalence in the list of connectives, some of the connectives become denable from others:
( ) (( ) ( ))
( ) (( ) )
( ) (( ) )
( ) (( ) )
9.3. SEMANTICS 47
( ) ((( ) ) )
In particular, {, , } and {, , } are complete bases of intuitionistic connectives.

As shown by Alexander Kuznetsov, either of the following connectives the rst one ternary, the second one quinary
is by itself functionally complete: either one can serve the role of a sole sucient operator for intuitionistic propo-
sitional logic, thus forming an analog of the Sheer stroke from classical propositional logic:[5]
((p q) r) (p (q r)),
p (q r (s t)).
9.3 Semantics
The semantics are rather more complicated than for the classical case. A model theory can be given by Heyting
algebras or, equivalently, by Kripke semantics. Recently, a Tarski-like model theory was proved complete by Bob
Constable, but with a dierent notion of completeness than classically.
Unproved statements in intuitionistic logic are not given an intermediate truth value (as is sometimes mistakenly
asserted). One can prove that such statements have no third truth value, a result dating back to Glivenko in 1928.[6]
Instead they remain of unknown truth value, until they are either proved or disproved. Statements are disproved by
deducing a contradiction from them.
A consequence of this point of view is that intuitionistic logic has no interpretation as a two-valued logic, nor even
as a nite-valued logic, in the familiar sense. Although intuitionistic logic retains the trivial propositions {, }
from classical logic, each proof of a propositional formula is considered a valid propositional value, thus by Heytings
notion of propositions-as-sets, propositional formulae are (potentially non-nite) sets of their proofs.
9.3.1 Heyting algebra semantics

In classical logic, we often discuss the truth values that a formula can take. The values are usually chosen as the
members of a Boolean algebra. The meet and join operations in the Boolean algebra are identied with the and
logical connectives, so that the value of a formula of the form A B is the meet of the value of A and the value of B
in the Boolean algebra. Then we have the useful theorem that a formula is a valid proposition of classical logic if and
only if its value is 1 for every valuationthat is, for any assignment of values to its variables.
A corresponding theorem is true for intuitionistic logic, but instead of assigning each formula a value from a Boolean
algebra, one uses values from an Heyting algebra, of which Boolean algebras are a special case. A formula is valid in
intuitionistic logic if and only if it receives the value of the top element for any valuation on any Heyting algebra.
It can be shown that to recognize valid formulas, it is sucient to consider a single Heyting algebra whose elements
are the open subsets of the real line R.[7] In this algebra we have:
Value[] =
Value[] = R
Value[A B] = Value[A] Value[B]
Value[A B] = Value[A] Value[B]
( )
Value[A B] = int Value[A]C Value[B]
where int(X) is the interior of X and XC its complement.
The last identity concerning A B allows us to calculate the value of A:
Value[A] = Value[A ]
( )
= int Value[A]C Value[]
( )
= int Value[A]C
( )
= int Value[A]C
With these assignments, intuitionistically valid formulas are precisely those that are assigned the value of the entire
line.[7] For example, the formula (A A) is valid, because no matter what set X is chosen as the value of the
formula A, the value of (A A) can be shown to be the entire line:
( ) ( )
Value[(A A)] = int Value[A A]C Value[B] = int Value[B]C
( )
C
= int (Value[A] Value[A])
(( ( ))C )
= int Value[A] int Value[A]C
(( ( ))C )
= int X int X C
( ) ( )
= int C int X C X C
= int(R)
=R
So the valuation of this formula is true, and indeed the formula is valid. But the law of the excluded middle, A A,
can be shown to be invalid by using a specic value of the set of positive real numbers for A:
Value[A A] = Value[A] Value[A]

( ) ( )
= Value[A] int Value[A]C Value[B] = int Value[B]C
( )
= {x > 0} int {x > 0}C
= {x > 0} int ({x 0})
= {x > 0} {x < 0}
= {x = 0}
= R
The interpretation of any intuitionistically valid formula in the innite Heyting algebra described above results in
the top element, representing true, as the valuation of the formula, regardless of what values from the algebra are
assigned to the variables of the formula.[7] Conversely, for every invalid formula, there is an assignment of values to
the variables that yields a valuation that diers from the top element.[8][9] No nite Heyting algebra has both these
properties.[7]
9.3.2 Kripke semantics

Main article: Kripke semantics
Building upon his work on semantics of modal logic, Saul Kripke created another semantics for intuitionistic logic,
known as Kripke semantics or relational semantics.[10]
9.3.3 Tarski-like semantics

It was discovered that Tarski-like semantics for intuitionistic logic were not possible to prove complete. However,
Robert Constable has shown that a weaker notion of completeness still holds for intuitionistic logic under a Tarski-like
model. In this notion of completeness we are concerned not with all of the statements that are true of every model,
but with the statements that are true in the same way in every model. That is, a single proof that the model judges a
formula to be true must be valid for every model. In this case, there is not only a proof of completeness, but one that
is valid according to intuitionistic logic.[11]
9.3.4 Relation to other logics

Intuitionistic logic is related by duality to a paraconsistent logic known as Brazilian, anti-intuitionistic or dual-intuitionistic
logic.[12]
The subsystem of intuitionistic logic with the FALSE axiom removed is known as minimal logic.
9.4. SEE ALSO 49
Relation to many-valued logic
Kurt Gdel in 1932 showed that intuitionistic logic is not a nitely-many valued logic. (See the section titled Heyting
algebra semantics above for a sort of innitely-many valued logic interpretation of intuitionistic logic.)
Relation to intermediate logics
Any nite Heyting algebra which is not equivalent to a Boolean algebra denes (semantically) an intermediate logic.
On the other hand, validity of formulae in pure intuitionistic logic is not tied to any individual Heyting algebra but
relates to any and all Heyting algebras at the same time.
Relation to modal logic
Any formula of the intuitionistic propositional logic may be translated into the normal modal logic S4 as follows:
=
A = A ifAliteral) positive (a prime is
(A B) = A B
(A B) = A B
(A B) = (A B )
(A) = ((A )) A := A
and it has been demonstrated[13] that the translated formula is valid in the propositional modal logic S4 if and only
if the pre-translated formula is valid in IPC. The above set of formulae are called the GdelMcKinseyTarski
translation.
There is also an intuitionistic version of modal logic S4 called Constructive Modal Logic CS4.[14]
9.3.5 Lambda calculus
There is an extended CurryHoward isomorphism between IPC and simply-typed lambda calculus.[14]
9.4 See also
BHK interpretation
Intuitionistic type theory
Intermediate logics
Linear logic
Constructive proof
CurryHoward correspondence
Computability logic
Game semantics
Smooth innitesimal analysis

9.5 Notes
[1] Shehtman, V., Modal Counterparts of Medvedev Logic of Finite Problems Are Not Finitely Axiomatizable, in Studia
Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, vol. 49, no. 3 (1990), pp. 365-385.
[2] G. Japaridze. "In the beginning was game semantics". In: Games: Unifying Logic, Language and Philosophy. O. Majer,
A.-V. Pietarinen and T. Tulenheimo, eds. Springer 2009, pp.249-350. Preprint
[3] van Heijenoort: Hilbert (1927), p.476
[4] Proof Theory by G. Takeuti, ISBN 0-444-10492-5
[5] Alexander Chagrov, Michael Zakharyaschev, Modal Logic, vol. 35 of Oxford Logic Guides, Oxford University Press,
1997, pp. 5859. ISBN 0-19-853779-4.
[6] Proof that intuitionistic logic has no third truth value, Glivenko 1928
[7] Srensen, Morten Heine B; Pawe Urzyczyn (2006). Lectures on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism. Studies in Logic and the
Foundations of Mathematics. Elsevier. p. 42. ISBN 0-444-52077-5.
[8] Alfred Tarski, Der Aussagenkalkl und die Topologie, Fundamenta Mathematicae 31 (1938), 103134.
[9] Rasiowa, Helena; Roman Sikorski (1963). The Mathematics of Metamathematics. Monograe matematyczne. Warsaw:
Pastwowe Wydawn. Naukowe. pp. 385386.
[10] Intuitionistic Logic. Written by Joan Moschovakis. Published in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
[11] Constable, R.; Bickford, M. Intuitionistic completeness of rst-order logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic. arXiv:1110.1614
. doi:10.1016/j.apal.2013.07.009.
[12] Aoyama, Hiroshi (2004). LK, LJ, Dual Intuitionistic Logic, and Quantum Logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic.
45 (4): 193213. doi:10.1305/ndj/1099238445.
[13] Lvy, Michel (2011). Logique modale propositionnelle S4 et logique intuitioniste propositionnelle, pp. 45.
[14] Natasha Alechina, Michael Mendler, Valeria de Paiva, and Eike Ritter. Categorical and Kripke Semantics for Constructive
S4 Modal Logic
9.6 References
van Dalen, Dirk, 2001, Intuitionistic Logic, in Goble, Lou, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic.
Blackwell.
Morten H. Srensen, Pawe Urzyczyn, 2006, Lectures on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism (chapter 2: Intu-
itionistic Logic). Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics vol. 149, Elsevier.
W. A. Carnielli (with A. B.M. Brunner).Anti-intuitionism and paraconsistency. Journal of Applied Logic

Volume 3, Issue 1, Mar 2005, pp. 161184.
9.7 External links

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Intuitionistic Logic"by Joan Moschovakis.
Intuitionistic Logic by Nick Bezhanishvili and Dick de Jongh (from the Institute for Logic, Language and
Computation at the University of Amsterdam)
Semantical Analysis of Intuitionistic Logic I by Saul A. Kripke from Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.,
USA
Intuitionistic Logic by Dirk van Dalen
The discovery of E.W. Beths semantics for intuitionistic logic by A.S. Troelstra and P. van Ulsen
Expressing Database Queries with Intuitionistic Logic (FTP one-click download) by Anthony J. Bonner. L.
Thorne McCarty. Kumar Vadaparty. Rutgers University, Department of Computer Science.
Tableaux'method for intuitionistic logic through S4-translation tests the intuitionistic validity of propositional
formulae; provided by the Laboratoire d'Informatique de Grenoble.
Chapter 10
Lambda calculus
Lambda calculus (also written as -calculus) is a formal system in mathematical logic for expressing computation
based on function abstraction and application using variable binding and substitution. It is a universal model of
computation that can be used to simulate any single-taped Turing machine and was rst introduced by mathematician
Alonzo Church in the 1930s as part of his research of the foundations of mathematics.
Lambda calculus consists of constructing lambda terms and performing reduction operations on them. In the simplest
form of lambda calculus, terms are built using only the following rules:
producing expressions such as: (x.y.(z.(x.z x) (y.z y)) (x y)). Parentheses can be dropped if the expression is
unambiguous. For some applications, terms for logical and mathematical constants and operations may be included.
The reduction operations include:
If repeated application of the reduction steps eventually terminates then by the Church-Rosser theorem it will produce
a beta normal form.
10.1 Explanation and applications

Lambda calculus is Turing complete, that is, it is a universal model of computation that can be used to simulate
any single-taped Turing machine.[1] Its namesake, the Greek letter lambda (), is used in lambda expressions and
lambda terms to denote binding a variable in a function.
Lambda calculus may be untyped or typed. In typed lambda calculus, functions can be applied only if they are capable
of accepting the given inputs type of data. Typed lambda calculi are weaker than the untyped lambda calculus that
is the primary subject of this article, in the sense that typed lambda calculi can express less than the untyped calculus
can, but on the other hand typed lambda calculi allow more things to be proved; in the simply typed lambda calculus
it is for example a theorem that every evaluation strategy terminates for every simply typed lambda-term, whereas
evaluation of untyped lambda-terms need not terminate. One reason there are many dierent typed lambda calculi
has been the desire to do more (of what the untyped calculus can do) without giving up on being able to prove strong
theorems about the calculus.
Lambda calculus has applications in many dierent areas in mathematics, philosophy,[2] linguistics,[3][4] and computer
science.[5] Lambda calculus has played an important role in the development of the theory of programming languages.
Functional programming languages implement the lambda calculus. Lambda calculus also is a current research topic
in Category theory.[6]
10.2 History
The lambda calculus was introduced by mathematician Alonzo Church in the 1930s as part of an investigation into the
foundations of mathematics.[7][8] The original system was shown to be logically inconsistent in 1935 when Stephen
Kleene and J. B. Rosser developed the KleeneRosser paradox.[9][10]
Subsequently, in 1936 Church isolated and published just the portion relevant to computation, what is now called the
52
10.3. INFORMAL DESCRIPTION 53
untyped lambda calculus.[11] In 1940, he also introduced a computationally weaker, but logically consistent system,
known as the simply typed lambda calculus.[12]
Until the 1960s when its relation to programming languages was claried, the -calculus was only a formalism. Thanks
to Richard Montague and other linguists applications in the semantics of natural language, the -calculus has begun
to enjoy a respectable place in linguistics[13] and computer science, too.[14]
10.3 Informal description
10.3.1 Motivation
Computable functions are a fundamental concept within computer science and mathematics. The -calculus provides
a simple semantics for computation, enabling properties of computation to be studied formally. The -calculus
incorporates two simplications that make this semantics simple. The rst simplication is that the -calculus treats
functions anonymously, without giving them explicit names. For example, the function
square_sum(x, y) = x2 + y 2
can be rewritten in anonymous form as
(x, y) 7 x2 + y 2
(read as a tuple of x and y is mapped to x2 + y 2 "). Similarly,
id(x) = x
can be rewritten in anonymous form as
x 7 x
where the input is simply mapped to itself.

The second simplication is that the -calculus only uses functions of a single input. An ordinary function that requires
two inputs, for instance the square_sum function, can be reworked into an equivalent function that accepts a single
input, and as output returns another function, that in turn accepts a single input. For example,
(x, y) 7 x2 + y 2
can be reworked into
x 7 (y 7 x2 + y 2 )
This method, known as currying, transforms a function that takes multiple arguments into a chain of functions each
with a single argument.
Function application of the square_sum function to the arguments (5, 2), yields at once
((x, y) 7 x2 + y 2 )(5, 2)
= 52 + 22
= 29
54 CHAPTER 10. LAMBDA CALCULUS
whereas evaluation of the curried version requires one more step
((x 7 (y 7 x2 + y 2 ))(5))(2)
= (y 7 52 + y 2 )(2)
= 52 + 22
= 29
to arrive at the same result.
10.3.2 The lambda calculus
The lambda calculus consists of a language of lambda terms, which is dened by a certain formal syntax, and a set
of transformation rules, which allow manipulation of the lambda terms. These transformation rules can be viewed as
an equational theory or as an operational denition.
As described above, all functions in the lambda calculus are anonymous functions, having no names. They only accept
one input variable, with currying used to implement functions with several variables.
Lambda terms
The syntax of the lambda calculus denes some expressions as valid lambda calculus expressions and some as invalid,
just as some strings of characters are valid C programs and some are not. A valid lambda calculus expression is called
a lambda term.
The following three rules give an inductive denition that can be applied to build all syntactically valid lambda terms:
a variable, x , is itself a valid lambda term
if t is a lambda term, and x is a variable, then (x.t) is a lambda term (called a lambda abstraction);
if t and s are lambda terms, then (ts) is a lambda term (called an application).
Nothing else is a lambda term. Thus a lambda term is valid if and only if it can be obtained by repeated application of
these three rules. However, some parentheses can be omitted according to certain rules. For example, the outermost
parentheses are usually not written. See Notation, below.
A lambda abstraction x.t is a denition of an anonymous function that is capable of taking a single input x and
substituting it into the expression t . It thus denes an anonymous function that takes x and returns t . For example,
x.x2 + 2 is a lambda abstraction for the function f (x) = x2 + 2 using the term x2 + 2 for t . The denition of
a function with a lambda abstraction merely sets up the function but does not invoke it. The abstraction binds the
variable x in the term t .
An application ts represents the application of a function t to an input s , that is, it represents the act of calling
function t on input s to produce t(s) .
There is no concept in lambda calculus of variable declaration. In a denition such as x.x + y (i.e. f (x) = x + y
), the lambda calculus treats y as a variable that is not yet dened. The lambda abstraction x.x + y is syntactically
valid, and represents a function that adds its input to the yet-unknown y .
Bracketing may be used and may be needed to disambiguate terms. For example, x.((x.x)x) and (x.(x.x))x
denote dierent terms (although they coincidentally reduce to the same value). Here the rst example denes a
function that denes a function and returns the result of applying x to the child-function (apply function then return),
while the second example denes a function that returns a function for any input and then returns it on application of
x (return function then apply).
10.3. INFORMAL DESCRIPTION 55
Functions that operate on functions
In lambda calculus, functions are taken to be 'rst class values', so functions may be used as the inputs, or be returned
as outputs from other functions.
For example, x.x represents the identity function, x 7 x , and (x.x)y represents the identity function applied to
y . Further, (x.y) represents the constant function x 7 y , the function that always returns y , no matter the input.
In lambda calculus, function application is regarded as left-associative, so that stx means (st)x .
There are several notions of equivalence and reduction that allow lambda terms to be reduced to equivalent
lambda terms.
Alpha equivalence
A basic form of equivalence, denable on lambda terms, is alpha equivalence. It captures the intuition that the
particular choice of a bound variable, in a lambda abstraction, does not (usually) matter. For instance, x.x and y.y
are alpha-equivalent lambda terms, and they both represent the same function (the identity function). The terms x
and y are not alpha-equivalent, because they are not bound in a lambda abstraction. In many presentations, it is usual
to identify alpha-equivalent lambda terms.
The following denitions are necessary in order to be able to dene beta reduction:
Free variables
The free variables of a term are those variables not bound by a lambda abstraction. The set of free variables of an
expression is dened inductively:
The free variables of x are just x
The set of free variables of x.t is the set of free variables of t , but with x removed
The set of free variables of ts is the union of the set of free variables of t and the set of free variables of s .
For example, the lambda term representing the identity x.x has no free variables, but the function x.yx has a
single free variable, y .
Capture-avoiding substitutions
Suppose t , s and r are lambda terms and x and y are variables. The notation t[x := r] indicates substitution of r for
x in t in a capture-avoiding manner. This is dened so that:
x[x := r] = r ;
y[x := r] = y if x = y ;
(ts)[x := r] = (t[x := r])(s[x := r]) ;
(x.t)[x := r] = x.t ;
(y.t)[x := r] = y.(t[x := r]) if x = y and y is not in the free variables of r . The variable y is said to be
fresh for r .
For example, (x.x)[y := y] = x.(x[y := y]) = x.x , and ((x.y)x)[x := y] = ((x.y)[x := y])(x[x :=
y]) = (x.y)y .
The freshness condition (requiring that y is not in the free variables of r ) is crucial in order to ensure that substitution
does not change the meaning of functions. For example, a substitution is made that ignores the freshness condition:
(x.y)[y := x] = x.(y[y := x]) = x.x . This substitution turns the constant function x.y into the identity x.x
by substitution.
In general, failure to meet the freshness condition can be remedied by alpha-renaming with a suitable fresh variable.
For example, switching back to our correct notion of substitution, in (x.y)[y := x] the lambda abstraction can be
renamed with a fresh variable z , to obtain (z.y)[y := x] = z.(y[y := x]) = z.x , and the meaning of the
function is preserved by substitution.
Beta reduction
The beta reduction rule states that an application of the form (x.t)s reduces to the term t[x := s] . The notation
(x.t)s t[x := s] is used to indicate that (x.t)s beta reduces to t[x := s] . For example, for every s ,
(x.x)s x[x := s] = s . This demonstrates that x.x really is the identity. Similarly, (x.y)s y[x := s] = y
, which demonstrates that x.y is a constant function.
The lambda calculus may be seen as an idealised version of a functional programming language, like Haskell or
Standard ML. Under this view, beta reduction corresponds to a computational step. This step can be repeated by
additional beta conversions until there are no more applications left to reduce. In the untyped lambda calculus, as
presented here, this reduction process may not terminate. For instance, consider the term = (x.xx)(x.xx) .
Here (x.xx)(x.xx) (xx)[x := x.xx] = (x[x := x.xx])(x[x := x.xx]) = (x.xx)(x.xx) . That is,
the term reduces to itself in a single beta reduction, and therefore the reduction process will never terminate.
Another aspect of the untyped lambda calculus is that it does not distinguish between dierent kinds of data. For
instance, it may be desirable to write a function that only operates on numbers. However, in the untyped lambda
calculus, there is no way to prevent a function from being applied to truth values, strings, or other non-number
objects.
10.4 Formal denition

Main article: Lambda calculus denition
10.4.1 Denition
Lambda expressions are composed of:
variables v1 , v2 , ..., v , ...

the abstraction symbols lambda '' and dot '.'
parentheses ( )
The set of lambda expressions, , can be dened inductively:
1. If x is a variable, then x
2. If x is a variable and M , then (x.M)
3. If M, N , then (M N)
Instances of rule 2 are known as abstractions and instances of rule 3 are known as applications.[15]
10.4.2 Notation
To keep the notation of lambda expressions uncluttered, the following conventions are usually applied:
Outermost parentheses are dropped: M N instead of (M N)

Applications are assumed to be left associative: M N P may be written instead of ((M N) P)[16]
The body of an abstraction extends as far right as possible: x.M N means x.(M N) and not (x.M) N
A sequence of abstractions is contracted: x.y.z.N is abbreviated as xyz.N[17][16]
10.5. REDUCTION 57
10.4.3 Free and bound variables
The abstraction operator, , is said to bind its variable wherever it occurs in the body of the abstraction. Variables
that fall within the scope of an abstraction are said to be bound. All other variables are called free. For example,
in the following expression y is a bound variable and x is free: y.x x y. Also note that a variable is bound by its
nearest abstraction. In the following example the single occurrence of x in the expression is bound by the second
lambda: x.y (x.z x)
The set of free variables of a lambda expression, M, is denoted as FV(M) and is dened by recursion on the structure
of the terms, as follows:
1. FV(x) = {x}, where x is a variable
2. FV(x.M) = FV(M) \ {x}
3. FV(M N) = FV(M) FV(N)[18]
An expression that contains no free variables is said to be closed. Closed lambda expressions are also known as
combinators and are equivalent to terms in combinatory logic.
10.5 Reduction
The meaning of lambda expressions is dened by how expressions can be reduced.[19]
There are three kinds of reduction:
-conversion: changing bound variables (alpha);
-reduction: applying functions to their arguments (beta);
-conversion: which captures a notion of extensionality (eta).
We also speak of the resulting equivalences: two expressions are -equivalent, if they can be -converted into the
same expression, and /-equivalence are dened similarly.
The term redex, short for reducible expression, refers to subterms that can be reduced by one of the reduction rules.
For example, (x.M) N is a beta-redex in expressing the substitution of N for x in M; if x is not free in M, x.M x
is also an eta-redex. The expression to which a redex reduces is called its reduct; using the previous example, the
reducts of these expressions are respectively M[x:=N] and M.
10.5.1 -conversion
Alpha-conversion, sometimes known as alpha-renaming,[20] allows bound variable names to be changed. For exam-
ple, alpha-conversion of x.x might yield y.y. Terms that dier only by alpha-conversion are called -equivalent.
Frequently, in uses of lambda calculus, -equivalent terms are considered to be equivalent.
The precise rules for alpha-conversion are not completely trivial. First, when alpha-converting an abstraction, the
only variable occurrences that are renamed are those that are bound to the same abstraction. For example, an alpha-
conversion of x.x.x could result in y.x.x, but it could not result in y.x.y. The latter has a dierent meaning from
the original.
Second, alpha-conversion is not possible if it would result in a variable getting captured by a dierent abstraction.
For example, if we replace x with y in x.y.x, we get y.y.y, which is not at all the same.
In programming languages with static scope, alpha-conversion can be used to make name resolution simpler by
ensuring that no variable name masks a name in a containing scope (see alpha renaming to make name resolution
trivial).
In the De Bruijn index notation, any two alpha-equivalent terms are syntactically identical.
Substitution
Substitution, written E[V := R], is the process of replacing all free occurrences of the variable V in the expression E
with expression R. Substitution on terms of the -calculus is dened by recursion on the structure of terms, as follows
(note: x and y are only variables while M and N are any expression).
x[x := N] N y[x := N] y, if x y (M1 M2 )[x := N] (M1 [x := N]) (M2 [x := N]) (x.M)[x := N] x.M (y.M)[x
:= N] y.(M[x := N]), if x y, provided y FV(N)
To substitute into a lambda abstraction, it is sometimes necessary to -convert the expression. For example, it is not
correct for (x.y)[y := x] to result in (x.x), because the substituted x was supposed to be free but ended up being
bound. The correct substitution in this case is (z.x), up to -equivalence. Notice that substitution is dened uniquely
up to -equivalence.
10.5.2 -reduction
Beta-reduction captures the idea of function application. Beta-reduction is dened in terms of substitution: the beta-
reduction of ((V.E) E ) is E[V := E ].
For example, assuming some encoding of 2, 7, , we have the following -reduction: ((n.n2) 7) 72.
10.5.3 -conversion
Eta-conversion expresses the idea of extensionality, which in this context is that two functions are the same if and
only if they give the same result for all arguments. Eta-conversion converts between x.(f x) and f whenever x does
not appear free in f.
10.6 Normal forms and conuence

Main article: Normalization property (abstract rewriting)
For the untyped lambda calculus, -reduction as a rewriting rule is neither strongly normalising nor weakly normal-
ising.
However, it can be shown that -reduction is conuent. (Of course, we are working up to -conversion, i.e. we
consider two normal forms to be equal, if it is possible to -convert one into the other.)
Therefore, both strongly normalising terms and weakly normalising terms have a unique normal form. For strongly
normalising terms, any reduction strategy is guaranteed to yield the normal form, whereas for weakly normalising
terms, some reduction strategies may fail to nd it.
10.7 Encoding datatypes

Main articles: Church encoding and MogensenScott encoding
The basic lambda calculus may be used to model booleans, arithmetic, data structures and recursion, as illustrated in
the following sub-sections.
10.7.1 Arithmetic in lambda calculus

There are several possible ways to dene the natural numbers in lambda calculus, but by far the most common are
the Church numerals, which can be dened as follows:
0 := f.x.x
1 := f.x.f x
10.7. ENCODING DATATYPES 59
2 := f.x.f (f x)
3 := f.x.f (f (f x))
and so on. Or using the alternative syntax presented above in Notation:
0 := fx.x
1 := fx.f x
2 := fx.f (f x)
3 := fx.f (f (f x))
A Church numeral is a higher-order functionit takes a single-argument function f, and returns another single-
argument function. The Church numeral n is a function that takes a function f as argument and returns the n-th
composition of f, i.e. the function f composed with itself n times. This is denoted f (n) and is in fact the n-th power
of f (considered as an operator); f (0) is dened to be the identity function. Such repeated compositions (of a single
function f) obey the laws of exponents, which is why these numerals can be used for arithmetic. (In Churchs original
lambda calculus, the formal parameter of a lambda expression was required to occur at least once in the function
body, which made the above denition of 0 impossible.)
One way of thinking about the Church numeral n, which is often useful when analysing programs, is as an instruction
'repeat n times. For example, using the PAIR and NIL functions dened below, one can dene a function that
constructs a (linked) list of n elements all equal to x by repeating 'prepend another x element' n times, starting from
an empty list. The lambda term is
n.x.n (PAIR x) NIL
By varying what is being repeated, and varying what argument that function being repeated is applied to, a great many
dierent eects can be achieved.
We can dene a successor function, which takes a Church numeral n and returns n + 1 by adding another application
of f, where '(mf)x' means the function 'f' is applied 'm' times on 'x':
SUCC := n.f.x.f (n f x)
Because the m-th composition of f composed with the n-th composition of f gives the m+n-th composition of f,
addition can be dened as follows:
PLUS := m.n.f.x.m f (n f x)
PLUS can be thought of as a function taking two natural numbers as arguments and returning a natural number; it
can be veried that
PLUS 2 3
and
are -equivalent lambda expressions. Since adding m to a number n can be accomplished by adding 1 m times, an
alternative denition is:
PLUS := m.n.m SUCC n [21]
Similarly, multiplication can be dened as
MULT := m.n.f.m (n f)[17]

Alternatively
MULT := m.n.m (PLUS n) 0
since multiplying m and n is the same as repeating the add n function m times and then applying it to zero. Exponen-
tiation has a rather simple rendering in Church numerals, namely
POW := b.e.e b
The predecessor function dened by PRED n = n 1 for a positive integer n and PRED 0 = 0 is considerably more
dicult. The formula
PRED := n.f.x.n (g.h.h (g f)) (u.x) (u.u)
can be validated by showing inductively that if T denotes (g.h.h (g f)), then T(n) (u.x) = (h.h(f (n1) (x))) for n
> 0. Two other denitions of PRED are given below, one using conditionals and the other using pairs. With the
predecessor function, subtraction is straightforward. Dening
SUB := m.n.n PRED m,
SUB m n yields m n when m > n and 0 otherwise.
10.7.2 Logic and predicates

By convention, the following two denitions (known as Church booleans) are used for the boolean values TRUE and
FALSE:
TRUE := x.y.x
FALSE := x.y.y
(Note that FALSE is equivalent to the Church numeral zero dened above)
Then, with these two -terms, we can dene some logic operators (these are just possible formulations; other expres-
sions are equally correct):
AND := p.q.p q p
OR := p.q.p p q
NOT := p.p FALSE TRUE
IFTHENELSE := p.a.b.p a b
We are now able to compute some logic functions, for example:
AND TRUE FALSE
(p.q.p q p) TRUE FALSE TRUE FALSE TRUE

(x.y.x) FALSE TRUE FALSE
and we see that AND TRUE FALSE is equivalent to FALSE.

A predicate is a function that returns a boolean value. The most fundamental predicate is ISZERO, which returns
TRUE if its argument is the Church numeral 0, and FALSE if its argument is any other Church numeral:
ISZERO := n.n (x.FALSE) TRUE

10.8. ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING TECHNIQUES 61
The following predicate tests whether the rst argument is less-than-or-equal-to the second:
LEQ := m.n.ISZERO (SUB m n),
and since m = n, if LEQ m n and LEQ n m, it is straightforward to build a predicate for numerical equality.
The availability of predicates and the above denition of TRUE and FALSE make it convenient to write if-then-else
expressions in lambda calculus. For example, the predecessor function can be dened as:
PRED := n.n (g.k.ISZERO (g 1) k (PLUS (g k) 1)) (v.0) 0
which can be veried by showing inductively that n (g.k.ISZERO (g 1) k (PLUS (g k) 1)) (v.0) is the add n 1
function for n > 0.
10.7.3 Pairs
A pair (2-tuple) can be dened in terms of TRUE and FALSE, by using the Church encoding for pairs. For example,
PAIR encapsulates the pair (x,y), FIRST returns the rst element of the pair, and SECOND returns the second.
PAIR := x.y.f.f x y
FIRST := p.p TRUE
SECOND := p.p FALSE
NIL := x.TRUE
NULL := p.p (x.y.FALSE)
A linked list can be dened as either NIL for the empty list, or the PAIR of an element and a smaller list. The predicate
NULL tests for the value NIL. (Alternatively, with NIL := FALSE, the construct l (h.t.z.deal_with_head_h_and_tail_t)
(deal_with_nil) obviates the need for an explicit NULL test).
As an example of the use of pairs, the shift-and-increment function that maps (m, n) to (n, n + 1) can be dened as
:= x.PAIR (SECOND x) (SUCC (SECOND x))
which allows us to give perhaps the most transparent version of the predecessor function:
PRED := n.FIRST (n (PAIR 0 0)).
10.8 Additional programming techniques

There is a considerable body of programming idioms for lambda calculus. Many of these were originally developed in
the context of using lambda calculus as a foundation for programming language semantics, eectively using lambda
calculus as a low-level programming language. Because several programming languages include the lambda calculus
(or something very similar) as a fragment, these techniques also see use in practical programming, but may then be
perceived as obscure or foreign.
10.8.1 Named constants

In lambda calculus, a library (computing) would take the form of a collection of previously dened functions, which as
lambda-terms are merely particular constants. The pure lambda calculus does not have a concept of named constants
since all atomic lambda-terms are variables, but one can emulate having named constants by setting aside a variable
as the name of the constant, using lambda-abstraction to bind that variable in the main body, and apply that lambda-
abstraction to the intended denition. Thus to use f to mean M (some explicit lambda-term) in N (another lambda-
term, the main program), one can say
(f.N) M
Authors often introduce syntactic sugar, such as let, to permit writing the above in the more intuitive order
let f = M in N
By chaining such denitions, one can write a lambda calculus program as zero or more function denitions, followed
by one lambda-term using those functions that constitutes the main body of the program.
A notable restriction of this let is that the name f is not dened in M, since M is outside the scope of the lambda-
abstraction binding f; this means a recursive function denition cannot be used as the M with let. The more advanced
letrec syntactic sugar construction that allows writing recursive function denitions in that naive style instead addi-
tionally employs xed-point combinators.
10.8.2 Recursion and xed points

Main article: Fixed-point combinator
See also: SKI combinator calculus Self-application_and_recursion
Recursion is the denition of a function using the function itself. Lambda calculus cannot express this as directly as
some other notations: all functions are anonymous in lambda calculus, so we can't refer to a value which is yet to be
dened, inside the lambda term dening that same value. However, recursion can still be achieved by arranging for
a lambda expression to receive itself as its argument value, for example in (x.x x) E.
Consider the factorial function F(n) recursively dened by
F(n) = 1, if n = 0; else n F(n 1).
In the lambda expression which is to represent this function, a parameter (typically the rst one) will be assumed
to receive the lambda expression itself as its value, so that calling it applying it to an argument will amount to
recursion. Thus to achieve recursion, the intended-as-self-referencing argument (called r here) must always be passed
to itself within the function body, at a call point:
G := r. n.(1, if n = 0; else n (r r (n1)))

with r r x = F x = G r x to hold, so r = G and
F := G G = (x.x x) G
The self-application achieves replication here, passing the functions lambda expression on to the next invocation as
an argument value, making it available to be referenced and called there.
This solves it but requires re-writing each recursive call as self-application. We would like to have a generic solution,
without a need for any re-writes:
G := r. n.(1, if n = 0; else n (r (n1)))

with r x = F x = G r x to hold, so r = G r =: FIX G and
F := FIX G where FIX g := (r where r = g r) = g (FIX g)
so that FIX G = G (FIX G) = (n.(1, if n = 0; else n ((FIX G) (n1))))
Given a lambda term with rst argument representing recursive call (e.g. G here), the xed-point combinator FIX
will return a self-replicating lambda expression representing the recursive function (here, F). The function does not
need to be explicitly passed to itself at any point, for the self-replication is arranged in advance, when it is created, to
be done each time it is called. Thus the original lambda expression (FIX G) is re-created inside itself, at call-point,
achieving self-reference.
In fact, there are many possible denitions for this FIX operator, the simplest of them being:
10.8. ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING TECHNIQUES 63
Y := g.(x.g (x x)) (x.g (x x))
In the lambda calculus, Y g is a xed-point of g, as it expands to:
Yg
(h.(x.h (x x)) (x.h (x x))) g
(x.g (x x)) (x.g (x x))
g ((x.g (x x)) (x.g (x x)))
g (Y g)
Now, to perform our recursive call to the factorial function, we would simply call (Y G) n, where n is the number we
are calculating the factorial of. Given n = 4, for example, this gives:
(Y G) 4
G (Y G) 4
(r.n.(1, if n = 0; else n (r (n1)))) (Y G) 4
(n.(1, if n = 0; else n ((Y G) (n1)))) 4
1, if 4 = 0; else 4 ((Y G) (41))
4 (G (Y G) (41))
4 ((n.(1, if n = 0; else n ((Y G) (n1)))) (41))
4 (1, if 3 = 0; else 3 ((Y G) (31)))
4 (3 (G (Y G) (31)))
4 (3 ((n.(1, if n = 0; else n ((Y G) (n1)))) (31)))
4 (3 (1, if 2 = 0; else 2 ((Y G) (21))))
4 (3 (2 (G (Y G) (21))))
4 (3 (2 ((n.(1, if n = 0; else n ((Y G) (n1)))) (21))))
4 (3 (2 (1, if 1 = 0; else 1 ((Y G) (11)))))
4 (3 (2 (1 (G (Y G) (11)))))
4 (3 (2 (1 ((n.(1, if n = 0; else n ((Y G) (n1)))) (11)))))
4 (3 (2 (1 (1, if 0 = 0; else 0 ((Y G) (01))))))
4 (3 (2 (1 (1))))
24
Every recursively dened function can be seen as a xed point of some suitably dened function closing over the
recursive call with an extra argument, and therefore, using Y, every recursively dened function can be expressed as a
lambda expression. In particular, we can now cleanly dene the subtraction, multiplication and comparison predicate
of natural numbers recursively.
10.8.3 Standard terms

Certain terms have commonly accepted names:
I := x.x
K := x.y.x
S := x.y.z.x z (y z)
B := x.y.z.x (y z)
C := x.y.z.x z y
W := x.y.x y y
U := x.y.y (x x y)
:= x.x x
:=
Y := g.(x.g (x x)) (x.g (x x))
Several of these have direct applications in the elimination of lambda-abstraction that turns lambda terms into
combinator calculus terms.
10.8.4 Abstraction elimination
Main article: Combinatory_logic Completeness_of_the_S-K_basis
If N is a lambda-term without lambda-abstraction, but possibly containing named constants (combinators), then there
exists a lambda-term T(x,N) which is equivalent to x.N but lacks lambda-abstraction (except as part of the named
constants, if these are considered non-atomic). This can also be viewed as anonymising variables, as T(x,N) removes
all occurrences of x from N, while still allowing argument values to be substituted into the positions where N contains
an x. The conversion function T can be dened by:
T(x, x) := I
T(x, N) := K N if x is not free in N.
T(x, M N) := S T(x, M) T(x, N)
In either case, a term of the form T(x,N) P can reduce by having the initial combinator I, K, or S grab the argument
P, just like -reduction of (x.N) P would do. I returns that argument. K throws the argument away, just like (x.N)
would do if x has no free occurrence in N. S passes the argument on to both subterms of the application, and then
applies the result of the rst to the result of the second.
The combinators B and C are similar to S, but pass the argument on to only one subterm of an application (B to the
argument subterm and C to the function subterm), thus saving a subsequent K if there is no occurrence of x in one
subterm. In comparison to B and C, the S combinator actually conates two functionalities: rearranging arguments,
and duplicating an argument so that it may be used in two places. The W combinator does only the latter, yielding
the B, C, K, W system as an alternative to SKI combinator calculus.
10.9 Typed lambda calculus

Main article: Typed lambda calculus
A typed lambda calculus is a typed formalism that uses the lambda-symbol ( ) to denote anonymous function
abstraction. In this context, types are usually objects of a syntactic nature that are assigned to lambda terms; the exact
nature of a type depends on the calculus considered (see kinds below). From a certain point of view, typed lambda
calculi can be seen as renements of the untyped lambda calculus but from another point of view, they can also be
considered the more fundamental theory and untyped lambda calculus a special case with only one type.[22]
Typed lambda calculi are foundational programming languages and are the base of typed functional programming
languages such as ML and Haskell and, more indirectly, typed imperative programming languages. Typed lambda
calculi play an important role in the design of type systems for programming languages; here typability usually captures
desirable properties of the program, e.g. the program will not cause a memory access violation.
Typed lambda calculi are closely related to mathematical logic and proof theory via the CurryHoward isomorphism
and they can be considered as the internal language of classes of categories, e.g. the simply typed lambda calculus is
the language of Cartesian closed categories (CCCs).
10.10. COMPUTABLE FUNCTIONS AND LAMBDA CALCULUS 65
10.10 Computable functions and lambda calculus

A function F: N N of natural numbers is a computable function if and only if there exists a lambda expression
f such that for every pair of x, y in N, F(x)=y if and only if f x = y, where x and y are the Church numerals
corresponding to x and y, respectively and = meaning equivalence with beta reduction. This is one of the many ways
to dene computability; see the ChurchTuring thesis for a discussion of other approaches and their equivalence.
10.11 Undecidability of equivalence

There is no algorithm that takes as input two lambda expressions and outputs TRUE or FALSE depending on whether
or not the two expressions are equivalent. This was historically the rst problem for which undecidability could be
proven. As is common for a proof of undecidability, the proof shows that no computable function can decide the
equivalence. Churchs thesis is then invoked to show that no algorithm can do so.
Churchs proof rst reduces the problem to determining whether a given lambda expression has a normal form. A
normal form is an equivalent expression that cannot be reduced any further under the rules imposed by the form. Then
he assumes that this predicate is computable, and can hence be expressed in lambda calculus. Building on earlier
work by Kleene and constructing a Gdel numbering for lambda expressions, he constructs a lambda expression e
that closely follows the proof of Gdels rst incompleteness theorem. If e is applied to its own Gdel number, a
contradiction results.
10.12 Lambda calculus and programming languages

As pointed out by Peter Landin's 1965 paper A Correspondence between ALGOL 60 and Churchs Lambda-
notation[23] , sequential procedural programming languages can be understood in terms of the lambda calculus, which
provides the basic mechanisms for procedural abstraction and procedure (subprogram) application.
10.12.1 Anonymous functions
Main article: Anonymous function
For example, in Lisp the 'square' function can be expressed as a lambda expression as follows:
(lambda (x) (* x x))
The above example is an expression that evaluates to a rst-class function. The symbol lambda creates an anonymous
function, given a list of parameter names, (x) just a single argument in this case, and an expression that is evaluated
as the body of the function, (* x x). Anonymous functions are sometimes called lambda expressions.
For example, Pascal and many other imperative languages have long supported passing subprograms as arguments
to other subprograms through the mechanism of function pointers. However, function pointers are not a sucient
condition for functions to be rst class datatypes, because a function is a rst class datatype if and only if new
instances of the function can be created at run-time. And this run-time creation of functions is supported in Smalltalk,
JavaScript, and more recently in Scala, Eiel (agents), C# (delegates) and C++11, among others.
10.12.2 Reduction strategies
For more details on this topic, see Evaluation strategy.
Whether a term is normalising or not, and how much work needs to be done in normalising it if it is, depends to a
large extent on the reduction strategy used. The distinction between reduction strategies relates to the distinction in
functional programming languages between eager evaluation and lazy evaluation.
Full beta reductions Any redex can be reduced at any time. This means essentially the lack of any particular
reduction strategywith regard to reducibility, all bets are o.
Applicative order The rightmost, innermost redex is always reduced rst. Intuitively this means a functions argu-
ments are always reduced before the function itself. Applicative order always attempts to apply functions to
normal forms, even when this is not possible.
Most programming languages (including Lisp, ML and imperative languages like C and Java) are described as
strict, meaning that functions applied to non-normalising arguments are non-normalising. This is done es-
sentially using applicative order, call by value reduction (see below), but usually called eager evaluation.
Normal order The leftmost, outermost redex is always reduced rst. That is, whenever possible the arguments are
substituted into the body of an abstraction before the arguments are reduced.
Call by name As normal order, but no reductions are performed inside abstractions. For example, x.(x.x)x is in
normal form according to this strategy, although it contains the redex (x.x)x.
Call by value Only the outermost redexes are reduced: a redex is reduced only when its right hand side has reduced
to a value (variable or lambda abstraction).
Call by need As normal order, but function applications that would duplicate terms instead name the argument,
which is then reduced only when it is needed. Called in practical contexts lazy evaluation. In implemen-
tations this name takes the form of a pointer, with the redex represented by a thunk.
Applicative order is not a normalising strategy. The usual counterexample is as follows: dene = where =
x.xx. This entire expression contains only one redex, namely the whole expression; its reduct is again . Since this
is the only available reduction, has no normal form (under any evaluation strategy). Using applicative order, the
expression KI = (x.y.x) (x.x) is reduced by rst reducing to normal form (since it is the rightmost redex),
but since has no normal form, applicative order fails to nd a normal form for KI.
In contrast, normal order is so called because it always nds a normalising reduction, if one exists. In the above
example, KI reduces under normal order to I, a normal form. A drawback is that redexes in the arguments may be
copied, resulting in duplicated computation (for example, (x.xx) ((x.x)y) reduces to ((x.x)y) ((x.x)y) using this
strategy; now there are two redexes, so full evaluation needs two more steps, but if the argument had been reduced
rst, there would now be none).
The positive tradeo of using applicative order is that it does not cause unnecessary computation, if all arguments are
used, because it never substitutes arguments containing redexes and hence never needs to copy them (which would
duplicate work). In the above example, in applicative order (x.xx) ((x.x)y) reduces rst to (x.xx)y and then to the
normal order yy, taking two steps instead of three.
Most purely functional programming languages (notably Miranda and its descendents, including Haskell), and the
proof languages of theorem provers, use lazy evaluation, which is essentially the same as call by need. This is like
normal order reduction, but call by need manages to avoid the duplication of work inherent in normal order reduction
using sharing. In the example given above, (x.xx) ((x.x)y) reduces to ((x.x)y) ((x.x)y), which has two redexes,
but in call by need they are represented using the same object rather than copied, so when one is reduced the other is
too.
10.12.3 A note about complexity

While the idea of beta reduction seems simple enough, it is not an atomic step, in that it must have a non-trivial
cost when estimating computational complexity.[24] To be precise, one must somehow nd the location of all of the
occurrences of the bound variable V in the expression E, implying a time cost, or one must keep track of these
locations in some way, implying a space cost. A nave search for the locations of V in E is O(n) in the length n of E.
This has led to the study of systems that use explicit substitution. Sinots director strings[25] oer a way of tracking
the locations of free variables in expressions.
10.12.4 Parallelism and concurrency

The ChurchRosser property of the lambda calculus means that evaluation (-reduction) can be carried out in any
order, even in parallel. This means that various nondeterministic evaluation strategies are relevant. However, the
10.13. SEMANTICS 67
lambda calculus does not oer any explicit constructs for parallelism. One can add constructs such as Futures to the
lambda calculus. Other process calculi have been developed for describing communication and concurrency.
10.13 Semantics
The fact that lambda calculus terms act as functions on other lambda calculus terms, and even on themselves, led
to questions about the semantics of the lambda calculus. Could a sensible meaning be assigned to lambda calculus
terms? The natural semantics was to nd a set D isomorphic to the function space D D, of functions on itself.
However, no nontrivial such D can exist, by cardinality constraints because the set of all functions from D to D has
greater cardinality than D, unless D is a singleton set.
In the 1970s, Dana Scott showed that, if only continuous functions were considered, a set or domain D with the
required property could be found, thus providing a model for the lambda calculus.
This work also formed the basis for the denotational semantics of programming languages.
10.14 See also

Applicative computing systems Treatment of objects in the style of the lambda calculus
Binary lambda calculus A version of lambda calculus with binary I/O, a binary encoding of terms, and a
designated universal machine.
Calculus of constructions A typed lambda calculus with types as rst-class values
Cartesian closed category A setting for lambda calculus in category theory
Categorical abstract machine A model of computation applicable to lambda calculus
Combinatory logic A notation for mathematical logic without variables
Curry-Howard isomorphism The formal correspondence between programs and proofs
Deductive lambda calculus The consideration of the problems associated with considering lambda calculus
as a Deductive system.
Domain theory Study of certain posets giving denotational semantics for lambda calculus
Evaluation strategy Rules for the evaluation of expressions in programming languages
Explicit substitution The theory of substitution, as used in -reduction
Functional programming
Harrop formula A kind of constructive logical formula such that proofs are lambda terms
Interaction nets
Kappa calculus A rst-order analogue of lambda calculus
Kleene-Rosser paradox A demonstration that some form of lambda calculus is inconsistent
Knights of the Lambda Calculus A semi-ctional organization of LISP and Scheme hackers
Krivine machine - A abstract machine to interpret call-by-name in lambda-calculus
Lambda calculus denition - Formal denition of the lambda calculus.
Lambda cube A framework for some extensions of typed lambda calculus
Lambda-mu calculus An extension of the lambda calculus for treating classical logic
Let expression An expression closely related to a lambda abstraction.

Minimalism (computing)
Rewriting Transformation of formul in formal systems
SECD machine A virtual machine designed for the lambda calculus
Simply typed lambda calculus - Version(s) with a single type constructor
SKI combinator calculus A computational system based on the S, K and I combinators
System F A typed lambda calculus with type-variables
Typed lambda calculus Lambda calculus with typed variables (and functions)
Universal Turing machine A formal computing machine that is equivalent to lambda calculus
Unlambda An esoteric functional programming language based on combinatory logic
10.15 References
[1] Turing, A. M. (December 1937). Computability and -Denability. The Journal of Symbolic Logic. 2 (4): 153163.
JSTOR 2268280. doi:10.2307/2268280.
[2] Coquand, Thierry, Type Theory, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta
(ed.).
[3] Moortgat, Michael (1988). Categorial Investigations: Logical and Linguistic Aspects of the Lambek Calculus. Foris Publi-
cations. ISBN 9789067653879.
[4] Bunt, Harry; Muskens, Reinhard, eds. (2008), Computing Meaning, Springer, ISBN 9781402059575
[5] Mitchell, John C. (2003), Concepts in Programming Languages, Cambridge University Press, p. 57, ISBN 9780521780988.
[6] Pierce, Benjamin C. Basic Category Theory for Computer Scientists. p. 53.
[7] Church, A. (1932). A set of postulates for the foundation of logic. Annals of Mathematics. Series 2. 33 (2): 346366.
JSTOR 1968337. doi:10.2307/1968337.
[8] For a full history, see Cardone and Hindleys History of Lambda-calculus and Combinatory Logic (2006).
[9] Kleene, S. C.; Rosser, J. B. (July 1935). The Inconsistency of Certain Formal Logics. The Annals of Mathematics. 36
(3): 630. doi:10.2307/1968646.
[10] Church, Alonzo (December 1942). Review of Haskell B. Curry, The Inconsistency of Certain Formal Logics". The Journal
of Symbolic Logic. 7 (4): 170171. JSTOR 2268117. doi:10.2307/2268117.
[11] Church, A. (1936). An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. American Journal of Mathematics. 58 (2):
345363. JSTOR 2371045. doi:10.2307/2371045.
[12] Church, A. (1940). A Formulation of the Simple Theory of Types. Journal of Symbolic Logic. 5 (2): 5668. JSTOR
2266170. doi:10.2307/2266170.
[13] Partee, B. B. H.; ter Meulen, A.; Wall, R. E. (1990). Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Springer. Retrieved 29 Dec
2016.
[14] Alama, Jesse The Lambda Calculus, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta
(ed.).
[15] Barendregt, Hendrik Pieter (1984), The Lambda Calculus: Its Syntax and Semantics, Studies in Logic and the Foundations
of Mathematics, 103 (Revised ed.), North Holland, Amsterdam, ISBN 0-444-87508-5, archived from the original on
2004-08-23 Corrections.
[16] Example for Rules of Associativity. Lambda-bound.com. Retrieved 2012-06-18.
[17] Selinger, Peter (2008), Lecture Notes on the Lambda Calculus (PDF), 0804 (class: cs.LO), Department of Mathematics
and Statistics, University of Ottawa, p. 9, Bibcode:2008arXiv0804.3434S, arXiv:0804.3434
[18] Barendregt, Henk; Barendsen, Erik (March 2000), Introduction to Lambda Calculus (PDF)
10.16. FURTHER READING 69
[19] de Queiroz, Ruy J. G. B. (1988). A Proof-Theoretic Account of Programming and the Role of Reduction Rules. Di-
alectica. 42 (4): 265282. doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.1988.tb00919.x.
[20] Turbak, Franklyn; Giord, David (2008), Design concepts in programming languages, MIT press, p. 251, ISBN 978-0-
262-20175-9
[21] Felleisen, Matthias; Flatt, Matthew (2006), Programming Languages and Lambda Calculi (PDF), p. 26, archived from the
original (PDF) on 2009-02-05; a note (accessed 2017) at the original location suggests that the authors consider the work
originally referenced to have been superseded by a book.
[22] Types and Programming Languages, p. 273, Benjamin C. Pierce
[23] Landin, P. J. (1965). A Correspondence between ALGOL 60 and Churchs Lambda-notation. Communications of the
ACM. 8 (2): 89101. doi:10.1145/363744.363749.
[24] Statman, R. (1979). The typed -calculus is not elementary recursive. Theoretical Computer Science. 9 (1): 7381.
doi:10.1016/0304-3975(79)90007-0.
[25] Sinot, F.-R. (2005). Director Strings Revisited: A Generic Approach to the Ecient Representation of Free Variables in
Higher-order Rewriting. Journal of Logic and Computation. 15 (2): 201218. doi:10.1093/logcom/exi010.
10.16 Further reading

Abelson, Harold & Gerald Jay Sussman. Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. The MIT Press.
ISBN 0-262-51087-1.
Hendrik Pieter Barendregt Introduction to Lambda Calculus.
Henk Barendregt, The Impact of the Lambda Calculus in Logic and Computer Science. The Bulletin of
Symbolic Logic, Volume 3, Number 2, June 1997.
Barendregt, Hendrik Pieter, The Type Free Lambda Calculus pp10911132 of Handbook of Mathematical
Logic, North-Holland (1977) ISBN 0-7204-2285-X
Cardone and Hindley, 2006. History of Lambda-calculus and Combinatory Logic. In Gabbay and Woods
(eds.), Handbook of the History of Logic, vol. 5. Elsevier.
Church, Alonzo, An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory, American Journal of Mathematics, 58
(1936), pp. 345363. This paper contains the proof that the equivalence of lambda expressions is in general
not decidable.
Alonzo Church, The Calculi of Lambda-Conversion (ISBN 978-0-691-08394-0)[1]
Kleene, Stephen, A theory of positive integers in formal logic, American Journal of Mathematics, 57 (1935),
pp. 153173 and 219244. Contains the lambda calculus denitions of several familiar functions.
Landin, Peter, A Correspondence Between ALGOL 60 and Churchs Lambda-Notation, Communications of the
ACM, vol. 8, no. 2 (1965), pages 89101. Available from the ACM site. A classic paper highlighting the
importance of lambda calculus as a basis for programming languages.
Larson, Jim, An Introduction to Lambda Calculus and Scheme. A gentle introduction for programmers.
Schalk, A. and Simmons, H. (2005) An introduction to -calculi and arithmetic with a decent selection of
exercises. Notes for a course in the Mathematical Logic MSc at Manchester University.
de Queiroz, Ruy J.G.B. (2008) On Reduction Rules, Meaning-as-Use and Proof-Theoretic Semantics. Studia
Logica, 90(2):211-247. doi:10.1007/s11225-008-9150-5. A paper giving a formal underpinning to the idea
of 'meaning-is-use' which, even if based on proofs, it is dierent from proof-theoretic semantics as in the
DummettPrawitz tradition since it takes reduction as the rules giving meaning.
Hankin, Chris, An Introduction to Lambda Calculi for Computer Scientists, ISBN 0954300653
Monographs/textbooks for graduate students:

Morten Heine Srensen, Pawe Urzyczyn, Lectures on the Curry-Howard isomorphism, Elsevier, 2006, ISBN
0-444-52077-5 is a recent monograph that covers the main topics of lambda calculus from the type-free variety,
to most typed lambda calculi, including more recent developments like pure type systems and the lambda cube.
It does not cover subtyping extensions.
Pierce, Benjamin (2002), Types and Programming Languages, MIT Press, ISBN 0-262-16209-1 covers lambda
calculi from a practical type system perspective; some topics like dependent types are only mentioned, but
subtyping is an important topic.
Some parts of this article are based on material from FOLDOC, used with permission.
10.17 External links

Graham Hutton, Lambda Calculus, a short (12 minutes) Computerphile video on the Lambda Calculus
Hazewinkel, Michiel, ed. (2001) [1994], Lambda-calculus, Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Springer Sci-
ence+Business Media B.V. / Kluwer Academic Publishers, ISBN 978-1-55608-010-4
Achim Jung, A Short Introduction to the Lambda Calculus-(PDF)

Dana Scott, A timeline of lambda calculus-(PDF)
David C. Keenan, To Dissect a Mockingbird: A Graphical Notation for the Lambda Calculus with Animated
Reduction
Ral Rojas, A Tutorial Introduction to the Lambda Calculus-(PDF)

Peter Selinger, Lecture Notes on the Lambda Calculus-(PDF)
L. Allison, Some executable -calculus examples

Georg P. Loczewski, The Lambda Calculus and A++
Bret Victor, Alligator Eggs: A Puzzle Game Based on Lambda Calculus

Lambda Calculus on Safalras Website
Lambda Calculus. PlanetMath.

LCI Lambda Interpreter a simple yet powerful pure calculus interpreter
Lambda Calculus links on Lambda-the-Ultimate

Mike Thyer, Lambda Animator, a graphical Java applet demonstrating alternative reduction strategies.
Implementing the Lambda calculus using C++ Templates

Marius Buliga, Graphic lambda calculus
Lambda Calculus as a Workow Model by Peter Kelly, Paul Coddington, and Andrew Wendelborn; mentions
graph reduction as a common means of evaluating lambda expressions and discusses the applicability of lambda
calculus for distributed computing (due to the ChurchRosser property, which enables parallel graph reduction
for lambda expressions).
Shane Steinert-Threlkeld, Lambda Calculi, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Anton Salikhmetov, Macro Lambda Calculus
[1] Frink Jr., Orrin (1944). Review: The Calculi of Lambda-Conversion by Alonzo Church (PDF). Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.
50 (3): 169172. doi:10.1090/s0002-9904-1944-08090-7.
Chapter 11
List of important publications in

mathematics
One of the oldest surviving fragments of Euclids Elements, found at Oxyrhynchus and dated to circa AD 100. The diagram
accompanies Book II, Proposition 5.[1]
This is a list of important publications in mathematics, organized by eld.

Some reasons why a particular publication might be regarded as important:
Topic creator A publication that created a new topic
Breakthrough A publication that changed scientic knowledge signicantly
Inuence A publication which has signicantly inuenced the world or has had a massive impact on the
teaching of mathematics.
Among published compilations of important publications in mathematics are Landmark writings in Western mathe-
matics 16401940 by Ivor Grattan-Guinness[2] and A Source Book in Mathematics by David Eugene Smith.[3]
71
72 CHAPTER 11. LIST OF IMPORTANT PUBLICATIONS IN MATHEMATICS
11.1 Algebra
11.1.1 Theory of equations

Baudhayana Sulba Sutra
Baudhayana (8th century BC)
Believed to have been written around the 8th century BC, this is one of the oldest mathematical texts. It laid the
foundations of Indian mathematics and was inuential in South Asia and its surrounding regions, and perhaps even
Greece. Though this was primarily a geometrical text, it also contained some important algebraic developments,
including the earliest list of Pythagorean triples discovered algebraically, geometric solutions of linear equations, the
earliest use of quadratic equations of the forms ax2 = c and ax2 + bx = c, and integral solutions of simultaneous
Diophantine equations with up to four unknowns.
The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art
The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art from the 10th2nd century BCE.
Contains the earliest description of Gaussian elimination for solving system of linear equations, it also contains method
for nding square root and cubic root.
Haidao Suanjing
Liu Hui (220-280)
Contains the application of right angle triangles for survey of depth or height of distant objects.
Sunzi Suanjing
Sunzi (5th century)
Contains the earliest description of Chinese remainder theorem.
Aryabhata
Aryabhata (499 CE)
Aryabhata introduced the method known as Modus Indorum or the method of the Indians that has become our
algebra today. This algebra came along with the Hindu Number system to Arabia and then migrated to Europe. The
text contains 33 verses covering mensuration (ketra vyvahra), arithmetic and geometric progressions, gnomon /
shadows (shanku-chhAyA), simple, quadratic, simultaneous, and indeterminate equations. It also gave the modern
standard algorithm for solving rst-order diophantine equations.
Jigu Suanjing
Jigu Suanjing (626AD)

This book by Tang dynasty mathematician Wang Xiaotong Contains the worlds earliest third order equation.
Brhmasphuasiddhnta
Brahmagupta (628 AD)
Contained rules for manipulating both negative and positive numbers, a method for computing square roots, and
general methods of solving linear and some quadratic equations. [4] [5] [6] [7]
11.1. ALGEBRA 73
Al-Kitb al-mukhtaar f hsb al-abr wa'l-muqbala
Muhammad ibn Ms al-Khwrizm (820)
The rst book on the systematic algebraic solutions of linear and quadratic equations by the Persian scholar Muhammad
ibn Ms al-Khwrizm. The book is considered to be the foundation of modern algebra and Islamic mathematics.
The word algebra itself is derived from the al-Jabr in the title of the book.[8]
11.1.2 Llvat, Siddhnta Shiromani and Bijaganita

One of the major treatises on mathematics by Bhskara II provides the solution for indeterminate equations of 1st
and 2nd order.
Yigu yanduan
Liu Yi (12th century)
Contains the earliest invention of 4th order polynomial equation.
Mathematical Treatise in Nine Sections
Qin Jiushao (1247)
This 13th century book contains the earliest complete solution of 19th century Horners method of solving high order
polynomial equations (up to 10th order). It also contains a complete solution of Chinese remainder theorem, which
predates Euler and Gauss by several centuries.
Ceyuan haijing
Li Zhi (1248)
Contains the application of high order polynomial equation in solving complex geometry problems.
Jade Mirror of the Four Unknowns
Zhu Shijie (1303)
Contains the method of establishing system of high order polynomial equations of up to four unknowns.
Ars Magna
Gerolamo Cardano (1545)
Otherwise known as The Great Art, provided the rst published methods for solving cubic and quartic equations (due
to Scipione del Ferro, Niccol Fontana Tartaglia, and Lodovico Ferrari), and exhibited the rst published calculations
involving non-real complex numbers.[9][10]
Vollstndige Anleitung zur Algebra
Leonhard Euler (1770)
Also known as Elements of Algebra, Eulers textbook on elementary algebra is one of the rst to set out algebra in
the modern form we would recognize today. The rst volume deals with determinate equations, while the second
part deals with Diophantine equations. The last section contains a proof of Fermats Last Theorem for the case n =
3, making some valid assumptions regarding Q(3) that Euler did not prove.[11]
Demonstratio nova theorematis omnem functionem algebraicam rationalem integram unius variabilis in factores
reales primi vel secundi gradus resolvi posse
Carl Friedrich Gauss (1799)
Gauss doctoral dissertation,[12] which contained a widely accepted (at the time) but incomplete proof[13] of the
fundamental theorem of algebra.
11.1.3 Abstract algebra

Group theory
Rexions sur la rsolution algbrique des quations
Joseph Louis Lagrange (1770)
The title means Reections on the algebraic solutions of equations. Made the prescient observation that the roots of
the Lagrange resolvent of a polynomial equation are tied to permutations of the roots of the original equation, laying a
more general foundation for what had previously been an ad hoc analysis and helping motivate the later development
of the theory of permutation groups, group theory, and Galois theory. The Lagrange resolvent also introduced the
discrete Fourier transform of order 3.
Articles Publis par Galois dans les Annales de Mathmatiques
Journal de Mathematiques pures et Appliques, II (1846)
Posthumous publication of the mathematical manuscripts of variste Galois by Joseph Liouville. Included are Galois
papers Mmoire sur les conditions de rsolubilit des quations par radicaux and Des quations primitives qui sont
solubles par radicaux.
Trait des substitutions et des quations algbriques
Camille Jordan (1870)
Online version: Online version

Trait des substitutions et des quations algbriques (Treatise on Substitutions and Algebraic Equations). The rst
book on group theory, giving a then-comprehensive study of permutation groups and Galois theory. In this book,
Jordan introduced the notion of a simple group and epimorphism (which he called l'isomorphisme mridrique),[14]
proved part of the JordanHlder theorem, and discussed matrix groups over nite elds as well as the Jordan normal
form.[15]
Theorie der Transformationsgruppen
Sophus Lie, Friedrich Engel (18881893).
Publication data: 3 volumes, B.G. Teubner, Verlagsgesellschaft, mbH, Leipzig, 18881893. Volume 1, Volume 2,
Volume 3.
The rst comprehensive work on transformation groups, serving as the foundation for the modern theory of Lie
groups.
Solvability of groups of odd order
Walter Feit and John Thompson (1960)
Description: Gave a complete proof of the solvability of nite groups of odd order, establishing the long-standing
Burnside conjecture that all nite non-abelian simple groups are of even order. Many of the original techniques used
in this paper were used in the eventual classication of nite simple groups.
11.2. ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY 75
Homological algebra
Homological Algebra
Henri Cartan and Samuel Eilenberg (1956)
Provided the rst fully worked out treatment of abstract homological algebra, unifying previously disparate presen-
tations of homology and cohomology for associative algebras, Lie algebras, and groups into a single theory.
Sur Quelques Points d'Algbre Homologique
Alexander Grothendieck (1957)
Revolutionized homological algebra by introducing abelian categories and providing a general framework for Cartan
and Eilenbergs notion of derived functors.
11.2 Algebraic geometry
11.2.1 Theorie der Abelschen Functionen

Bernhard Riemann (1857)
Publication data: Journal fr die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik

Developed the concept of Riemann surfaces and their topological properties beyond Riemanns 1851 thesis work,
proved an index theorem for the genus (the original formulation of the RiemannHurwitz formula), proved the Rie-
mann inequality for the dimension of the space of meromorphic functions with prescribed poles (the original formu-
lation of the RiemannRoch theorem), discussed birational transformations of a given curve and the dimension of
the corresponding moduli space of inequivalent curves of a given genus, and solved more general inversion problems
than those investigated by Abel and Jacobi. Andr Weil once wrote that this paper "is one of the greatest pieces of
mathematics that has ever been written; there is not a single word in it that is not of consequence." [16]
11.2.2 Faisceaux Algbriques Cohrents

Jean-Pierre Serre
Publication data: Annals of Mathematics, 1955

FAC, as it is usually called, was foundational for the use of sheaves in algebraic geometry, extending beyond the case
of complex manifolds. Serre introduced ech cohomology of sheaves in this paper, and, despite some technical
deciencies, revolutionized formulations of algebraic geometry. For example, the long exact sequence in sheaf co-
homology allows one to show that some surjective maps of sheaves induce surjective maps on sections; specically,
these are the maps whose kernel (as a sheaf) has a vanishing rst cohomology group. The dimension of a vector space
of sections of a coherent sheaf is nite, in projective geometry, and such dimensions include many discrete invariants
of varieties, for example Hodge numbers. While Grothendiecks derived functor cohomology has replaced ech
cohomology for technical reasons, actual calculations, such as of the cohomology of projective space, are usually
carried out by ech techniques, and for this reason Serres paper remains important.
11.2.3 Gomtrie Algbrique et Gomtrie Analytique

Jean-Pierre Serre (1956)
In mathematics, algebraic geometry and analytic geometry are closely related subjects, where analytic geometry is
the theory of complex manifolds and the more general analytic spaces dened locally by the vanishing of analytic
functions of several complex variables. A (mathematical) theory of the relationship between the two was put in place
during the early part of the 1950s, as part of the business of laying the foundations of algebraic geometry to include,
for example, techniques from Hodge theory. (NB While analytic geometry as use of Cartesian coordinates is also in
a sense included in the scope of algebraic geometry, that is not the topic being discussed in this article.) The major
paper consolidating the theory was Gometrie Algbrique et Gomtrie Analytique by Serre, now usually referred to as
GAGA. A GAGA-style result would now mean any theorem of comparison, allowing passage between a category of
objects from algebraic geometry, and their morphisms, and a well-dened subcategory of analytic geometry objects
and holomorphic mappings.
11.2.4 Le thorme de RiemannRoch, d'aprs A. Grothendieck

Armand Borel, Jean-Pierre Serre (1958)
Borel and Serres exposition of Grothendiecks version of the RiemannRoch theorem, published after Grothendieck
made it clear that he was not interested in writing up his own result. Grothendieck reinterpreted both sides of the
formula that Hirzebruch proved in 1953 in the framework of morphisms between varieties, resulting in a sweeping
generalization.[17] In his proof, Grothendieck broke new ground with his concept of Grothendieck groups, which led
to the development of K-theory.[18]
11.2.5 lments de gomtrie algbrique

Alexander Grothendieck (19601967)
Written with the assistance of Jean Dieudonn, this is Grothendieck's exposition of his reworking of the foundations
of algebraic geometry. It has become the most important foundational work in modern algebraic geometry. The
approach expounded in EGA, as these books are known, transformed the eld and led to monumental advances.
11.2.6 Sminaire de gomtrie algbrique

Alexander Grothendieck et al.
These seminar notes on Grothendiecks reworking of the foundations of algebraic geometry report on work done at
IHS starting in the 1960s. SGA 1 dates from the seminars of 19601961, and the last in the series, SGA 7, dates
from 1967 to 1969. In contrast to EGA, which is intended to set foundations, SGA describes ongoing research as it
unfolded in Grothendiecks seminar; as a result, it is quite dicult to read, since many of the more elementary and
foundational results were relegated to EGA. One of the major results building on the results in SGA is Pierre Deligne's
proof of the last of the open Weil conjectures in the early 1970s. Other authors who worked on one or several volumes
of SGA include Michel Raynaud, Michael Artin, Jean-Pierre Serre, Jean-Louis Verdier, Pierre Deligne, and Nicholas
Katz.
11.3 Number theory
11.3.1 Brhmasphuasiddhnta
Brahmagupta (628)
Brahmaguptas Brhmasphuasiddhnta is the rst book that mentions zero as a number, hence Brahmagupta is con-
sidered the rst to formulate the concept of zero. The current system of the four fundamental operations (addition,
subtraction, multiplication and division) based on the Hindu-Arabic number system also rst appeared in Brahmas-
phutasiddhanta. It was also one of the rst texts to provide concrete ideas on positive and negative numbers.
11.3.2 De fractionibus continuis dissertatio

11.3. NUMBER THEORY 77
First presented in 1737, this paper [19] provided the rst then-comprehensive account of the properties of continued
fractions. It also contains the rst proof that the number e is irrational.[20]
11.3.3 Recherches d'Arithmtique

Developed a general theory of binary quadratic forms to handle the general problem of when an integer is repre-
sentable by the form ax2 + by 2 + cxy . This included a reduction theory for binary quadratic forms, where he proved
that every form is equivalent to a certain canonically chosen reduced form.[21][22]
11.3.4 Disquisitiones Arithmeticae

The Disquisitiones Arithmeticae is a profound and masterful book on number theory written by German mathematician
Carl Friedrich Gauss and rst published in 1801 when Gauss was 24. In this book Gauss brings together results in
number theory obtained by mathematicians such as Fermat, Euler, Lagrange and Legendre and adds many important
new results of his own. Among his contributions was the rst complete proof known of the Fundamental theorem of
arithmetic, the rst two published proofs of the law of quadratic reciprocity, a deep investigation of binary quadratic
forms going beyond Lagranges work in Recherches d'Arithmtique, a rst appearance of Gauss sums, cyclotomy, and
the theory of constructible polygons with a particular application to the constructibility of the regular 17-gon. Of note,
in section V, article 303 of Disquisitiones, Gauss summarized his calculations of class numbers of imaginary quadratic
number elds, and in fact found all imaginary quadratic number elds of class numbers 1, 2, and 3 (conrmed in 1986)
as he had conjectured.[23] In section VII, article 358, Gauss proved what can be interpreted as the rst non-trivial
case of the Riemann Hypothesis for curves over nite elds (the HasseWeil theorem).[24]
11.3.5 Beweis des Satzes, da jede unbegrenzte arithmetische Progression, deren erstes
Glied und Dierenz ganze Zahlen ohne gemeinschaftlichen Factor sind, unendlich
viele Primzahlen enthlt
Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet (1837)
Pioneering paper in analytic number theory, which introduced Dirichlet characters and their L-functions to establish
Dirichlets theorem on arithmetic progressions.[25] In subsequent publications, Dirichlet used these tools to determine,
among other things, the class number for quadratic forms.
11.3.6 "ber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grsse"
"ber die Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Grsse (or On the Number of Primes Less Than a Given
Magnitude) is a seminal 8-page paper by Bernhard Riemann published in the November 1859 edition of the Monthly
Reports of the Berlin Academy. Although it is the only paper he ever published on number theory, it contains ideas
which inuenced dozens of researchers during the late 19th century and up to the present day. The paper consists
primarily of denitions, heuristic arguments, sketches of proofs, and the application of powerful analytic methods;
all of these have become essential concepts and tools of modern analytic number theory. It also contains the famous
Riemann Hypothesis, one of the most important open problems in mathematics.[26]
11.3.7 Vorlesungen ber Zahlentheorie

Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet and Richard Dedekind
Vorlesungen ber Zahlentheorie (Lectures on Number Theory) is a textbook of number theory written by German
mathematicians P. G. Lejeune Dirichlet and R. Dedekind, and published in 1863. The Vorlesungen can be seen as
a watershed between the classical number theory of Fermat, Jacobi and Gauss, and the modern number theory of
Dedekind, Riemann and Hilbert. Dirichlet does not explicitly recognise the concept of the group that is central to
modern algebra, but many of his proofs show an implicit understanding of group theory
11.3.8 Zahlbericht
Main article: Zahlbericht
David Hilbert (1897)
Unied and made accessible many of the developments in algebraic number theory made during the nineteenth
century. Although criticized by Andr Weil (who stated "more than half of his famous Zahlbericht is little more than
an account of Kummer's number-theoretical work, with inessential improvements")[27] and Emmy Noether,[28] it was
highly inuential for many years following its publication.
11.3.9 Fourier Analysis in Number Fields and Heckes Zeta-Functions

John Tate (1950)
Generally referred to simply as Tates Thesis, Tates Princeton Ph.D. thesis, under Emil Artin, is a reworking of Erich
Hecke's theory of zeta- and L-functions in terms of Fourier analysis on the adeles. The introduction of these methods
into number theory made it possible to formulate extensions of Heckes results to more general L-functions such as
those arising from automorphic forms.
11.3.10 Automorphic Forms on GL(2)"
Main article: Automorphic Forms on GL(2)
Herv Jacquet and Robert Langlands (1970)
This publication oers evidence towards Langlands conjectures by reworking and expanding the classical theory of
modular forms and their L-functions through the introduction of representation theory.
11.3.11 La conjecture de Weil. I.

Pierre Deligne (1974)
Proved the Riemann hypothesis for varieties over nite elds, settling the last of the open Weil conjectures.
11.3.12 Endlichkeitsstze fr abelsche Varietten ber Zahlkrpern
Gerd Faltings (1983)
Faltings proves a collection of important results in this paper, the most famous of which is the rst proof of the Mordell
conjecture (a conjecture dating back to 1922). Other theorems proved in this paper include an instance of the Tate
conjecture (relating the homomorphisms between two abelian varieties over a number eld to the homomorphisms
between their Tate modules) and some niteness results concerning abelian varieties over number elds with certain
properties.
11.4. ANALYSIS 79
11.3.13 Modular Elliptic Curves and Fermats Last Theorem

Andrew Wiles (1995)
This article proceeds to prove a special case of the ShimuraTaniyama conjecture through the study of the deformation
theory of Galois representations. This in turn implies the famed Fermats Last Theorem. The proofs method of
identication of a deformation ring with a Hecke algebra (now referred to as an R=T theorem) to prove modularity
lifting theorems has been an inuential development in algebraic number theory.
11.3.14 The geometry and cohomology of some simple Shimura varieties

Michael Harris and Richard Taylor (2001)
Harris and Taylor provide the rst proof of the local Langlands conjecture for GL(n). As part of the proof, this
monograph also makes an in depth study of the geometry and cohomology of certain Shimura varieties at primes of
bad reduction.
11.3.15 Le lemme fondamental pour les algbres de Lie

Ng Bo Chu
Ng Bo Chu proved a long-standing unsolved problem in the classical Langlands program, using methods from the
Geometric Langlands program.
11.4 Analysis
11.4.1 Introductio in analysin innitorum

The eminent historian of mathematics Carl Boyer once called Eulers Introductio in analysin innitorum the greatest
modern textbook in mathematics.[29] Published in two volumes,[30][31] this book more than any other work succeeded
in establishing analysis as a major branch of mathematics, with a focus and approach distinct from that used in
geometry and algebra.[32] Notably, Euler identied functions rather than curves to be the central focus in his book.[33]
Logarithmic, exponential, trigonometric, and transcendental functions were covered, as were expansions into partial
fractions, evaluations of (2k) for k a positive integer between 1 and 13, innite series-innite product formulas,[29]
continued fractions, and partitions of integers.[34] In this work, Euler proved that every rational number can be written
as a nite continued fraction, that the continued fraction of an irrational number is innite, and derived continued
fraction expansions for e and e .[30] This work also contains a statement of Eulers formula and a statement of the
pentagonal number theorem, which he had discovered earlier and would publish a proof for in 1751.
11.4.2 Calculus
Yuktibh
Jyeshtadeva (1501)
Written in India in 1530, this was the worlds rst calculus text. This work laid the foundation for a complete
system of uxions[35] and served as a summary of the Kerala School's achievements in calculus, trigonometry and
mathematical analysis, most of which were earlier discovered by the 14th century mathematician Madhava. It is
possible that this text inuenced the later development of calculus in Europe. Some of its important developments in
calculus include: the fundamental ideas of dierentiation and integration, the derivative, dierential equations, term
by term integration, numerical integration by means of innite series, the relationship between the area of a curve
and its integral, and the mean value theorem.
Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis, itemque tangentibus, quae nec fractas nec irrationales quantitates moratur,
et singulare pro illi calculi genus
Gottfried Leibniz (1684)
Leibnizs rst publication on dierential calculus, containing the now familiar notation for dierentials as well as rules
for computing the derivatives of powers, products and quotients.
Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica
Isaac Newton
The Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Latin: mathematical principles of natural philosophy, often
Principia or Principia Mathematica for short) is a three-volume work by Isaac Newton published on 5 July 1687.
Perhaps the most inuential scientic book ever published, it contains the statement of Newtons laws of motion
forming the foundation of classical mechanics as well as his law of universal gravitation, and derives Keplers laws
for the motion of the planets (which were rst obtained empirically). Here was born the practice, now so standard
we identify it with science, of explaining nature by postulating mathematical axioms and demonstrating that their
conclusion are observable phenomena. In formulating his physical theories, Newton freely used his unpublished
work on calculus. When he submitted Principia for publication, however, Newton chose to recast the majority of his
proofs as geometric arguments.[36]
Institutiones calculi dierentialis cum eius usu in analysi nitorum ac doctrina serierum
Published in two books,[37] Eulers textbook on dierential calculus presented the subject in terms of the function
concept, which he had introduced in his 1748 Introductio in analysin innitorum. This work opens with a study of the
calculus of nite dierences and makes a thorough investigation of how dierentiation behaves under substitutions.[38]
Also included is a systematic study of Bernoulli polynomials and the Bernoulli numbers (naming them as such), a
demonstration of how the Bernoulli numbers are related to the coecients in the EulerMaclaurin formula and the
values of (2n),[39] a further study of Eulers constant (including its connection to the gamma function), and an
application of partial fractions to dierentiation.[40]
ber die Darstellbarkeit einer Function durch eine trigonometrische Reihe
Written in 1853, Riemanns work on trigonometric series was published posthumously. In it, he extended Cauchys
denition of the integral to that of the Riemann integral, allowing some functions with dense subsets of discontinu-
ities on an interval to be integrated (which he demonstrated by an example).[41] He also stated the Riemann series
theorem,[41] proved the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma for the case of bounded Riemann integrable functions,[42] and
developed the Riemann localization principle.[43]
Intgrale, longueur, aire
Henri Lebesgue (1901)
Lebesgues doctoral dissertation, summarizing and extending his research to date regarding his development of
measure theory and the Lebesgue integral.
11.4.3 Complex analysis

11.4. ANALYSIS 81
Institutiones calculi dierentialis
Grundlagen fr eine allgemeine Theorie der Functionen einer vernderlichen complexen Grsse

Riemanns doctoral dissertation introduced the notion of a Riemann surface, conformal mapping, simple connectivity,
the Riemann sphere, the Laurent series expansion for functions having poles and branch points, and the Riemann
mapping theorem.
11.4.4 Functional analysis
Thorie des oprations linaires
Stefan Banach (1932; originally published 1931 in Polish under the title Teorja operacyj.)
The rst mathematical monograph on the subject of linear metric spaces, bringing the abstract study of functional
analysis to the wider mathematical community. The book introduced the ideas of a normed space and the notion
of a so-called B-space, a complete normed space. The B-spaces are now called Banach spaces and are one of the
basic objects of study in all areas of modern mathematical analysis. Banach also gave proofs of versions of the open
mapping theorem, closed graph theorem, and HahnBanach theorem.
11.4.5 Fourier analysis
Mmoire sur la propagation de la chaleur dans les corps solides
Joseph Fourier (1807)[44]
Introduced Fourier analysis, specically Fourier series. Key contribution was to not simply use trigonometric series,
but to model all functions by trigonometric series.
When Fourier submitted his paper in 1807, the committee (which included Lagrange, Laplace, Malus and Legendre,
among others) concluded: ...the manner in which the author arrives at these equations is not exempt of diculties
and [...] his analysis to integrate them still leaves something to be desired on the score of generality and even rigour.
Making Fourier series rigorous, which in detail took over a century, led directly to a number of developments in
analysis, notably the rigorous statement of the integral via the Dirichlet integral and later the Lebesgue integral.
Sur la convergence des sries trigonomtriques qui servent reprsenter une fonction arbitraire entre des limites
donnes
Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet (1829, expanded German edition in 1837)
In his habilitation thesis on Fourier series, Riemann characterized this work of Dirichlet as "the rst profound paper
about the subject".[45] This paper gave the rst rigorous proof of the convergence of Fourier series under fairly general
conditions (piecewise continuity and monotonicity) by considering partial sums, which Dirichlet transformed into a
particular Dirichlet integral involving what is now called the Dirichlet kernel. This paper introduced the nowhere
continuous Dirichlet function and an early version of the RiemannLebesgue lemma.[46]
On convergence and growth of partial sums of Fourier series
Lennart Carleson (1966)
Settled Lusins conjecture that the Fourier expansion of any L2 function converges almost everywhere.
11.5 Geometry
See also: List of books in computational geometry and List of books about polyhedra
11.5. GEOMETRY 83
11.5.1 Baudhayana Sulba Sutra

Baudhayana
Written around the 8th century BC, this is one of the oldest geometrical texts. It laid the foundations of Indian mathe-
matics and was inuential in South Asia and its surrounding regions, and perhaps even Greece. Among the important
geometrical discoveries included in this text are: the earliest list of Pythagorean triples discovered algebraically, the
earliest statement of the Pythagorean theorem, geometric solutions of linear equations, several approximations of ,
the rst use of irrational numbers, and an accurate computation of the square root of 2, correct to a remarkable ve
decimal places. Though this was primarily a geometrical text, it also contained some important algebraic develop-
ments, including the earliest use of quadratic equations of the forms ax2 = c and ax2 + bx = c, and integral solutions
of simultaneous Diophantine equations with up to four unknowns.
11.5.2 Euclids Elements

Euclid
Publication data: c. 300 BC

Online version: Interactive Java version
This is often regarded as not only the most important work in geometry but one of the most important works in math-
ematics. It contains many important results in plane and solid geometry, algebra (books II and V), and number theory
(book VII, VIII, and IX).[47] More than any specic result in the publication, it seems that the major achievement of
this publication is the promotion of an axiomatic approach as a means for proving results. Euclids Elements has been
referred to as the most successful and inuential[48] textbook ever written.
11.5.3 The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art

Unknown author
This was a Chinese mathematics book, mostly geometric, composed during the Han Dynasty, perhaps as early as
200 BC. It remained the most important textbook in China and East Asia for over a thousand years, similar to the
position of Euclids Elements in Europe. Among its contents: Linear problems solved using the principle known later
in the West as the rule of false position. Problems with several unknowns, solved by a principle similar to Gaussian
elimination. Problems involving the principle known in the West as the Pythagorean theorem. The earliest solution
of a matrix using a method equivalent to the modern method.
11.5.4 The Conics

Apollonius of Perga
The Conics was written by Apollonius of Perga, a Greek mathematician. His innovative methodology and terminol-
ogy, especially in the eld of conics, inuenced many later scholars including Ptolemy, Francesco Maurolico, Isaac
Newton, and Ren Descartes. It was Apollonius who gave the ellipse, the parabola, and the hyperbola the names by
which we know them.
11.5.5 Surya Siddhanta

Unknown (400 CE)
Contains the roots of modern trigonometry. It describes the archeo-astronomy theories, principles and methods of
the ancient Hindus. This siddhanta is supposed to be the knowledge that the Sun god gave to an Asura called Maya.
It uses sine (jya), cosine (kojya or perpendicular sine) and inverse sine (otkram jya) for the rst time, and also
contains the earliest use of the tangent and secant. Later Indian mathematicians such as Aryabhata made references
to this text, while later Arabic and Latin translations were very inuential in Europe and the Middle East.
11.5.6 Aryabhatiya
Aryabhata (499 CE)
This was a highly inuential text during the Golden Age of mathematics in India. The text was highly concise and
therefore elaborated upon in commentaries by later mathematicians. It made signicant contributions to geometry
and astronomy, including introduction of sine/ cosine, determination of the approximate value of pi and accurate
calculation of the earths circumference.
11.5.7 La Gomtrie
Ren Descartes
La Gomtrie was published in 1637 and written by Ren Descartes. The book was inuential in developing the
Cartesian coordinate system and specically discussed the representation of points of a plane, via real numbers; and
the representation of curves, via equations.
11.5.8 Grundlagen der Geometrie

David Hilbert
Online version: English

Publication data: Hilbert, David (1899). Grundlagen der Geometrie. Teubner-Verlag Leipzig. ISBN 1-4020-2777-
X.
Hilberts axiomatization of geometry, whose primary inuence was in its pioneering approach to metamathematical
questions including the use of models to prove axiom independence and the importance of establishing the consistency
and completeness of an axiomatic system.
11.5.9 Regular Polytopes

H.S.M. Coxeter
Regular Polytopes is a comprehensive survey of the geometry of regular polytopes, the generalisation of regular
polygons and regular polyhedra to higher dimensions. Originating with an essay entitled Dimensional Analogy written
in 1923, the rst edition of the book took Coxeter 24 years to complete. Originally written in 1947, the book was
updated and republished in 1963 and 1973.
11.5.10 Dierential geometry
Recherches sur la courbure des surfaces
Publication data: Mmoires de l'acadmie des sciences de Berlin 16 (1760) pp. 119143; published 1767. (Full
text and an English translation available from the Dartmouth Euler archive.)
Established the theory of surfaces, and introduced the idea of principal curvatures, laying the foundation for subse-
quent developments in the dierential geometry of surfaces.
Disquisitiones generales circa supercies curvas

11.6. TOPOLOGY 85
Publication data: Disquisitiones generales circa supercies curvas, Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum
Gottingesis Recentiores Vol. VI (1827), pp. 99146; "General Investigations of Curved Surfaces" (published 1965)
Raven Press, New York, translated by A.M.Hiltebeitel and J.C.Morehead.
Groundbreaking work in dierential geometry, introducing the notion of Gaussian curvature and Gauss celebrated
Theorema Egregium.
ber die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde Liegen
Publication data: "ber die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde Liegen, Abhandlungen der Kniglichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen, Vol. 13, 1867. English translation
Riemanns famous Habiltationsvortrag, in which he introduced the notions of a manifold, Riemannian metric, and
curvature tensor.
Leons sur la thorie gnerale des surfaces et les applications gomtriques du calcul innitsimal
Gaston Darboux
Publication data: Darboux, Gaston (1887,1889,1896). Leons sur la thorie gnerale des surfaces. Gauthier-Villars.
Volume I, Volume II, Volume III, Volume IV
Leons sur la thorie gnerale des surfaces et les applications gomtriques du calcul innitsimal (on the General
Theory of Surfaces and the Geometric Applications of Innitesimal Calculus). A treatise covering virtually every
aspect of the 19th century dierential geometry of surfaces.
11.6 Topology
11.6.1 Analysis situs
Henri Poincar (1895, 18991905)
Description: Poincar's Analysis Situs and his Complments l'Analysis Situs laid the general foundations for
algebraic topology. In these papers, Poincar introduced the notions of homology and the fundamental group, pro-
vided an early formulation of Poincar duality, gave the EulerPoincar characteristic for chain complexes, and
mentioned several important conjectures including the Poincar conjecture.
11.6.2 L'anneau d'homologie d'une reprsentation, Structure de l'anneau d'homologie d'une

reprsentation
Jean Leray (1946)
These two Comptes Rendus notes of Leray from 1946 introduced the novel concepts of sheafs, sheaf cohomology,
and spectral sequences, which he had developed during his years of captivity as a prisoner of war. Lerays announce-
ments and applications (published in other Comptes Rendus notes from 1946) drew immediate attention from other
mathematicians. Subsequent clarication, development, and generalization by Henri Cartan, Jean-Louis Koszul,
Armand Borel, Jean-Pierre Serre, and Leray himself allowed these concepts to be understood and applied to many
other areas of mathematics.[49] Dieudonn would later write that these notions created by Leray "undoubtedly rank
at the same level in the history of mathematics as the methods invented by Poincar and Brouwer".[50]
11.6.3 Quelques proprits globales des varits dierentiables

Ren Thom (1954)
In this paper, Thom proved the Thom transversality theorem, introduced the notions of oriented and unoriented
cobordism, and demonstrated that cobordism groups could be computed as the homotopy groups of certain Thom
spaces. Thom completely characterized the unoriented cobordism ring and achieved strong results for several prob-
lems, including Steenrods problem on the realization of cycles.[51][52]
11.7 Category theory
11.7.1 General Theory of Natural Equivalences

Samuel Eilenberg and Saunders Mac Lane (1945)
The rst paper on category theory. Mac Lane later wrote in Categories for the Working Mathematician that he and
Eilenberg introduced categories so that they could introduce functors, and they introduced functors so that they could
introduce natural equivalences. Prior to this paper, natural was used in an informal and imprecise way to designate
constructions that could be made without making any choices. Afterwards, natural had a precise meaning which
occurred in a wide variety of contexts and had powerful and important consequences.
11.7.2 Categories for the Working Mathematician

Saunders Mac Lane (1971, second edition 1998)
Saunders Mac Lane, one of the founders of category theory, wrote this exposition to bring categories to the masses.
Mac Lane brings to the fore the important concepts that make category theory useful, such as adjoint functors and
universal properties.
11.7.3 Higher Topos Theory

Jacob Lurie (2010)
This purpose of this book is twofold: to provide a general introduction to higher category theory (using the formalism
of quasicategories or weak Kan complexes), and to apply this theory to the study of higher versions of Grothendieck
topoi. A few applications to classical topology are included. (see arXiv.)
11.8 Set theory
11.8.1 "ber eine Eigenschaft des Inbegries aller reellen algebraischen Zahlen
Georg Cantor (1874)

Contains the rst proof that the set of all real numbers is uncountable; also contains a proof that the set of algebraic
numbers is countable. (See Georg Cantors rst set theory article.)
11.8.2 Grundzge der Mengenlehre

Felix Hausdor
11.9. LOGIC 87
First published in 1914, this was the rst comprehensive introduction to set theory. Besides the systematic treatment
of known results in set theory, the book also contains chapters on measure theory and topology, which were then
still considered parts of set theory. Here Hausdor presents and develops highly original material which was later to
become the basis for those areas.
11.8.3 The consistency of the axiom of choice and of the generalized continuum-hypothesis
with the axioms of set theory
Kurt Gdel (1938)
Gdel proves the results of the title. Also, in the process, introduces the class L of constructible sets, a major inuence
in the development of axiomatic set theory.
11.8.4 The Independence of the Continuum Hypothesis
Paul J. Cohen (1963, 1964)
Cohens breakthrough work proved the independence of the continuum hypothesis and axiom of choice with respect
to ZermeloFraenkel set theory. In proving this Cohen introduced the concept of forcing which led to many other
major results in axiomatic set theory.
11.9 Logic
11.9.1 The Laws of Thought
George Boole (1854)
Published in 1854, The Laws of Thought was the rst book to provide a mathematical foundation for logic. Its aim
was a complete re-expression and extension of Aristotles logic in the language of mathematics. Booles work founded
the discipline of algebraic logic and would later be central for Claude Shannon in the development of digital logic.
11.9.2 Begrisschrift
Gottlob Frege (1879)
Published in 1879, the title Begrisschrift is usually translated as concept writing or concept notation; the full title of
the book identies it as "a formula language, modelled on that of arithmetic, of pure thought". Freges motivation for
developing his formal logical system was similar to Leibniz's desire for a calculus ratiocinator. Frege denes a logical
calculus to support his research in the foundations of mathematics. Begrisschrift is both the name of the book and
the calculus dened therein. It was arguably the most signicant publication in logic since Aristotle.
11.9.3 Formulario mathematico
Giuseppe Peano (1895)
First published in 1895, the Formulario mathematico was the rst mathematical book written entirely in a formalized
language. It contained a description of mathematical logic and many important theorems in other branches of math-
ematics. Many of the notations introduced in the book are now in common use.
11.9.4 Principia Mathematica

Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead (19101913)
The Principia Mathematica is a three-volume work on the foundations of mathematics, written by Bertrand Russell
and Alfred North Whitehead and published in 19101913. It is an attempt to derive all mathematical truths from
a well-dened set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic. The questions remained whether a contradic-
tion could be derived from the Principias axioms, and whether there exists a mathematical statement which could
neither be proven nor disproven in the system. These questions were settled, in a rather surprising way, by Gdels
incompleteness theorem in 1931.
11.9.5 Systems of Logic Based on Ordinals

Alan Turing's Ph.D. thesis
11.9.6 "ber formal unentscheidbare Stze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter
Systeme, I
(On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems)
Kurt Gdel (1931)

In mathematical logic, Gdels incompleteness theorems are two celebrated theorems proved by Kurt Gdel in
1931. The rst incompleteness theorem states:
For any formal system such that (1) it is -consistent (omega-consistent), (2) it has a recursively
denable set of axioms and rules of derivation, and (3) every recursive relation of natural numbers is
denable in it, there exists a formula of the system such that, according to the intended interpretation of
the system, it expresses a truth about natural numbers and yet it is not a theorem of the system.
11.10 Combinatorics
11.10.1 On sets of integers containing no k elements in arithmetic progression

Endre Szemerdi (1975)
Settled a conjecture of Paul Erds and Pl Turn (now known as Szemerdis theorem) that if a sequence of natural
numbers has positive upper density then it contains arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions. Szemerdis solution has
been described as a masterpiece of combinatorics[53] and it introduced new ideas and tools to the eld including a
weak form of the Szemerdi regularity lemma.[54]
11.10.2 Graph theory

Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis
Eulers original publication (in Latin)
Eulers solution of the Knigsberg bridge problem in Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis (The solution
of a problem relating to the geometry of position) is considered to be the rst theorem of graph theory.
11.11. COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY THEORY 89
On the evolution of random graphs
Paul Erds and Alfrd Rnyi (1960)
Provides a detailed discussion of sparse random graphs, including distribution of components, occurrence of small
subgraphs, and phase transitions.[55]
Network Flows and General Matchings
Ford, L., & Fulkerson, D.
Flows in Networks. Prentice-Hall, 1962.
Presents the Ford-Fulkerson algorithm for solving the maximum ow problem, along with many ideas on ow-based
models.
11.11 Computational complexity theory

See List of important publications in theoretical computer science.
11.12 Probability theory and statistics

See list of important publications in statistics.
11.13 Game theory
11.13.1 Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele
John von Neumann (1928)
Went well beyond mile Borel's initial investigations into strategic two-person game theory by proving the minimax
theorem for two-person, zero-sum games.
11.13.2 Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
Oskar Morgenstern, John von Neumann (1944)
This book led to the investigation of modern game theory as a prominent branch of mathematics. This work contained
the method for nding optimal solutions for two-person zero-sum games.
11.13.3 Equilibrium Points in N-person Games
John Forbes Nash
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36 (1950), 4849. MR0031701
Equilibrium Points in N-person Games
Nash equilibrium
11.13.4 On Numbers and Games

John Horton Conway
The book is in two, {0,1|}, parts. The zeroth part is about numbers, the rst part about games both the values
of games and also some real games that can be played such as Nim, Hackenbush, Col and Snort amongst the many
described.
11.13.5 Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays

Elwyn Berlekamp, John Conway and Richard K. Guy
A compendium of information on mathematical games. It was rst published in 1982 in two volumes, one focusing
on Combinatorial game theory and surreal numbers, and the other concentrating on a number of specic games.
11.14 Fractals
11.14.1 How Long Is the Coast of Britain? Statistical Self-Similarity and Fractional Dimen-
sion
Benot Mandelbrot
A discussion of self-similar curves that have fractional dimensions between 1 and 2. These curves are examples of
fractals, although Mandelbrot does not use this term in the paper, as he did not coin it until 1975. Shows Mandelbrots
early thinking on fractals, and is an example of the linking of mathematical objects with natural forms that was a theme
of much of his later work.
11.15 Numerical analysis
11.15.1 Optimization
Method of Fluxions
Isaac Newton
Method of Fluxions was a book written by Isaac Newton. The book was completed in 1671, and published in 1736.
Within this book, Newton describes a method (the NewtonRaphson method) for nding the real zeroes of a function.
Essai d'une nouvelle mthode pour dterminer les maxima et les minima des formules intgrales indnies
Major early work on the calculus of variations, building upon some of Lagranges prior investigations as well as those
of Euler. Contains investigations of minimal surface determination as well as the initial appearance of Lagrange
multipliers.
" "
Leonid Kantorovich (1939) "[The Mathematical Method of Production Planning and Organization]" (in Rus-
sian).
Kantorovich wrote the rst paper on production planning, which used Linear Programs as the model. He received
the Nobel prize for this work in 1975.
11.16. EARLY MANUSCRIPTS 91
Decomposition Principle for Linear Programs
George Dantzig and P. Wolfe

Operations Research 8:101111, 1960.
Dantzigs is considered the father of linear programming in the western world. He independently invented the simplex
algorithm. Dantzig and Wolfe worked on decomposition algorithms for large-scale linear programs in factory and
production planning.
How Good is the Simplex Algorithm?"
Victor Klee and George J. Minty

Klee, Victor; Minty, George J. (1972). How good is the simplex algorithm?". In Shisha, Oved. Inequalities
III (Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Inequalities held at the University of California, Los Angeles, Calif.,
September 19, 1969, dedicated to the memory of Theodore S. Motzkin). New York-London: Academic Press.
pp. 159175. MR 332165.
Klee and Minty gave an example showing that the simplex algorithm can take exponentially many steps to solve a
linear program.
" "
Khachiyan, Leonid Genrikhovich (1979). [A

polynomial algorithm for linear programming]. Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR (in Russian). 244: 10931096..
Khachiyans work on the ellipsoid method. This was the rst polynomial time algorithm for linear programming.
11.16 Early manuscripts

These are publications that are not necessarily relevant to a mathematician nowadays, but are nonetheless important
publications in the history of mathematics.
11.16.1 Rhind Mathematical Papyrus

Ahmes (scribe)
One of the oldest mathematical texts, dating to the Second Intermediate Period of ancient Egypt. It was copied by
the scribe Ahmes (properly Ahmose) from an older Middle Kingdom papyrus. It laid the foundations of Egyptian
mathematics and in turn, later inuenced Greek and Hellenistic mathematics. Besides describing how to obtain an
approximation of only missing the mark by less than one per cent, it is describes one of the earliest attempts at
squaring the circle and in the process provides persuasive evidence against the theory that the Egyptians deliberately
built their pyramids to enshrine the value of in the proportions. Even though it would be a strong overstatement to
suggest that the papyrus represents even rudimentary attempts at analytical geometry, Ahmes did make use of a kind
of an analogue of the cotangent.
11.16.2 Archimedes Palimpsest

Archimedes of Syracuse
Although the only mathematical tools at its authors disposal were what we might now consider secondary-school
geometry, he used those methods with rare brilliance, explicitly using innitesimals to solve problems that would now
be treated by integral calculus. Among those problems were that of the center of gravity of a solid hemisphere, that
of the center of gravity of a frustum of a circular paraboloid, and that of the area of a region bounded by a parabola
and one of its secant lines. For explicit details of the method used, see Archimedes use of innitesimals.
11.16.3 The Sand Reckoner

Archimedes of Syracuse

The rst known (European) system of number-naming that can be expanded beyond the needs of everyday life.
11.17 Textbooks
11.17.1 Synopsis of Pure Mathematics

G. S. Carr
Contains over 6000 theorems of mathematics, assembled by George Shoobridge Carr for the purpose of training his
students for the Cambridge Mathematical Tripos exams. Studied extensively by Ramanujan. (rst half here)
11.17.2 lments de mathmatique

Nicolas Bourbaki
One of the most inuential book in French mathematical literature. It introduces some of the notations and denitions
that are now usual (the symbol or the term bijective for example). Characterized by an extreme level of rigour,
formalism and generality (up to the point of being highly criticized for that), its publication started in 1939 and is still
unnished today.
11.17.3 Arithmetick: or, The Grounde of Arts

Robert Recorde
Written in 1542, it was the rst really popular arithmetic book written in the English Language.
11.17.4 Cockers Arithmetick

Edward Cocker (authorship disputed)
Textbook of arithmetic published in 1678 by John Hawkins, who claimed to have edited manuscripts left by Edward
Cocker, who had died in 1676. This inuential mathematics textbook used to teach arithmetic in schools in the United
Kingdom for over 150 years.
11.17.5 The Schoolmasters Assistant, Being a Compendium of Arithmetic both Practical and
Theoretical
Thomas Dilworth
An early and popular English arithmetic textbook published in America in the 18th century. The book reached from
the introductory topics to the advanced in ve sections.
11.17.6 Geometry
Andrei Kiselyov
Publication data: 1892

The most widely used and inuential textbook in Russian mathematics. (See Kiselyov page and MAA review.)
11.17. TEXTBOOKS 93
11.17.7 A Course of Pure Mathematics

G. H. Hardy
A classic textbook in introductory mathematical analysis, written by G. H. Hardy. It was rst published in 1908, and
went through many editions. It was intended to help reform mathematics teaching in the UK, and more specically
in the University of Cambridge, and in schools preparing pupils to study mathematics at Cambridge. As such, it was
aimed directly at scholarship level students the top 10% to 20% by ability. The book contains a large number
of dicult problems. The content covers introductory calculus and the theory of innite series.
11.17.8 Moderne Algebra

B. L. van der Waerden
The rst introductory textbook (graduate level) expounding the abstract approach to algebra developed by Emil Artin
and Emmy Noether. First published in German in 1931 by Springer Verlag. A later English translation was published
in 1949 by Frederick Ungar Publishing Company.
11.17.9 Algebra
Saunders Mac Lane and Garrett Birkho
A denitive introductory text for abstract algebra using a category theoretic approach. Both a rigorous introduction
from rst principles, and a reasonably comprehensive survey of the eld.
11.17.10 Calculus, Vol. 1

Tom M. Apostol
11.17.11 Algebraic Geometry

Robin Hartshorne
The rst comprehensive introductory (graduate level) text in algebraic geometry that used the language of schemes
and cohomology. Published in 1977, it lacks aspects of the scheme language which are nowadays considered central,
like the functor of points.
11.17.12 Naive Set Theory

Paul Halmos
An undergraduate introduction to not-very-naive set theory which has lasted for decades. It is still considered by many
to be the best introduction to set theory for beginners. While the title states that it is naive, which is usually taken to
mean without axioms, the book does introduce all the axioms of ZermeloFraenkel set theory and gives correct and
rigorous denitions for basic objects. Where it diers from a true axiomatic set theory book is its character: There
are no long-winded discussions of axiomatic minutiae, and there is next to nothing about topics like large cardinals.
Instead it aims, and succeeds, in being intelligible to someone who has never thought about set theory before.
11.17.13 Cardinal and Ordinal Numbers

Wacaw Sierpiski
The nec plus ultra reference for basic facts about cardinal and ordinal numbers. If you have a question about the
cardinality of sets occurring in everyday mathematics, the rst place to look is this book, rst published in the early
1950s but based on the authors lectures on the subject over the preceding 40 years.
11.17.14 Set Theory: An Introduction to Independence Proofs

Kenneth Kunen
This book is not really for beginners, but graduate students with some minimal experience in set theory and formal
logic will nd it a valuable self-teaching tool, particularly in regard to forcing. It is far easier to read than a true
reference work such as Jech, Set Theory. It may be the best textbook from which to learn forcing, though it has the
disadvantage that the exposition of forcing relies somewhat on the earlier presentation of Martins axiom.
11.17.15 Topologie
Pavel Sergeevich Alexandrov
Heinz Hopf
First published round 1935, this text was a pioneering reference text book in topology, already incorporating many
modern concepts from set-theoretic topology, homological algebra and homotopy theory.
11.17.16 General Topology

John L. Kelley
First published in 1955, for many years the only introductory graduate level textbook in the US, teaching the basics
of point set, as opposed to algebraic, topology. Prior to this the material, essential for advanced study in many elds,
was only available in bits and pieces from texts on other topics or journal articles.
11.17.17 Topology from the Dierentiable Viewpoint

John Milnor
This short book introduces the main concepts of dierential topology in Milnors lucid and concise style. While the
book does not cover very much, its topics are explained beautifully in a way that illuminates all their details.
11.17.18 Number Theory, An approach through history from Hammurapi to Legendre

Andr Weil
An historical study of number theory, written by one of the 20th centurys greatest researchers in the eld. The book
covers some thirty six centuries of arithmetical work but the bulk of it is devoted to a detailed study and exposition
of the work of Fermat, Euler, Lagrange, and Legendre. The author wishes to take the reader into the workshop of
his subjects to share their successes and failures. A rare opportunity to see the historical development of a subject
through the mind of one of its greatest practitioners.
11.17.19 An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers

G. H. Hardy and E. M. Wright
An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers was rst published in 1938, and is still in print, with the latest edition being
the 6th (2008). It is likely that almost every serious student and researcher into number theory has consulted this
book, and probably has it on their bookshelf. It was not intended to be a textbook, and is rather an introduction to a
wide range of diering areas of number theory which would now almost certainly be covered in separate volumes.
The writing style has long been regarded as exemplary, and the approach gives insight into a variety of areas without
requiring much more than a good grounding in algebra, calculus and complex numbers.
11.18. POPULAR WRITINGS 95
11.17.20 Foundations of Dierential Geometry

Shoshichi Kobayashi and Katsumi Nomizu
11.17.21 Hodge Theory and Complex Algebraic Geometry I
11.17.22 Hodge Theory and Complex Algebraic Geometry II

Claire Voisin
11.18 Popular writings
11.18.1 Gdel, Escher, Bach

Douglas Hofstadter
Gdel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid is a Pulitzer Prize-winning book, rst published in 1979 by Basic
Books. It is a book about how the creative achievements of logician Kurt Gdel, artist M. C. Escher and composer
Johann Sebastian Bach interweave. As the author states: I realized that to me, Gdel and Escher and Bach were only
shadows cast in dierent directions by some central solid essence. I tried to reconstruct the central object, and came
up with this book.
11.18.2 The World of Mathematics

James R. Newman
The World of Mathematics was specially designed to make mathematics more accessible to the inexperienced. It
comprises nontechnical essays on every aspect of the vast subject, including articles by and about scores of eminent
mathematicians, as well as literary gures, economists, biologists, and many other eminent thinkers. Includes the work
of Archimedes, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Gregor Mendel, Edmund Halley, Jonathan Swift, John Maynard Keynes,
Henri Poincar, Lewis Carroll, George Boole, Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead, John von Neumann, and
many others. In addition, an informative commentary by distinguished scholar James R. Newman precedes each essay
or group of essays, explaining their relevance and context in the history and development of mathematics. Originally
published in 1956, it does not include many of the exciting discoveries of the later years of the 20th century but it
has no equal as a general historical survey of important topics and applications.
11.19 References
[1] Bill Casselman. One of the Oldest Extant Diagrams from Euclid. University of British Columbia. Retrieved 2008-09-26.
[2] Ivor Grattan-Guinness, Landmark writings in Western mathematics 16401940, Elsevier Science, 2005
[3] David Eugene Smith, A Source Book in Mathematics, Dover Publications, 1984
[4] Shashi S. Sharma. Mathematics & Astronomers of Ancient India. Pitambar. p. 29. ISBN 978-81-209-1421-6. Brah-
magupta is believed to have composed many important works of mathematics and astronomy. However, two of his most
important works are: Brahmasphutasiddhanta (BSS) written in 628 AD, and the Khandakhadyaka...
[5] Miodrag Petkovi (2009). Famous puzzles of great mathematicians. American Mathematical Society. pp. 77, 299. ISBN
978-0-8218-4814-2. many important results from astronomy, arithmetic and algebra, major work
[6] Helaine Selin, ed. (1997). Encyclopaedia of the history of science, technology, and medicine in non-western cultures.
Springer. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-7923-4066-9. holds a remarkable place in the history of Eastern civilization, most
important work, remarkably modern in outlook, marvelous piece of pure mathematics, more remarkable algebraic
contributions, important step towards the integral solutions of [second-order indeterminate] equations, In geometry,
Brahmaguptas achievements were equally praiseworthy.
[7] John Tabak (2004). Algebra: sets, symbols, and the language of thought. Infobase Publishing. pp. 38. ISBN 978-0-8160-
4954-7. Brahmaguptas masterpiece, a great deal of important algebra, The Brahma-sphuta-siddhnta was quickly
recognized by Brahmaguptas contemporaries as an important and imaginative work. It inspired numerous commentaries
by many generations of mathematicians.
[8] Clark, Allan (1984). Elements of abstract algebra. United States: Courier Dover Publications. p. ix. ISBN 978-0-486-
64725-8.
[9] O'Connor, J. J.; Robertson, E. F. (1998). Girolamo Cardano.
[10] Markus Fierz (1983). Girolamo Cardano: 1501-1576. Physician, Natural Philosopher, Mathematician. Birkhuser Boston.
ISBN 978-0-8176-3057-7. line feed character in |title= at position 18 (help)
[11] Weil, Andr (1984). Number Theory: An approach through history From Hammurapi to Legendre. Birkhuser. pp. 239
242. ISBN 0-8176-3141-0.
[12] Gauss, J.C.F. (1799). Demonstratio nova theorematis omnem functionem algebraicam rationalem integram unius vari-
abilis in factores reales primi vel secundi gradus resolvi posse.
[13] O'Connor, J. J.; Robertson, E. F. (1996). The fundamental theorem of algebra.
[14] ed. by A. N. Kolmogorov... (2001). Mathematics of the 19th Century: Mathematical Logic, Algebra, Number Theory, and
Probability Theory. Birkhuser Verlag. pp. 39, 63, 6668. ISBN 3-7643-6441-6.
[15] O'Connor, J. J.; Robertson, E. F. (2001). Marie Ennemond Camille Jordan.
[16] Krieger, Martin H. (March 2007). A 1940 Letter of Andr Weil on Analogy in Mathematics (PDF). Notices of the
American Mathematical Society. 52 (3): 338. Retrieved 13 January 2008.
[17] Jackson, Allyn (October 2004). Comme Appel du Nant As If Summoned from the Void: The Life of Alexandre
Grothendieck (PDF). Notices of the American Mathematical Society. 51 (9): 10451046. Retrieved 13 January 2008.
[18] Dieudonn, Jean (1989). A history of algebraic and dierential topology 19001960. Birkhuser. pp. 598600. ISBN
0-8176-3388-X.
[19] Euler, L. (1744). De fractionibus continuis dissertatio (PDF). Retrieved 23 June 2009.
[20] Sandifer, Ed (February 2006). How Euler Did It: Who proved e is irrational?" (PDF). MAA Online. Retrieved 23 June
2009.
[21] Goldfeld, Dorian (July 1985). Gauss Class Number Problem For Imaginary Quadratic Fields (PDF). Bulletin of the
American Mathematical Society. 13 (1): 24. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-1985-15352-2.
[22] Weil, Andr (1984). Number Theory: An approach through history From Hammurapi to Legendre. Birkhuser. pp. 316
322. ISBN 0-8176-3141-0.
[23] Ireland, K.; Rosen, M. (1993). A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag.
pp. 358361. ISBN 0-387-97329-X.
[24] Silverman, J.; Tate, J. (1992). Rational Points on Elliptic Curves. New York, New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 110. ISBN
0-387-97825-9.
[25] Elstrodt, Jrgen (2007). The Life and Work of Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet (18051859)" (PDF). Clay Mathematics Pro-
ceedings: 2122.
[26] H. M. Edwards, Riemanns Zeta Function, Academic Press, 1974
[27] Lemmermeyer, Franz; Schappacher, Norbert. Introduction to the English Edition of Hilberts Zahlbericht (PDF). p. 3.
Retrieved 13 January 2008.
[28] Lemmermeyer, Franz; Schappacher, Norbert. Introduction to the English Edition of Hilberts Zahlbericht (PDF). p. 5.
Retrieved 13 January 2008.
[29] Alexanderson, Gerald L. (October 2007). Eulers Introductio In Analysin Innitorum (PDF). Bulletin of the American
Mathematical Society. 44 (4): 635639. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-07-01183-4.
[30] Euler, L. E101 Introductio in analysin innitorum, volume 1. Retrieved 16 March 2008.
[31] Euler, L. E102 Introductio in analysin innitorum, volume 2. Retrieved 16 March 2008.
11.19. REFERENCES 97
[32] Calinger, Ronald (1982). Classics of Mathematics. Oak Park, Illinois: Moore Publishing Company, Inc. pp. 396397.
ISBN 0-935610-13-8.
[33] O'Connor, J. J.; Robertson, E. F. (1995). The function concept.
[34] Andrews, George E. (October 2007). Eulers De Partitio Numerorum"" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Mathematical
Society. 44 (4): 561573. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-07-01180-9.
[35] Charles Whish (1834). On the Hindu Quadrature of the circle and the innite series of the proportion of the circumference
to the diameter exhibited in the four Sastras, the Tantra Sahgraham, Yucti Bhasha, Carana Padhati and Sadratnamala".
Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland.
3 (3): 509523. JSTOR 25581775. doi:10.1017/S0950473700001221.
[36] Gray, Jeremy (2000). MAA Book Review: Reading the Principia: The Debate on Newtons Mathematical Methods for
Natural Philosophy from 1687 to 1736 by Niccol Guicciardini.
[37] Euler, L. E212 Institutiones calculi dierentialis cum eius usu in analysi nitorum ac doctrina serierum. Retrieved 21
March 2008.
[38] O'Connor, J. J.; Robertson, E. F. (1998). Leonhard Euler.
[39] Sandifer, Ed (September 2005). How Euler Did It: Bernoulli Numbers (PDF). MAA Online. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
[40] Sandifer, Ed (June 2007). How Euler Did It: Partial Fractions (PDF). MAA Online. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
[41] Bressoud, David (2007). A Radical Approach to Real Analysis. Mathematical Association of America. pp. 248255.
ISBN 0-88385-747-2.
[42] Kline, Morris (1990). Mathematical Thought From Ancient to Modern Times. Oxford University Press. pp. 10461047.
ISBN 0-19-506137-3.
[43] Benedetto, John (1997). Harmonic Analysis and Applications. CRC Press. pp. 170171. ISBN 0-8493-7879-6.
[44] Mmoire sur la propagation de la chaleur dans les corps solides, prsent le 21 Dcembre 1807 l'Institut national Nouveau
Bulletin des sciences par la Socit philomatique de Paris. I. Paris: Bernard. March 1808. pp. 112116. Reprinted
in Mmoire sur la propagation de la chaleur dans les corps solides. Joseph Fourier uvres compltes, tome 2. pp.
215221.
[45] Koch, Helmut (1998). Mathematics in Berlin: Gustav Peter Lejeune Dirichlet. Birkhuser. pp. 3340. ISBN 3-7643-5943-
9.
[46] Elstrodt, Jrgen (2007). The Life and Work of Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet (18051859)" (PDF). Clay Mathematics Pro-
ceedings: 1920.
[47] Boyer, Carl B. (1968). A History of Mathematics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 126. ISBN
0-691-02391-3.
[48] Boyer (1991). Euclid of Alexandria. p. 119. The Elements of Euclid not only was the earliest major Greek mathematical
work to come down to us, but also the most inuential textbook of all times. [...]The rst printed versions of the Elements
appeared at Venice in 1482, one of the very earliest of mathematical books to be set in type; it has been estimated that since
then at least a thousand editions have been published. Perhaps no book other than the Bible can boast so many editions,
and certainly no mathematical work has had an inuence comparable with that of Euclids Elements. Missing or empty
|title= (help)
[49] Miller, Haynes (2000). Leray in Oag XVIIA: The origins of sheaf theory, sheaf cohomology, and spectral sequences
(ps).
0-8176-3388-X.
0-8176-3388-X.
[52] Sullivan, Dennis (April 2004). Ren Thoms Work On Geometric Homology And Bordism (PDF). Bulletin of the Amer-
ican Mathematical Society. 41 (3): 341350. doi:10.1090/S0273-0979-04-01026-2.
[53] 2008 Steele Prizes; Seminal Contribution to Research: Endre Szemerdi (PDF). Notices of the American Mathematical
Society. 55 (4): 488. April 2008. Retrieved 19 July 2008.
[54] Interview with Endre Szemerdi (PDF). Notices of the American Mathematical Society. 60 (2): 226. April 2013.
doi:10.1090/noti948. Retrieved 27 January 2013.
[55] Bollobs, Bla (2002). Modern Graph Theory. Springer. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-387-98488-9.
Chapter 12
Outline of category theory
The following outline is provided as an overview of and guide to category theory, the area of study in mathematics that
examines in an abstract way the properties of particular mathematical concepts, by formalising them as collections
of objects and arrows (also called morphisms, although this term also has a specic, non category-theoretical sense),
where these collections satisfy certain basic conditions. Many signicant areas of mathematics can be formalised as
categories, and the use of category theory allows many intricate and subtle mathematical results in these elds to be
stated, and proved, in a much simpler way than without the use of categories.
12.1 Essence of category theory

Category
Functor
Natural transformation
12.2 Branches of category theory

Homological algebra
Diagram chasing
Topos theory
Enriched category theory
12.3 Specic categories

Category of sets
Concrete category
Category of vector spaces
Category of graded vector spaces
Category of chain complexes
Category of nite dimensional Hilbert spaces
Category of sets and relations
Category of topological spaces
98
12.4. OBJECTS 99
Category of metric spaces
Category of preordered sets
Category of groups
Category of abelian groups
Category of rings
Category of magmas
Category of medial magmas
12.4 Objects
Initial object
Terminal object
Zero object
Subobject
Group object
Magma object
Natural number object
Exponential object
12.5 Morphisms
Main article: Morphism
Epimorphism
Monomorphism
Zero morphism
Normal morphism
Dual (category theory)
Groupoid
Image (category theory)
Coimage
Commutative diagram
Cartesian morphism
Slice category
100 CHAPTER 12. OUTLINE OF CATEGORY THEORY
12.6 Functors
Main article: Functor
Isomorphism of categories
Natural transformation
Equivalence of categories
Subcategory
Faithful functor
Full functor
Forgetful functor
Yoneda lemma
Representable functor
Functor category
Adjoint functors
Galois connection
Pontryagin duality
Ane scheme
Monad (category theory)
Comonad
Combinatorial species
Exact functor
Derived functor
Enriched functor
Kan extension of a functor
Hom functor
12.7 Limits
Main article: Limit (category theory)
Product (category theory)

Equaliser (mathematics)
Kernel (category theory)
Pullback (category theory)/ber product
Inverse limit
Pro-nite group
Colimit
12.8. ADDITIVE STRUCTURE 101
Coproduct
Coequalizer
Cokernel
Pushout (category theory)
Direct limit
Biproduct
Direct sum
12.8 Additive structure

Preadditive category
Additive category
Pre-Abelian category
Abelian category
Exact sequence
Exact functor
Snake lemma
Nine lemma
Five lemma
Short ve lemma
Mitchells embedding theorem
Injective cogenerator
Derived category
Triangulated category
Model category
2-category
12.9 Dagger categories

Main article: Dagger category
Dagger symmetric monoidal category

Dagger compact category
Strongly ribbon category
12.10 Monoidal categories

Main article: Monoidal category
Closed monoidal category

Braided monoidal category
102 CHAPTER 12. OUTLINE OF CATEGORY THEORY
12.11 Cartesian closed category

Topos
Category of small categories
12.12 Structure
Main article: Structure (category theory)
Semigroupoid
Comma category
Localization of a category
Enriched category
Bicategory
12.13 Topoi, toposes

Sheaf
Gluing axiom
Descent (category theory)
Grothendieck topology
Introduction to topos theory
Subobject classier
Pointless topology
Heyting algebra
12.14 History of category theory

History of category theory
12.15 Persons inuential in the eld of category theory
12.15.1 Category theory scholars

Saunders Mac Lane
Samuel Eilenberg
Max Kelly
William Lawvere
Andr Joyal
12.16. SEE ALSO 103
12.16 See also

Abstract nonsense
Glossary of category theory
12.17 References
Chapter 13
Pointless topology
In mathematics, pointless topology (also called point-free or pointfree topology, or locale theory) is an approach
to topology that avoids mentioning points. The name 'pointless topology' is due to John von Neumann.[1] The ideas of
pointless topology are closely related to mereotopologies in which regions (sets) are treated as foundational without
explicit reference to underlying point sets.
13.1 General concepts

Traditionally, a topological space consists of a set of points together with a topology, a system of subsets called open
sets that with the operations of intersection and union forms a lattice with certain properties. Pointless topology then
studies lattices like these abstractly, without reference to any underlying set of points. Since some of the so-dened
lattices do not arise from topological spaces, one may see the category of pointless topological spaces, also called
locales, as an extension of the category of ordinary topological spaces.
13.2 Categories of frames and locales

Main article: Frames and locales
Formally, a frame is dened to be a lattice L in which nite meets distribute over arbitrary joins, i.e. every (even
innite) subset {a} of L has a supremum ai such that
( )
b ai = (ai b)
for all b in L. These frames, together with lattice homomorphisms that respect arbitrary suprema, form a category. The
dual of the category of frames is called the category of locales and generalizes the category Top of all topological
spaces with continuous functions. The consideration of the dual category is motivated by the fact that every continuous
map between topological spaces X and Y induces a map between the lattices of open sets in the opposite direction as
for every continuous function f: X Y and every open set O in Y the inverse image f 1 (O) is an open set in X.
13.3 Relation to point-set topology

It is possible to translate most concepts of point-set topology into the context of locales, and prove analogous theorems.
While many important theorems in point-set topology require the axiom of choice, this is not true for some of their
analogues in locale theory. This can be useful if one works in a topos that does not have the axiom of choice.
The concept of product of locales diverges slightly from the concept of "product of topological spaces", and this
divergence has been called a disadvantage of the locale approach. Others claim that the locale product is more natural,
and point to several desirable properties not shared by products of topological spaces. [2]
104
13.4. SEE ALSO 105
For sober spaces, the topological product and the localic product have the same set of points. The products dier in
how equality between sets of open rectangles, the canonical base for the product topology, is dened: equality for the
topological product means the same set of points is covered; equality for the localic product means provable equality
using the frame axioms. As a result, two open sublocales of a localic product may contain exactly the same points
without being equal.
A point where locale theory and topology diverge much more strongly is the concept of subspaces vs. sublocales. The
rational numbers have c subspaces but 2c sublocales. The proof for the latter statement is due to John Isbell, and uses
the fact that the rational numbers have c many pairwise almost disjoint (= nite intersection) closed subspaces.[3]
13.4 See also

Heyting algebra. A locale is a complete Heyting algebra.
Details on the relationship between the category of topological spaces and the category of locales, including
the explicit construction of the duality between sober spaces and spatial locales, are to be found in the article
on Stone duality.
Point-free geometry
Mereology
Mereotopology
13.5 References
[1] Garrett Birkho, VON NEUMANN AND LATTICE THEORY, John Von Neumann 1903-1957, J. C. Oxtoley, B. J. Pettis,
American Mathematical Soc., 1958, page 50-5
[2] Johnstone 1983, p. 4
Viewed correctly, this discrepancy between (Q) 1 (Q) and (Q Q) should be seen as a defect of the
latter, not of the former.
[3] Isbell, John (1992), Some problems in descriptive locale theory, Category theory 1991 (Montreal, PQ, 1991), CMS Conf.
Proc., 13, Providence, RI: Amer. Math. Soc., pp. 243265, MR 1192150. See in particular p. 245.
Johnstone, Peter T. (1983). The point of pointless topology. Bulletin (New Series) of the American Mathe-
matical Society. 8 (1): 4153. ISSN 0273-0979. Retrieved 2016-05-09.
Chapter 14
Sheaf (mathematics)
This article is about sheaves on topological spaces. For sheaves on a site, see Grothendieck topology and Topos.
In mathematics, a sheaf is a tool for systematically tracking locally dened data attached to the open sets of a
topological space. The data can be restricted to smaller open sets, and the data assigned to an open set is equiv-
alent to all collections of compatible data assigned to collections of smaller open sets covering the original one. For
example, such data can consist of the rings of continuous or smooth real-valued functions dened on each open set.
Sheaves are by design quite general and abstract objects, and their correct denition is rather technical. They are
variously dened, for example, as sheaves of sets or sheaves of rings, depending on the type of data assigned to open
sets.
There are also maps (or morphisms) from one sheaf to another; sheaves (of a specic type, such as sheaves of abelian
groups) with their morphisms on a xed topological space form a category. On the other hand, to each continuous
map there is associated both a direct image functor, taking sheaves and their morphisms on the domain to sheaves
and morphisms on the codomain, and an inverse image functor operating in the opposite direction. These functors,
and certain variants of them, are essential parts of sheaf theory.
Due to their general nature and versatility, sheaves have several applications in topology and especially in algebraic
and dierential geometry. First, geometric structures such as that of a dierentiable manifold or a scheme can be
expressed in terms of a sheaf of rings on the space. In such contexts several geometric constructions such as vector
bundles or divisors are naturally specied in terms of sheaves. Second, sheaves provide the framework for a very
general cohomology theory, which encompasses also the usual topological cohomology theories such as singular
cohomology. Especially in algebraic geometry and the theory of complex manifolds, sheaf cohomology provides a
powerful link between topological and geometric properties of spaces. Sheaves also provide the basis for the theory
of D-modules, which provide applications to the theory of dierential equations. In addition, generalisations of
sheaves to more general settings than topological spaces, such as Grothendieck topology, have provided applications
to mathematical logic and number theory.
14.1 Overview
In topology, dierential geometry, and algebraic geometry, several structures dened on a topological space (e.g., a
dierentiable manifold) can be naturally localised or restricted to open subsets of the space: typical examples include
continuous real or complex-valued functions, n times dierentiable (real or complex-valued) functions, bounded real-
valued functions, vector elds, and sections of any vector bundle on the space.
Presheaves formalise the situation common to the examples above: a presheaf (of sets) on a topological space is a
structure that associates to each open set U of the space a set F(U) of sections on U, and to each open set V included
in U a map F(U) F(V) giving restrictions of sections over U to V. Each of the examples above denes a presheaf
by taking the restriction maps to be the usual restriction of functions, vector elds and sections of a vector bundle.
Moreover, in each of these examples the sets of sections have additional algebraic structure: pointwise operations
make them abelian groups, and in the examples of real and complex-valued functions the sets of sections even have a
ring structure. In addition, in each example the restriction maps are homomorphisms of the corresponding algebraic
structure. This observation leads to the natural denition of presheaves with additional algebraic structure such as
106
14.2. FORMAL DEFINITIONS 107
presheaves of groups, of abelian groups, of rings: sets of sections are required to have the specied algebraic structure,
and the restrictions are required to be homomorphisms. Thus for example continuous real-valued functions on a
topological space form a presheaf of rings on the space.
Given a presheaf, a natural question to ask is to what extent its sections over an open set U are specied by their
restrictions to smaller open sets Vi of an open cover of U. A presheaf is separated if its sections are locally deter-
mined": whenever two sections over U coincide when restricted to each of Vi, the two sections are identical. All
examples of presheaves discussed above are separated, since in each case the sections are specied by their values at
the points of the underlying space. Finally, a separated presheaf is a sheaf if compatible sections can be glued together,
i.e., whenever there is a section of the presheaf over each of the covering sets Vi, chosen so that they match on the
overlaps of the covering sets, these sections correspond to a (unique) section on U, of which they are restrictions. It
is easy to verify that all examples above except the presheaf of bounded functions are in fact sheaves: in all cases the
criterion of being a section of the presheaf is local in a sense that it is enough to verify it in an arbitrary neighbourhood
of each point.
On the other hand, a function can be bounded on each set of an (innite) open cover of a space without being bounded
on all of the space; thus bounded functions provide an example of a presheaf that in general fails to be a sheaf. Another
example of a presheaf that fails to be a sheaf is the constant presheaf that associates the same xed set (or abelian
group, or ring,...) to each open set: it follows from the gluing property of sheaves that the set of sections on a disjoint
union of two open sets is the Cartesian product of the sets of sections over the two open sets. The correct way to
dene the constant sheaf FA (associated to for instance a set A) on a topological space is to require sections on an
open set U to be continuous maps from U to A equipped with the discrete topology; then in particular FA(U) = A for
connected U.
Maps between sheaves or presheaves (called morphisms), consist of maps between the sets of sections over each
open set of the underlying space, compatible with restrictions of sections. If the presheaves or sheaves considered are
provided with additional algebraic structure, these maps are assumed to be homomorphisms. Sheaves endowed with
nontrivial endomorphisms, such as the action of an algebraic torus or a Galois group, are of particular interest.
Presheaves and sheaves are typically denoted by capital letters, F being particularly common, presumably for the
French word for sheaves, faisceaux. Use of calligraphic letters such as F is also common.
14.2 Formal denitions

The rst step in dening a sheaf is to dene a presheaf, which captures the idea of associating data and restriction
maps to the open sets of a topological space. The second step is to require the normalisation and gluing axioms. A
presheaf that satises these axioms is a sheaf.
14.2.1 Presheaves
See also: Presheaf (category theory)
Let X be a topological space, and let C be a category. Usually C is the category of sets, the category of groups, the
category of abelian groups, or the category of commutative rings. A presheaf F on X is a functor with values in C
given by the following data:
For each open set U of X, there corresponds an object F(U) in C
For each inclusion of open sets V U, there corresponds a morphism resV,U : F(U) F(V) in the category
C.
The morphisms resV,U are called restriction morphisms. If s F(U), then its restriction resV,U(s) is often denoted
s|V by analogy with restriction of functions. The restriction morphisms are required to satisfy two properties:
For every open set U of X, the restriction morphism resU,U : F(U) F(U) is the identity morphism on F(U).
If we have three open sets W V U, then the composite resW,V o resV,U equals resW,U.
108 CHAPTER 14. SHEAF (MATHEMATICS)
Informally, the second axiom says it doesn't matter whether we restrict to W in one step or restrict rst to V, then to
W.
There is a compact way to express the notion of a presheaf in terms of category theory. First we dene the category of
open sets on X to be the category O(X) whose objects are the open sets of X and whose morphisms are inclusions. Then
a C-valued presheaf on X is the same as a contravariant functor from O(X) to C. This denition can be generalized
to the case when the source category is not of the form O(X) for any X; see presheaf (category theory).
If F is a C-valued presheaf on X, and U is an open subset of X, then F(U) is called the sections of F over U. If C
is a concrete category, then each element of F(U) is called a section. A section over X is called a global section. A
common notation (used also below) for the restriction resV,U(s) of a section is s|V. This terminology and notation
is by analogy with sections of ber bundles or sections of the tal space of a sheaf; see below. F(U) is also often
denoted (U,F), especially in contexts such as sheaf cohomology where U tends to be xed and F tends to be variable.
14.2.2 Sheaves
For simplicity, consider rst the case where the sheaf takes values in the category of sets. In fact, this denition applies
more generally to the situation where the category is a concrete category whose underlying set functor is conservative,
meaning that if the underlying map of sets is a bijection, then the original morphism is an isomorphism.
A sheaf is a presheaf with values in the category of sets that satises the following two axioms:
1. (Locality) If (Ui) is an open covering of an open set U, and if s,t F(U) are such that s|Ui = t|Ui for each set
Ui of the covering, then s = t; and
2. (Gluing) If (Ui) is an open covering of an open set U, and if for each i a section si F(Ui) is given such that
for each pair Ui,Uj of the covering sets the restrictions of si and sj agree on the overlaps: si|UiUj = sj|UiUj,
then there is a section s F(U) such that s|Ui = si for each i.
The section s whose existence is guaranteed by axiom 2 is called the gluing, concatenation, or collation of the
sections si. By axiom 1 it is unique. Sections si satisfying the condition of axiom 2 are often called compatible; thus
axioms 1 and 2 together state that compatible sections can be uniquely glued together. A separated presheaf, or
monopresheaf, is a presheaf satisfying axiom 1.[1]
If C has products, the sheaf axioms are equivalent to the requirement that, for any open covering Ui, the rst arrow
in the following diagram is an equalizer:

F (U ) F (Ui )
F (Ui Uj ).
i i,j
Here the rst map is the product of the restriction maps
resUi ,U : F (U ) F (Ui )
and the pair of arrows the products of the two sets of restrictions
resUi Uj ,Ui : F (Ui ) F (Ui Uj )
and
resUi Uj ,Uj : F (Uj ) F (Ui Uj ).
For a separated presheaf, the rst arrow need only be injective.

In general, for an open set U and open covering (Ui), construct a category J whose objects are the sets Ui and the
intersections Ui Uj and whose morphisms are the inclusions of Ui Uj in Ui and Uj. The sheaf axioms for U and
(Ui) are that the limit of the functor F restricted to the category J must be isomorphic to F(U).
14.3. EXAMPLES 109
Notice that the empty subset of a topological space is covered by the empty family of sets. The product of an empty
family or the limit of an empty family is a terminal object, and consequently the value of a sheaf on the empty set
must be a terminal object. If sheaf values are in the category of sets, applying the local identity axiom to the empty
family shows that over the empty set, there is at most one section, and applying the gluing axiom to the empty family
shows that there is at least one section. This property is called the normalisation axiom.
It can be shown that to specify a sheaf, it is enough to specify its restriction to the open sets of a basis for the topology
of the underlying space. Moreover, it can also be shown that it is enough to verify the sheaf axioms above relative to
the open sets of a covering. Thus a sheaf can often be dened by giving its values on the open sets of a basis, and
verifying the sheaf axioms relative to the basis. (see gluing axiom#Sheaves on a basis of open sets.)
14.2.3 Morphisms
Heuristically speaking, a morphism of sheaves is analogous to a function between them. However, because sheaves
contain data relative to every open set of a topological space, a morphism of sheaves is dened as a collection of
functions, one for each open set, that satisfy a compatibility condition.
Let F and G be two sheaves on X with values in the category C. A morphism : G F consists of a morphism (U)
: G(U) F(U) for each open set U of X, subject to the condition that this morphism is compatible with restrictions.
In other words, for every open subset V of an open set U, the following diagram
is commutative.
Recall that we could also express a sheaf as a special kind of functor. In this language, a morphism of sheaves is a
natural transformation of the corresponding functors. With this notion of morphism, there is a category of C-valued
sheaves on X for any C. The objects are the C-valued sheaves, and the morphisms are morphisms of sheaves. An
isomorphism of sheaves is an isomorphism in this category.
It can be proved that an isomorphism of sheaves is an isomorphism on each open set U. In other words, is an
isomorphism if and only if for each U, (U) is an isomorphism. It is also true that a morphism of sheaves is an
isomorphism if and only if there exists an open cover {U } such that |U are isomorphisms of sheaves for all .
The same facts are true of monomorphisms. However, they are false for epimorphisms, and their failure is measured
by sheaf cohomology.
Notice that we did not use the gluing axiom in dening a morphism of sheaves. Consequently, the above denition
makes sense for presheaves as well. The category of C-valued presheaves is then a functor category, the category of
contravariant functors from O(X) to C.
14.3 Examples
Because sheaves encode exactly the data needed to pass between local and global situations, there are many examples
of sheaves occurring throughout mathematics. Here are some additional examples of sheaves:
Any continuous map of topological spaces determines a sheaf of sets. Let f : Y X be a continuous map.
We dene a sheaf (Y/X) on X by setting (Y/X)(U) equal to the sections U Y, that is, (Y/X)(U) is the
set of all continuous functions s : U Y such that f s = idU. Restriction is given by restriction of functions.
This sheaf is called the sheaf of sections of f, and it is especially important when f is the projection of a
ber bundle onto its base space. Notice that if the image of f does not contain U, then (Y/X)(U) is empty.
For a concrete example, take X = C \ {0}, Y = C, and f(z) = exp(z). (Y/X)(U) is the set of branches of the
logarithm on U.
Fix a point x in X and an object S in a category C. The skyscraper sheaf over x with stalk S is the sheaf Sx
dened as follows: If U is an open set containing x, then Sx(U) = S. If U does not contain x, then Sx(U) is
the terminal object of C. The restriction maps are either the identity on S, if both open sets contain x, or the
unique map from S to the terminal object of C.
14.3.1 Sheaves on manifolds
In the following examples M is an n-dimensional C k -manifold. The table lists the values of certain sheaves over open
subsets U of M and their restriction maps.
14.3.2 Presheaves that are not sheaves
Here are two examples of presheaves that are not sheaves:
Let X be the two-point topological space {x, y} with the discrete topology. Dene a presheaf F as follows:
F() = {}, F({x}) = R, F({y}) = R, F({x, y}) = R R R. The restriction map F({x, y}) F({x}) is the
projection of R R R onto its rst coordinate, and the restriction map F({x, y}) F({y}) is the projection
of R R R onto its second coordinate. F is a presheaf that is not separated: A global section is determined
by three numbers, but the values of that section over {x} and {y} determine only two of those numbers. So
while we can glue any two sections over {x} and {y}, we cannot glue them uniquely.
Let X be the real line, and let F(U) be the set of bounded continuous functions on U. This is not a sheaf because
it is not always possible to glue. For example, let Ui be the set of all x such that |x| < i. The identity function
f(x) = x is bounded on each Ui. Consequently we get a section si on Ui. However, these sections do not glue,
because the function f is not bounded on the real line. Consequently F is a presheaf, but not a sheaf. In fact,
F is separated because it is a sub-presheaf of the sheaf of continuous functions.
14.4 Turning a presheaf into a sheaf

It is frequently useful to take the data contained in a presheaf and to express it as a sheaf. It turns out that there is a
best possible way to do this. It takes a presheaf F and produces a new sheaf aF called the sheaving, sheacation or
sheaf associated to the presheaf F. a is called the sheaving functor, sheacation functor, or associated sheaf
functor. There is a natural morphism of presheaves i : F aF that has the universal property that for any sheaf G
and any morphism of presheaves f : F G, there is a unique morphism of sheaves f : aF G such that f = fi .
In fact a is the left adjoint functor to the inclusion functor (or forgetful functor) from the category of sheaves to the
category of presheaves, and i is the unit of the adjunction. In this way, the category of sheaves turns into a Giraud
subcategory of presheaves.
One concrete way of constructing the sheaf aF is to identify it with the sheaf of sections of an appropriate topological
space. This space is analogous to the tal space of a sheaf. Briey, the underlying set of the topological space is the
disjoint union of the stalks of F, denoted Sp F. There is a natural map : Sp F X that sends each germ to the
point of X over which it lies. For each open set U and each section s of F over U, we dene a section s of that
sends x to the germ sx. Then Sp F is given the nest topology for which all sections s are continuous, and aF is the
sheaf of continuous sections of for this topology.
There are other constructions of the sheaf aF. In particular, Grothendieck and Verdier (SGA 4 II 3.0.5) dene a
functor L from presheaves to presheaves which, when applied to a presheaf, yields a separated presheaf and, when
applied to a separated presheaf, yields a sheaf. Applying the functor L twice therefore turns a presheaf into a sheaf,
and in fact LLF is the associated sheaf aF.
14.5 Operations
If K is a subsheaf of a sheaf F of abelian groups, then the quotient sheaf Q is the sheaf associated to the presheaf
U 7 F (U )/K(U ) ; in other words, the quotient sheaf ts into an exact sequence of sheaves of abelian groups;
14.6. IMAGES OF SHEAVES 111
0 K F Q 0.
(this is also called a sheaf extension.)

Let F, G be sheaves of abelian groups. The set of morphisms of sheaves from F to G forms an abelian group (by the
abelian group structure of G). The sheaf hom of F and G, denoted by,
Hom(F, G)
is the sheaf of abelian groups U 7 Hom(F |U , G|U ) where F |U is the sheaf on U given by (F |U )(V ) = F (V )
(Note sheacation is not needed here.) The tensor product of F and G is the sheaf associated to the presheaf
U 7 F (U ) G(U ) .
All of these operations extend to sheaves of modules over a sheaf of rings A; the above is the special case when A is
the constant sheaf Z .
14.6 Images of sheaves

Main article: Image functors for sheaves
The denition of a morphism on sheaves makes sense only for sheaves on the same space X. This is because the data
contained in a sheaf is indexed by the open sets of the space. If we have two sheaves on dierent spaces, then their
data is indexed dierently. There is no way to go directly from one set of data to the other.
However, it is possible to move a sheaf from one space to another using a continuous function. Let f : X Y be a
continuous function from a topological space X to a topological space Y. If we have a sheaf on X, we can move it to
Y, and vice versa. There are four ways in which sheaves can be moved.
A sheaf F on X can be moved to Y using the direct image functor f or the direct image with proper support
functor f! .
A sheaf G on Y can be moved to X using the inverse image functor f 1 or the twisted inverse image functor
f! .
The twisted inverse image functor f ! is, in general, only dened as a functor between derived categories. These
functors come in adjoint pairs: f 1 and f are left and right adjoints of each other, and Rf! and f ! are left and right
adjoints of each other. The functors are intertwined with each other by Grothendieck duality and Verdier duality.
There is a dierent inverse image functor for sheaves of modules over sheaves of rings. This functor is usually denoted
f and it is distinct from f 1 . See inverse image functor.
14.7 Stalks of a sheaf

Main article: Stalk (sheaf)
The stalk Fx of a sheaf F captures the properties of a sheaf around a point x X. Here, around means that, con-
ceptually speaking, one looks at smaller and smaller neighborhoods of the point. Of course, no single neighborhood
will be small enough, so we will have to take a limit of some sort.
The stalk is dened by
Fx = lim F(U ),

U x
the direct limit being over all open subsets of X containing the given point x. In other words, an element of the stalk
is given by a section over some open neighborhood of x, and two such sections are considered equivalent if their
restrictions agree on a smaller neighborhood.
The natural morphism F(U) Fx takes a section s in F(U) to its germ. This generalises the usual denition of a
germ.
A dierent way of dening the stalk is
Fx := i1 F({x}),
where i is the inclusion of the one-point space {x} into X. The equivalence follows from the denition of the inverse
image.
In many situations, knowing the stalks of a sheaf is enough to control the sheaf itself. For example, whether or not a
morphism of sheaves is a monomorphism, epimorphism, or isomorphism can be tested on the stalks. They also nd
use in constructions such as Godement resolutions.
14.8 Ringed spaces and locally ringed spaces

Main article: Ringed space
A pair (X, OX ) consisting of a topological space X and a sheaf of rings on X is called a ringed space. Many types
of spaces can be dened as certain types of ringed spaces. The sheaf OX is called the structure sheaf of the space.
A very common situation is when all the stalks of the structure sheaf are local rings, in which case the pair is called
a locally ringed space. Here are examples of denitions made in this way:
An n-dimensional C k manifold M is a locally ringed space whose structure sheaf is an R -algebra and is locally
isomorphic to the sheaf of C k real-valued functions on Rn .
A complex analytic space is a locally ringed space whose structure sheaf is a C -algebra and is locally isomorphic
to the vanishing locus of a nite set of holomorphic functions together with the restriction (to the vanishing
locus) of the sheaf of holomorphic functions on Cn for some n.
A scheme is a locally ringed space that is locally isomorphic to the spectrum of a ring.
A semialgebraic space is a locally ringed space that is locally isomorphic to a semialgebraic set in Euclidean
space together with its sheaf of semialgebraic functions.
14.9 Sheaves of modules

Main article: Sheaf of modules
Let (X, OX ) be a ringed space. A sheaf of modules is a sheaf M such that on every open set U of X, M(U )
is an OX (U ) -module and for every inclusion of open sets V U, the restriction map M(U ) M(V ) is a
homomorphism of OX (U ) -modules.
Most important geometric objects are sheaves of modules. For example, there is a one-to-one correspondence between
vector bundles and locally free sheaves of OX -modules. Sheaves of solutions to dierential equations are D-modules,
that is, modules over the sheaf of dierential operators.
A particularly important case are abelian sheaves, which are modules over the constant sheaf Z . Every sheaf of
modules is an abelian sheaf.
14.9.1 Finiteness conditions for sheaves of modules

Further information: Coherent sheaf
14.10. THE TAL SPACE OF A SHEAF 113
The condition that a module is nitely generated or nitely presented can also be formulated for a sheaf of modules.
M is nitely generated if, for every point x of X, there exists an open neighborhood U of x, a natural number
n (possibly depending on U), and a surjective morphism of sheaves OX n
|U M|U . Similarly, M is nitely
presented if in addition there exists a natural number m (again possibly depending on U) and a morphism of sheaves
OXm
|U OX n
|U such that the sequence of morphisms OX m
|U OX n
|U M is exact. Equivalently, the kernel of
the morphism OX |U M is itself a nitely generated sheaf.
n
These, however, are not the only possible niteness conditions on a sheaf. The most important niteness condition for
a sheaf is coherence. M is coherent if it is of nite type and if, for every open set U and every morphism of sheaves
: OX n
M (not necessarily surjective), the kernel of is of nite type. OX is coherent if it is coherent as a
module over itself. Note that coherence is a strictly stronger condition than nite presentation: OX is always nitely
presented as a module over itself, but it is not always coherent. For example, let X be a point, let OX be the ring R
= C[x1 , x2 , ...] of complex polynomials in countably many indeterminates. Choose n = 1, and for the morphism ,
take the map that sends every variable to zero. The kernel of this map is not nitely generated, so OX is not coherent.
14.10 The tal space of a sheaf
In the examples above it was noted that some sheaves occur naturally as sheaves of sections. In fact, all sheaves of
sets can be represented as sheaves of sections of a topological space called the tal space, from the French word
tal [etale], meaning roughly spread out. If F is a sheaf over X, then the tal space of F is a topological space
E together with a local homeomorphism : E X such that the sheaf of sections of is F. The space E is usually
very strange, and even if the sheaf F arises from a natural topological situation, E may not have any clear topological
interpretation. For example, if F is the sheaf of sections of a continuous function f : Y X, then E = Y if and only
if f is a local homeomorphism.
The tal space E is constructed from the stalks of F over X. As a set, it is their disjoint union and is the obvious
map that takes the value x on the stalk of F over x X. The topology of E is dened as follows. For each element s
of F(U) and each x in U, we get a germ of s at x. These germs determine points of E. For any U and s F(U), the
union of these points (for all x U) is declared to be open in E. Notice that each stalk has the discrete topology as
subspace topology. Two morphisms between sheaves determine a continuous map of the corresponding tal spaces
that is compatible with the projection maps (in the sense that every germ is mapped to a germ over the same point).
This makes the construction into a functor.
The construction above determines an equivalence of categories between the category of sheaves of sets on X and the
category of tal spaces over X. The construction of an tal space can also be applied to a presheaf, in which case
the sheaf of sections of the tal space recovers the sheaf associated to the given presheaf.
This construction makes all sheaves into representable functors on certain categories of topological spaces. As above,
let F be a sheaf on X, let E be its tal space, and let : E X be the natural projection. Consider the category
Top/X of topological spaces over X, that is, the category of topological spaces together with xed continuous maps to
X. Every object of this space is a continuous map f : Y X, and a morphism from Y X to Z X is a continuous
map Y Z that commutes with the two maps to X. There is a functor from Top/X to the category of sets that takes
an object f : Y X to (f 1 F)(Y). For example, if i : U X is the inclusion of an open subset, then (i) = (i1 F)(U)
agrees with the usual F(U), and if i : {x} X is the inclusion of a point, then ({x}) = (i1 F)({x}) is the stalk of F
at x. There is a natural isomorphism
(f 1 F )(Y )
= HomTop/X (f, )
which shows that E represents the functor .

E is constructed so that the projection map is a covering map. In algebraic geometry, the natural analog of a covering
map is called an tale morphism. Despite its similarity to "tal", the word tale [etal] has a dierent meaning both
in French and in mathematics. In particular, it is possible to turn E into a scheme and into a morphism of schemes
in such a way that retains the same universal property, but is not in general an tale morphism because it is not
quasi-nite. It is, however, formally tale.
The denition of sheaves by tal spaces is older than the denition given earlier in the article. It is still common in
some areas of mathematics such as mathematical analysis.
14.11 Sheaf cohomology
Main article: Sheaf cohomology
It was noted above that the functor (U, ) preserves isomorphisms and monomorphisms, but not epimorphisms. If
F is a sheaf of abelian groups, or more generally a sheaf with values in an abelian category, then (U, ) is actually
a left exact functor. This means that it is possible to construct derived functors of (U, ) . These derived functors
are called the cohomology groups (or modules) of F and are written H i (U, ) . Grothendieck proved in his "Tohoku
paper" (Grothendieck (1957)) that every category of sheaves of abelian groups contains enough injective objects, so
these derived functors always exist.
However, computing sheaf cohomology using injective resolutions is nearly impossible. In practice, it is much more
common to nd a dierent and more tractable resolution of F. A general construction is provided by Godement
resolutions, and particular resolutions may be constructed using soft sheaves, ne sheaves, and abby sheaves (also
known as asque sheaves from the French asque meaning abby). As a consequence, it can become possible to
compare sheaf cohomology with other cohomology theories. For example, the de Rham complex is a resolution of
the constant sheaf R on any smooth manifold, so the sheaf cohomology of R is equal to its de Rham cohomology. In
fact, comparing sheaf cohomology to de Rham cohomology and singular cohomology provides a proof of de Rhams
theorem that the two cohomology theories are isomorphic.
A dierent approach is by ech cohomology. ech cohomology was the rst cohomology theory developed for
sheaves and it is well-suited to concrete calculations. It relates sections on open subsets of the space to cohomology
classes on the space. In most cases, ech cohomology computes the same cohomology groups as the derived functor
cohomology. However, for some pathological spaces, ech cohomology will give the correct H 1 but incorrect higher
cohomology groups. To get around this, Jean-Louis Verdier developed hypercoverings. Hypercoverings not only give
the correct higher cohomology groups but also allow the open subsets mentioned above to be replaced by certain
morphisms from another space. This exibility is necessary in some applications, such as the construction of Pierre
Deligne's mixed Hodge structures.
A much cleaner approach to the computation of some cohomology groups is the BorelBottWeil theorem, which
identies the cohomology groups of some line bundles on ag manifolds with irreducible representations of Lie
groups. This theorem can be used, for example, to easily compute the cohomology groups of all line bundles on
projective space.
In many cases there is a duality theory for sheaves that generalizes Poincar duality. See Grothendieck duality and
Verdier duality.
14.12 Sites and topoi
Main articles: Grothendieck topology and Topos
Andr Weil's Weil conjectures stated that there was a cohomology theory for algebraic varieties over nite elds
that would give an analogue of the Riemann hypothesis. The cohomology of a complex manifold can be dened
as the sheaf cohomology of the locally constant sheaf C in the Euclidean topology, which suggests dening a Weil
cohomology theory in positive characteristic as the sheaf cohomology of a constant sheaf. But the only classical
topology on such a variety is the Zariski topology, and the Zariski topology has very few open sets, so few that the
cohomology of any Zariski-constant sheaf on an irreducible variety vanishes (except in degree zero). Alexandre
Grothendieck solved this problem by introducing Grothendieck topologies, which axiomatize the notion of covering.
Grothendiecks insight was that the denition of a sheaf depends only on the open sets of a topological space, not on
the individual points. Once he had axiomatized the notion of covering, open sets could be replaced by other objects.
A presheaf takes each one of these objects to data, just as before, and a sheaf is a presheaf that satises the gluing
axiom with respect to our new notion of covering. This allowed Grothendieck to dene tale cohomology and l-adic
cohomology, which eventually were used to prove the Weil conjectures.
A category with a Grothendieck topology is called a site. A category of sheaves on a site is called a topos or a
Grothendieck topos. The notion of a topos was later abstracted by William Lawvere and Miles Tierney to dene an
elementary topos, which has connections to mathematical logic.
14.13. HISTORY 115
14.13 History
The rst origins of sheaf theory are hard to pin down they may be co-extensive with the idea of analytic contin-
uation. It took about 15 years for a recognisable, free-standing theory of sheaves to emerge from the foundational
work on cohomology.
1936 Eduard ech introduces the nerve construction, for associating a simplicial complex to an open covering.
1938 Hassler Whitney gives a 'modern' denition of cohomology, summarizing the work since J. W. Alexander
and Kolmogorov rst dened cochains.
1943 Norman Steenrod publishes on homology with local coecients.
1945 Jean Leray publishes work carried out as a prisoner of war, motivated by proving xed point theorems
for application to PDE theory; it is the start of sheaf theory and spectral sequences.
1947 Henri Cartan reproves the de Rham theorem by sheaf methods, in correspondence with Andr Weil (see
De Rham-Weil theorem). Leray gives a sheaf denition in his courses via closed sets (the later carapaces).
1948 The Cartan seminar writes up sheaf theory for the rst time.
1950 The second edition sheaf theory from the Cartan seminar: the sheaf space (espace tal) denition is
used, with stalkwise structure. Supports are introduced, and cohomology with supports. Continuous mappings
give rise to spectral sequences. At the same time Kiyoshi Oka introduces an idea (adjacent to that) of a sheaf
of ideals, in several complex variables.
1951 The Cartan seminar proves the Theorems A and B based on Okas work.
1953 The niteness theorem for coherent sheaves in the analytic theory is proved by Cartan and Jean-Pierre
Serre, as is Serre duality.
1954 Serres paper Faisceaux algbriques cohrents (published in 1955) introduces sheaves into algebraic ge-
ometry. These ideas are immediately exploited by Hirzebruch, who writes a major 1956 book on topological
methods.
1955 Alexander Grothendieck in lectures in Kansas denes abelian category and presheaf, and by using injective
resolutions allows direct use of sheaf cohomology on all topological spaces, as derived functors.
1956 Oscar Zariski's report Algebraic sheaf theory
1957 Grothendiecks Tohoku paper rewrites homological algebra; he proves Grothendieck duality (i.e., Serre
duality for possibly singular algebraic varieties).
1957 onwards: Grothendieck extends sheaf theory in line with the needs of algebraic geometry, introducing:
schemes and general sheaves on them, local cohomology, derived categories (with Verdier), and Grothendieck
topologies. There emerges also his inuential schematic idea of 'six operations in homological algebra.
1958 Godement's book on sheaf theory is published. At around this time Mikio Sato proposes his hyperfunctions,
which will turn out to have sheaf-theoretic nature.
At this point sheaves had become a mainstream part of mathematics, with use by no means restricted to algebraic
topology. It was later discovered that the logic in categories of sheaves is intuitionistic logic (this observation is now
often referred to as KripkeJoyal semantics, but probably should be attributed to a number of authors). This shows
that some of the facets of sheaf theory can also be traced back as far as Leibniz.
14.14 See also

Coherent sheaf
Cosheaf
Gerbe
Stack (mathematics)
Sheaf of spectra
Presheaf of spaces
Base change theorems
14.15 Notes
[1] Tennison, B. R. (1975), Sheaf theory, Cambridge University Press, MR 0404390
14.16 References
Bredon, Glen E. (1997), Sheaf theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 170 (2nd ed.), Berlin, New York:
Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-0-387-94905-5, MR 1481706 (oriented towards conventional topological appli-
cations)
Godement, Roger (1973), Topologie algbrique et thorie des faisceaux, Paris: Hermann, MR 0345092
Grothendieck, Alexander (1957), Sur quelques points d'algbre homologique, The Tohoku Mathematical
Journal. Second Series, 9: 119221, ISSN 0040-8735, MR 0102537, doi:10.2748/tmj/1178244839
Hirzebruch, Friedrich (1995), Topological methods in algebraic geometry, Classics in Mathematics, Berlin, New
York: Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-3-540-58663-0, MR 1335917 (updated edition of a classic using enough
sheaf theory to show its power)
Kashiwara, Masaki; Schapira, Pierre (1994), Sheaves on manifolds, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wis-
senschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], 292, Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag,
ISBN 978-3-540-51861-7, MR 1299726(advanced techniques such as the derived category and vanishing cy-
cles on the most reasonable spaces)
Mac Lane, Saunders; Moerdijk, Ieke (1994), Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: A First Introduction to Topos
Theory, Universitext, Berlin, New York: Springer-Verlag, ISBN 978-0-387-97710-2, MR 1300636 (category
theory and toposes emphasised)
Martin, W. T.; Chern, S. S.; Zariski, Oscar (1956), Scientic report on the Second Summer Institute, several
complex variables, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 62 (2): 79141, ISSN 0002-9904, MR
0077995, doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1956-10013-X
J. Arthur Seebach, Linda A. Seebach & Lynn A. Steen (1970) What is a Sheaf, American Mathematical
Monthly 77:681703 MR0263073.
Serre, Jean-Pierre (1955), Faisceaux algbriques cohrents (PDF), Annals of Mathematics. Second Series,
The Annals of Mathematics, Vol. 61, No. 2, 61 (2): 197278, ISSN 0003-486X, JSTOR 1969915, MR
0068874, doi:10.2307/1969915 Scholar search
Swan, R. G. (1964), The Theory of Sheaves, University of Chicago Press (concise lecture notes)
Tennison, B. R. (1975), Sheaf theory, Cambridge University Press, MR 0404390 (pedagogic treatment)

Sheaf. PlanetMath.
Chapter 15
Timeline of category theory and related

mathematics
This is a timeline of category theory and related mathematics. Its scope ('related mathematics) is taken as:
Categories of abstract algebraic structures including representation theory and universal algebra;
Homological algebra;
Homotopical algebra;
Topology using categories, including algebraic topology, categorical topology, quantum topology, low-dimensional
topology;
Categorical logic and set theory in the categorical context such as algebraic set theory;
Foundations of mathematics building on categories, for instance topos theory;
Abstract geometry, including algebraic geometry, categorical noncommutative geometry, etc.
Quantization related to category theory, in particular categorical quantization;
Categorical physics relevant for mathematics.
In this article and in category theory in general = .
15.1 Timeline to 1945: before the denitions
15.2 19451970
15.3 19711980
15.4 19811990
15.5 19912000
15.6 2001present
15.7 See also

EGA
117
118 CHAPTER 15. TIMELINE OF CATEGORY THEORY AND RELATED MATHEMATICS
FGA
SGA
15.8 Notes
[1]
15.9 References
nLab, just as a higher-dimensional Wikipedia, started in late 2008; see nLab
Zhaohua Luo; Categorical geometry homepage
John Baez, Aaron Lauda; A prehistory of n-categorical physics

Ross Street; An Australian conspectus of higher categories
Elaine Landry, Jean-Pierre Marquis; Categories in context: historical, foundational, and philosophical
Jim Stashe; A survey of cohomological physics
John Bell; The development of categorical logic

Jean Dieudonn; The historical development of algebraic geometry
Charles Weibel; History of homological algebra

Peter Johnstone; The point of pointless topology
Jim Stashe; The pre-history of operads CiteSeerX: 10.1.1.25.5089

George Whitehead; Fifty years of homotopy theory
Haynes Miller; The origin of sheaf theory

Chapter 16
Topos
For other uses, see Topos (disambiguation).
In mathematics, a topos (UK: /tps/, US: /topos, tops/; plural topoi /top/ or /tp/, or toposes) is a
category that behaves like the category of sheaves of sets on a topological space (or more generally: on a site). Topoi
behave much like the category of sets and possess a notion of localization; they are in a sense a generalization of
point-set topology.[1] The Grothendieck topoi nd applications in algebraic geometry; the more general elementary
topoi are used in logic.
16.1 Grothendieck topoi (topoi in geometry)

Since the introduction of sheaves into mathematics in the 1940s a major theme has been to study a space by studying
sheaves on a space. This idea was expounded by Alexander Grothendieck by introducing the notion of a topos.
The main utility of this notion is in the abundance of situations in mathematics where topological heuristics are very
eective but an honest topological space is lacking; it is sometimes possible to nd a topos formalizing the heuristic.
An important example of this programmatic idea to date is the tale topos of a scheme.
16.1.1 Equivalent denitions

Let C be a category. A theorem of Giraud states that the following are equivalent:
There is a small category D and an inclusion C Presh(D) that admits a nite-limit-preserving left adjoint.
C is the category of sheaves on a Grothendieck site.
C satises Girauds axioms, below.
A category with these properties is called a "(Grothendieck) topos. Here Presh(D) denotes the category of contravariant
functors from D to the category of sets; such a contravariant functor is frequently called a presheaf.
Girauds axioms
Girauds axioms for a category C are:
C has a small set of generators, and admits all small colimits. Furthermore, colimits commute with ber
products.
Sums in C are disjoint. In other words, the ber product of X and Y over their sum is the initial object in C.
All equivalence relations in C are eective.
119
120 CHAPTER 16. TOPOS
The last axiom needs the most explanation. If X is an object of C, an equivalence relation R on X is a map RXX in
C such that for any object Y in C, the induced map Hom(Y,R)Hom(Y,X)Hom(Y,X) gives an ordinary equivalence
relation on the set Hom(Y,X). Since C has colimits we may form the coequalizer of the two maps RX; call this
X/R. The equivalence relation is eective if the canonical map
R X X/R X
is an isomorphism.
Examples
Girauds theorem already gives sheaves on sites as a complete list of examples. Note, however, that nonequivalent
sites often give rise to equivalent topoi. As indicated in the introduction, sheaves on ordinary topological spaces
motivate many of the basic denitions and results of topos theory.
The category of sets is an important special case: it plays the role of a point in topos theory. Indeed, a set may be
thought of as a sheaf on a point.
More exotic examples, and the raison d'tre of topos theory, come from algebraic geometry. To a scheme and even
a stack one may associate an tale topos, an fppf topos, a Nisnevich topos... Another important example of a topos
is from the crystalline site.
Counterexamples Topos theory is, in some sense, a generalization of classical point-set topology. One should
therefore expect to see old and new instances of pathological behavior. For instance, there is an example due to
Pierre Deligne of a nontrivial topos that has no points (see below for the denition of points of a topos).
16.1.2 Geometric morphisms

If X and Y are topoi, a geometric morphism u: XY is a pair of adjoint functors (u ,u) (where u* :YX is left adjoint
to u:XY) such that u preserves nite limits. Note that u automatically preserves colimits by virtue of having a
right adjoint.
By Freyds adjoint functor theorem, to give a geometric morphism X Y is to give a functor u : Y X that preserves
nite limits and all small colimits. Thus geometric morphisms between topoi may be seen as analogues of maps of
locales.
If X and Y are topological spaces and u is a continuous map between them, then the pullback and pushforward
operations on sheaves yield a geometric morphism between the associated topoi.
Points of topoi
A point of a topos X is dened as a geometric morphism from the topos of sets to X.

If X is an ordinary space and x is a point of X, then the functor that takes a sheaf F to its stalk Fx has a right adjoint
(the skyscraper sheaf functor), so an ordinary point of X also determines a topos-theoretic point. These may be
constructed as the pullback-pushforward along the continuous map x: 1 X.
Essential geometric morphisms
A geometric morphism (u ,u) is essential if u has a further left adjoint u!, or equivalently (by the adjoint functor
theorem) if u preserves not only nite but all small limits.
16.1.3 Ringed topoi

A ringed topos is a pair (X,R), where X is a topos and R is a commutative ring object in X. Most of the constructions of
ringed spaces go through for ringed topoi. The category of R-module objects in X is an abelian category with enough
16.2. ELEMENTARY TOPOI (TOPOI IN LOGIC) 121
injectives. A more useful abelian category is the subcategory of quasi-coherent R-modules: these are R-modules that
admit a presentation.
Another important class of ringed topoi, besides ringed spaces, are the etale topoi of Deligne-Mumford stacks.
16.1.4 Homotopy theory of topoi

Michael Artin and Barry Mazur associated to the site underlying a topos a pro-simplicial set (up to homotopy).[2]
Using this inverse system of simplicial sets one may sometimes associate to a homotopy invariant in classical topology
an inverse system of invariants in topos theory. The study of the pro-simplicial set associated to the etale topos of a
scheme is called tale homotopy theory.[3] In good cases (if the scheme is Noetherian and geometrically unibranch),
this pro-simplicial set is pro-nite.
16.2 Elementary topoi (topoi in logic)
16.2.1 Introduction
A traditional axiomatic foundation of mathematics is set theory, in which all mathematical objects are ultimately
represented by sets (even functions, which map between sets). More recent work in category theory allows this foun-
dation to be generalized using topoi; each topos completely denes its own mathematical framework. The category of
sets forms a familiar topos, and working within this topos is equivalent to using traditional set theoretic mathematics.
But one could instead choose to work with many alternative topoi. A standard formulation of the axiom of choice
makes sense in any topos, and there are topoi in which it is invalid. Constructivists will be interested to work in a
topos without the law of excluded middle. If symmetry under a particular group G is of importance, one can use the
topos consisting of all G-sets.
It is also possible to encode an algebraic theory, such as the theory of groups, as a topos, in the form of a classifying
topos. The individual models of the theory, i.e. the groups in our example, then correspond to functors from the
encoding topos to the category of sets that respect the topos structure.
16.2.2 Formal denition

When used for foundational work a topos will be dened axiomatically; set theory is then treated as a special case of
topos theory. Building from category theory, there are multiple equivalent denitions of a topos. The following has
the virtue of being concise:
A topos is a category that has the following two properties:
All limits taken over nite index categories exist.

Every object has a power object. This plays the role of the powerset in set theory.
Formally, a power object of an object X is a pair (P X, X ) with X P X X , which classies relations, in

the following sense. First note that for every object I , a morphism r : I P X (a family of subsets) induces a
subobject {(i, x) | x r(i)} I X . Formally, this is dened by pulling back X along rX : I X P X X
. The universal property of a power object is that every relation arises in this way, giving a bijective correspondence
between relations R I X and morphisms r : I P X .
From nite limits and power objects one can derive that
All colimits taken over nite index categories exist.

The category has a subobject classier.
The category is Cartesian closed.
In some applications, the role of the subobject classier is pivotal, whereas power objects are not. Thus some de-
nitions reverse the roles of what is dened and what is derived.
16.2.3 Logical functors
A logical functor is a functor between toposes which preserves nite limits and power objects. Logical functors pre-
serve the structures that toposes have. In particular, they preserve nite colimits, subobject classiers, and exponential
objects.[4]
16.2.4 Explanation
A topos as dened above can be understood as a Cartesian closed category for which the notion of subobject of an
object has an elementary or rst-order denition. This notion, as a natural categorical abstraction of the notions of
subset of a set, subgroup of a group, and more generally subalgebra of any algebraic structure, predates the notion of
topos. It is denable in any category, not just topoi, in second-order language, i.e. in terms of classes of morphisms
instead of individual morphisms, as follows. Given two monics m, n from respectively Y and Z to X, we say that m
n when there exists a morphism p: Y Z for which np = m, inducing a preorder on monics to X. When m n and n
m we say that m and n are equivalent. The subobjects of X are the resulting equivalence classes of the monics to it.
In a topos subobject becomes, at least implicitly, a rst-order notion, as follows.
As noted above, a topos is a category C having all nite limits and hence in particular the empty limit or nal object
1. It is then natural to treat morphisms of the form x: 1 X as elements x X. Morphisms f: X Y thus correspond
to functions mapping each element x X to the element fx Y, with application realized by composition.
One might then think to dene a subobject of X as an equivalence class of monics m: X X having the same image
or range { mx | x X }. The catch is that two or more morphisms may correspond to the same function, that is, we
cannot assume that C is concrete in the sense that the functor C(1,-): C Set is faithful. For example the category
Grph of graphs and their associated homomorphisms is a topos whose nal object 1 is the graph with one vertex and
one edge (a self-loop), but is not concrete because the elements 1 G of a graph G correspond only to the self-loops
and not the other edges, nor the vertices without self-loops. Whereas the second-order denition makes G and its set
of self-loops (with their vertices) distinct subobjects of G (unless every edge is, and every vertex has, a self-loop),
this image-based one does not. This can be addressed for the graph example and related examples via the Yoneda
Lemma as described in the Examples section below, but this then ceases to be rst-order. Topoi provide a more
abstract, general, and rst-order solution.
As noted above a topos C has a subobject classier , namely an object of C with an element t , the generic
subobject of C, having the property that every monic m: X X arises as a pullback of the generic subobject along
a unique morphism f: X , as per Figure 1. Now the pullback of a monic is a monic, and all elements including t
are monics since there is only one morphism to 1 from any given object, whence the pullback of t along f: X is
a monic. The monics to X are therefore in bijection with the pullbacks of t along morphisms from X to . The latter
morphisms partition the monics into equivalence classes each determined by a morphism f: X , the characteristic
morphism of that class, which we take to be the subobject of X characterized or named by f.
All this applies to any topos, whether or not concrete. In the concrete case, namely C(1,-) faithful, for example the
category of sets, the situation reduces to the familiar behavior of functions. Here the monics m: X X are exactly
the injections (one-one functions) from X to X, and those with a given image { mx | x X } constitute the subobject
of X corresponding to the morphism f: X for which f 1 (t) is that image. The monics of a subobject will in
general have many domains, all of which however will be in bijection with each other.
To summarize, this rst-order notion of subobject classier implicitly denes for a topos the same equivalence relation
on monics to X as had previously been dened explicitly by the second-order notion of subobject for any category.
The notion of equivalence relation on a class of morphisms is itself intrinsically second-order, which the denition of
topos neatly sidesteps by explicitly dening only the notion of subobject classier , leaving the notion of subobject
of X as an implicit consequence characterized (and hence namable) by its associated morphism f: X .
16.2.5 Further examples
Every Grothendieck topos is an elementary topos, but the converse is not true (since every Grothendieck topos is
cocomplete, which is not required from an elementary topos).
The categories of nite sets, of nite G-sets (actions of a group G on a nite set), and of nite graphs are elementary
topoi which are not Grothendieck topoi.
16.2. ELEMENTARY TOPOI (TOPOI IN LOGIC) 123
m
X' X
! f
t
1
Figure 1. m as a pullback of the generic subobject t along f.
If C is a small category, then the functor category SetC (consisting of all covariant functors from C to sets, with
natural transformations as morphisms) is a topos. For instance, the category Grph of graphs of the kind permitting
multiple directed edges between two vertices is a topos. A graph consists of two sets, an edge set and a vertex set, and
two functions s,t between those sets, assigning to every edge e its source s(e) and target t(e). Grph is thus equivalent
to the functor category SetC , where C is the category with two objects E and V and two morphisms s,t: E V giving
respectively the source and target of each edge.
The Yoneda Lemma asserts that C op embeds in SetC as a full subcategory. In the graph example the embedding
represents C op as the subcategory of SetC whose two objects are V' as the one-vertex no-edge graph and E' as the two-
vertex one-edge graph (both as functors), and whose two nonidentity morphisms are the two graph homomorphisms
from V' to E' (both as natural transformations). The natural transformations from V' to an arbitrary graph (functor)
G constitute the vertices of G while those from E' to G constitute its edges. Although SetC , which we can identify
with Grph, is not made concrete by either V' or E' alone, the functor U: Grph Set2 sending object G to the pair
of sets (Grph(V' ,G), Grph(E' ,G)) and morphism h: G H to the pair of functions (Grph(V' ,h), Grph(E' ,h)) is
faithful. That is, a morphism of graphs can be understood as a pair of functions, one mapping the vertices and the
other the edges, with application still realized as composition but now with multiple sorts of generalized elements.
This shows that the traditional concept of a concrete category as one whose objects have an underlying set can be
generalized to cater for a wider range of topoi by allowing an object to have multiple underlying sets, that is, to be
multisorted.
16.3 See also

History of topos theory
Homotopy hypothesis
Intuitionistic type theory
-topos
Quasitopos
16.4 Notes
[1] Illusie, Luc (2004). What is...A Topos?" (PDF). Notices of the AMS. 51 (9): 160161. Retrieved 31 May 2013.
[2] Artin, Michael; Mazur, Barry (1969), Etale homotopy, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No. 100, Berlin, New York:
Springer-Verlag
[3] Friedlander, Eric M. (1982), tale homotopy of simplicial schemes, Annals of Mathematics Studies, 104, Princeton Uni-
versity Press, ISBN 978-0-691-08317-9
[4] McLarty, Colin (1992). Elementary Categories, Elementary Toposes. Clarendon Press. p. 159. ISBN 9780191589492.
Retrieved 4 May 2016.
16.5 References
Some gentle papers
John Baez: "Topos theory in a nutshell." A gentle introduction.
Steven Vickers: "Toposes pour les nuls" and "Toposes pour les vraiment nuls." Elementary and even more
elementary introductions to toposes as generalized spaces.
Illusie, Luc, What is a ... topos?" (PDF), Notices of the AMS
The following texts are easy-paced introductions to toposes and the basics of category theory. They should be suitable
for those knowing little mathematical logic and set theory, even non-mathematicians.
F. William Lawvere and Stephen H. Schanuel (1997) Conceptual Mathematics: A First Introduction to Cate-
gories. Cambridge University Press. An introduction to categories for computer scientists, logicians, physi-
cists, linguists, etc. (cited from cover text).
F. William Lawvere and Robert Rosebrugh (2003) Sets for Mathematics. Cambridge University Press. Intro-
duces the foundations of mathematics from a categorical perspective.
Grothendieck foundational work on toposes:
Grothendieck and Verdier: Thorie des topos et cohomologie tale des schmas (known as SGA4)". New
York/Berlin: Springer, ??. (Lecture notes in mathematics, 269270)
The following monographs include an introduction to some or all of topos theory, but do not cater primarily to
beginning students. Listed in (perceived) order of increasing diculty.
Colin McLarty (1992) Elementary Categories, Elementary Toposes. Oxford Univ. Press. A nice introduction
to the basics of category theory, topos theory, and topos logic. Assumes very few prerequisites.
16.5. REFERENCES 125
Robert Goldblatt (1984) Topoi, the Categorial Analysis of Logic (Studies in logic and the foundations of math-
ematics, 98). North-Holland. A good start. Reprinted 2006 by Dover Publications, and available online at
Robert Goldblatts homepage.
John Lane Bell (2005) The Development of Categorical Logic. Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume 12.
Springer. Version available online at John Bells homepage.
Saunders Mac Lane and Ieke Moerdijk (1992) Sheaves in Geometry and Logic: a First Introduction to Topos
Theory. Springer Verlag. More complete, and more dicult to read.
Michael Barr and Charles Wells (1985) Toposes, Triples and Theories. Springer Verlag. Online version at .
More concise than Sheaves in Geometry and Logic, but hard on beginners.
Reference works for experts, less suitable for rst introduction
Francis Borceux (1994) Handbook of Categorical Algebra 3: Categories of Sheaves, Volume 52 of the En-
cyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press. The third part of Borceux'
remarkable magnum opus, as Johnstone has labelled it. Still suitable as an introduction, though beginners
may nd it hard to recognize the most relevant results among the huge amount of material given.
Peter T. Johnstone (1977) Topos Theory, L. M. S. Monographs no. 10. Academic Press. ISBN 0-12-387850-
0. For a long time the standard compendium on topos theory. However, even Johnstone describes this work
as far too hard to read, and not for the faint-hearted.
Peter T. Johnstone (2002) Sketches of an Elephant: A Topos Theory Compendium. Oxford Science Publications.
As of early 2010, two of the scheduled three volumes of this overwhelming compendium were available.
Books that target special applications of topos theory
Maria Cristina Pedicchio and Walter Tholen, eds. (2004) Categorical Foundations: Special Topics in Order,
Topology, Algebra, and Sheaf Theory. Volume 97 of the Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications.
Cambridge University Press. Includes many interesting special applications.
Chapter 17
Type theory
In mathematics, logic, and computer science, a type theory is any of a class of formal systems, some of which can
serve as alternatives to set theory as a foundation for all mathematics. In type theory, every term has a type and
operations are restricted to terms of a certain type.
Type theory is closely related to (and in some cases overlaps with) type systems, which are a programming language
feature used to reduce bugs. Type theory was created to avoid paradoxes in a variety of formal logics and rewrite
systems.
Two well-known type theories that can serve as mathematical foundations are Alonzo Church's typed -calculus and
Per Martin-Lf's intuitionistic type theory.
17.1 History
Main article: History of type theory
Between 1902 and 1908 Bertrand Russell proposed various theories of type in response to his discovery that Gottlob
Frege's version of naive set theory was aicted with Russells paradox. By 1908 Russell arrived at a ramied theory
of types together with an "axiom of reducibility" both of which featured prominently in Whitehead and Russell's
Principia Mathematica published between 1910 and 1913. They attempt to avoid Russells paradox by rst creating
a hierarchy of types, then assigning each mathematical (and possibly other) entity to a type. Objects of a given type
are built exclusively from objects of preceding types (those lower in the hierarchy), thus preventing loops. In the
1920s, Leon Chwistek and Frank P. Ramsey proposed a simpler theory, now known as the theory of simple types
or simple type theory, that collapsed the complicated hierarchy of the ramied theory and did not require the
axiom of reducibility.
The common usage of type theory is when those types are used with a term rewrite system. The most famous early
example is Alonzo Church's simply typed lambda calculus. Churchs theory of types[1] helped the formal system
avoid the KleeneRosser paradox that aicted the original untyped lambda calculus. Church demonstrated that it
could serve as a foundation of mathematics and it was referred to as a higher-order logic.
Some other type theories include Per Martin-Lf's intuitionistic type theory, which has been the foundation used in
some areas of constructive mathematics and for the proof assistant Agda. Thierry Coquand's calculus of constructions
and its derivatives are the foundation used by Coq and others. The eld is an area of active research, as demonstrated
by homotopy type theory.
17.2 Basic concepts

In a system of type theory, each term has a type and operations are restricted to terms of a certain type. A typing
judgment M : A describes that the term M has type A . For example, nat may be a type representing the natural
numbers and 0, 1, 2, ... may be inhabitants of that type. The judgement that 2 has type nat is written as 2 : nat .
A function in type theory is denoted with an arrow . The function addOne (commonly called successor), has
126
17.3. DIFFERENCE FROM SET THEORY 127
the judgement addOne : nat nat . Calling or "applying" a function to an argument is sometimes written without
parentheses, so addOne 2 instead of addOne(2) . (This may serve as more expressive notation for consistent currying.)
Type theories also contain rules for rewriting terms. These are called conversion rules or, if the rule only works in
one direction, a reduction rule. For example, 2 + 1 and 3 are syntactically dierent terms, but the former reduces
to the latter. This reduction is denoted as 2 + 1 3 .
17.3 Dierence from set theory

There are many dierent set theories and many dierent systems of type theory, so what follows are generalizations.
Set theory is built on top of logic. It requires a separate system like predicate logic underneath it. In type
theory, concepts like and and or can be encoded as types in the type theory itself.
In set theory, an element can belong to multiple sets, either to a subset or to a superset. In type theory, terms
(generally) belong to only one type. (Where a subset would be used, type theory creates a new type, called a
dependent sum type, with new terms. Union is similarly achieved by a new sum type and new terms.)
In set theory, sets can contain unrelated elements, e.g., apples and real numbers. In type theory, types that
combine unrelated types do so by creating new terms.
Set theory usually encodes numbers as sets. (0 is the empty set, 1 is a set containing the empty set, etc.) Type
theory can encode numbers as functions using Church encoding or more naturally as inductive types, which
are types with well-behaved constant terms.
Set theory allows set builder notation.
Type theory has a simple connection to constructive mathematics through the BHK interpretation.
17.4 Optional features
17.4.1 Normalization
The term 2 + 1 reduces to 3 . Since 3 cannot be reduced further, it is called a normal form. A system of type theory
is said to be strongly normalizing if all terms have a normal form and any order of reductions reaches it. Weakly
normalizing systems have a normal form but some orders of reductions may loop forever and never reach it.
For a normalizing system, some borrow the word element from set theory and use it to refer to all closed terms that
can reduce to the same normal form. A closed term is one without parameters. (A term like x + 1 with its parameter
x is called an open term.) Thus, 2 + 1 and 3 + 0 may be dierent terms but they both form the element 3 .
A similar idea that works for open and closed terms is convertibility. Two terms are convertible if there exists a term
that they both reduce to. For example, 2 + 1 and 1 + 2 are convertible. As are x + (1 + 1) and x + 2 . However,
x + 1 and 1 + x (where x is a free variable) are not because both are in normal form and they are not the same.
Conuent and weakly normalizing systems can test if two terms are convertible by checking if they both reduce to
the same normal form.
17.4.2 Dependent types
Main article: Dependent types
A dependent type is a type that depends on a term or on another type. Thus, the type returned by a function may
depend upon the argument to the function.
For example, a list of nat s of length 4 may be a dierent type than a list of nat s of length 5. In a type theory with
dependent types, it is possible to dene a function that take a parameter n and returns a list containing n zeros.
Calling the function with 4 would produce a term with a dierent type than if the function was called with 5.
128 CHAPTER 17. TYPE THEORY
Dependent types play a central role in intuitionistic type theory and in the design of functional programming languages
like Idris, ATS, Agda and Epigram.
17.4.3 Equality types (or identity types)

Many systems of type theory have a type that represents equality of types and of terms. This type is dierent from
convertibility, and is often denoted propositional equality.
In intuitionistic type theory, the equality type is known as I for identity. There is a type I A a b when A is a type
and a and b are both terms of type A . A term of type I A a b is interpreted as meaning that a is equal to b .
In practice, it is possible to build a type I nat 3 4 but there will not exist a term of that type. In intuitionistic type
theory, new terms of equality start with reexivity. If 3 is a term of type nat , then there exists a term of type I nat 3 3
. More complicated equalities can be created by creating a reexive term and then doing a reduction on one side. So
if 2 + 1 is a term of type nat , then there is a term of type I nat (2 + 1) (2 + 1) and, by reduction, generate a term of
type I nat (2 + 1) 3 . Thus, in this system, the equality type denotes that two values of the same type are convertible
by reductions.
Having a type for equality is important because it can be manipulated inside the system. There is usually no judgement
to say two terms are not equal; instead, as in the BrouwerHeytingKolmogorov interpretation, we map (a = b) to
(a = b) , where is the bottom type having no values. There exists a term with type (I nat 3 4) , but
not one of type (I nat 3 3) .
Homotopy type theory diers from intuitionistic type theory mostly by its handling of the equality type.
17.4.4 Inductive types

Main article: Inductive type
A system of type theory requires some basic terms and types to operate on. Some systems build them out of functions
using Church encoding. Other systems have inductive types: a set of base types and a set of type constructors that
generate types with well-behaved properties. For example, certain recursive functions called on inductive types are
guaranteed to terminate.
Coinductive type are innite data types created by giving a function that generates the next element(s). See Coinduction
and Corecursion.
Induction induction is a feature for declaring an inductive type and a family of types that depends on the inductive
type.
Induction recursion allows a wider range of well-behaved types, allowing the type and recursive functions operating
on it to be dened at the same time.
17.4.5 Universe types

Types were created to prevent paradoxes, such as Russells paradox. However, the motives that lead to those
paradoxesbeing able to say things about all typesstill exist. So, many type theories have a universe type,
which contains all other types (and not itself).
In systems where you might want to say something about universe types, there is a hierarchy of universe types, each
containing the one below it in the hierarchy. The hierarchy is dened as being innite, but statements must only refer
to a nite number of universe levels.
Type universes are particularly tricky in type theory. The initial proposal of intuitionistic type theory suered from
Girards paradox.
17.4.6 Computational component

Many systems of type theory, such as the simply-typed lambda calculus, intuitionistic type theory, and the calculus
of constructions, are also programming languages. That is, they are said to have a computational component. The
17.5. SYSTEMS OF TYPE THEORY 129
computation is the reduction of terms of the language using rewriting rules.

A system of type theory that has a well-behaved computational component also has a simple connection to constructive
mathematics through the BHK interpretation.
Non-constructive mathematics in these systems is possible by adding operators on continuations such as call with cur-
rent continuation. However, these operators tend to break desirable properties such as canonicity and parametricity.
17.5 Systems of type theory
17.5.1 Major
Simply typed lambda calculus which is a higher-order logic;
intuitionistic type theory;
system F;
LF is often used to dene other type theories;
calculus of constructions and its derivatives.
17.5.2 Minor
Automath;
ST type theory;
some forms of combinatory logic;
others dened in the lambda cube;
others under the name typed lambda calculus;
others under the name pure type system.
17.5.3 Active
Homotopy type theory is being researched.
17.6 Practical impact
17.6.1 Programming languages
Main article: Type system
There is extensive overlap and interaction between the elds of type theory and type systems. Type systems are a
programming language feature designed to identify bugs. Any static program analysis, such as the type checking
algorithms in the semantic analysis phase of compiler, has a connection to type theory.
A prime example is Agda, a programming language which uses intuitionistic type theory for its type system. The
programming language ML was developed for manipulating type theories (see LCF) and its own type system was
heavily inuenced by them.
17.6.2 Mathematical foundations
The rst computer proof assistant, called Automath, used type theory to encode mathematics on a computer. Martin-
Lf specically developed intuitionistic type theory to encode all mathematics to serve as a new foundation for
mathematics. There is current research into mathematical foundations using homotopy type theory.
Mathematicians working in category theory already had diculty working with the widely accepted foundation of
ZermeloFraenkel set theory. This led to proposals such as Lawveres Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets
(ETCS).[2] Homotopy type theory continues in this line using type theory. Researchers are exploring connections
between dependent types (especially the identity type) and algebraic topology (specically homotopy).
17.6.3 Proof assistants
Main article: Proof assistant
Much of the current research into type theory is driven by proof checkers, interactive proof assistants, and automated
theorem provers. Most of these systems use a type theory as the mathematical foundation for encoding proofs, which
is not surprising, given the close connection between type theory and programming languages:
LF is used by Twelf, often to dene other type theories;
multiple type theories falling under higher-order logic are used by the HOL family of provers and PVS;
intuitionistic type theory is used by Agda which is both a programming language and proof assistant;
computational type theory is used by NuPRL;
calculus of constructions and its derivatives are used by Coq and Matita.
Multiple type theories are supported by LEGO and Isabelle. Isabelle also supports foundations besides type theories,
such as ZFC. Mizar is an example of a proof system that only supports set theory.
17.6.4 Linguistics
Type theory is also widely in use in formal theories of semantics of natural languages, especially Montague gram-
mar and its descendants. In particular, categorial grammars and pregroup grammars make extensive use of type
constructors to dene the types (noun, verb, etc.) of words.
The most common construction takes the basic types e and t for individuals and truth-values, respectively, and denes
the set of types recursively as follows:
if a and b are types, then so is a, b ;
nothing except the basic types, and what can be constructed from them by means of the previous clause are
types.
A complex type a, b is the type of functions from entities of type a to entities of type b . Thus one has types like
e, t which are interpreted as elements of the set of functions from entities to truth-values, i.e. indicator functions
of sets of entities. An expression of type e, t, t is a function from sets of entities to truth-values, i.e. a (indicator
function of a) set of sets. This latter type is standardly taken to be the type of natural language quantiers, like
everybody or nobody (Montague 1973, Barwise and Cooper 1981).
17.6.5 Social sciences
Gregory Bateson introduced a theory of logical types into the social sciences; his notions of double bind and logical
levels are based on Russells theory of types.
17.7. RELATION TO CATEGORY THEORY 131
17.7 Relation to category theory

Although the initial motivation for category theory was far removed from foundationalism, the two elds turned out
to have deep connections. As John Lane Bell writes: In fact categories can themselves be viewed as type theories of
a certain kind; this fact alone indicates that type theory is much more closely related to category theory than it is to set
theory. In brief, a category can be viewed as a type theory by regarding its objects as types (or sorts), i.e. Roughly
speaking, a category may be thought of as a type theory shorn of its syntax. A number of signicant results follow
in this way:[3]
cartesian closed categories correspond to the typed -calculus (Lambek, 1970);
C-monoids (categories with products and exponentials and a single, nonterminal object) correspond to the
untyped -calculus (observed independently by Lambek and Dana Scott around 1980);
locally cartesian closed categories correspond to Martin-Lf type theories (Seely, 1984).
The interplay, known as categorical logic, has been a subject of active research since then; see the monograph of
Jacobs (1999) for instance.
17.8 See also

Data type for concrete types of data in programming
Domain theory
Type (model theory)
Type system for a more practical discussion of type systems for programming languages
17.9 Notes
[1] Alonzo Church, A formulation of the simple theory of types, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5(2):5668 (1940)
[2] ETCS in nLab
[3] John L. Bell (2012). Types, Sets and Categories. In Akihiro Kanamory. Handbook of the History of Logic. Volume 6.
Sets and Extensions in the Twentieth Century (PDF). Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-08-093066-4.
17.10 References
W. Farmer, The seven virtues of simple type theory, Journal of Applied Logic, Vol. 6, No. 3. (September
2008), pp. 267286.
17.11 Further reading

Constable, Robert L., 2002, "Nave Computational Type Theory," in H. Schwichtenberg and R. Steinbruggen
(eds.), Proof and System-Reliability: 213259. Intended as a type theory counterpart of Paul Halmos's (1960)
Nave Set Theory
Andrews B., Peter (2002). An Introduction to Mathematical Logic and Type Theory: To Truth Through Proof,
2nd ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4020-0763-7.
141. North Holland, Elsevier. ISBN 0-444-50170-3. Covers type theory in depth, including polymorphic and
dependent type extensions. Gives categorical semantics.
Collins, Jordan E. (2012). A History of the Theory of Types: Developments After the Second Edition of 'Principia
Mathematica'. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing. ISBN 978-3-8473-2963-3. Provides a historical survey of
the developments of the theory of types with a focus on the decline of the theory as a foundation of mathematics
over the four decades following the publication of the second edition of 'Principia Mathematica'.
Cardelli, Luca, 1997, "Type Systems," in Allen B. Tucker, ed., The Computer Science and Engineering Hand-
book. CRC Press: 22082236.
Thompson, Simon, 1991. Type Theory and Functional Programming. AddisonWesley. ISBN 0-201-41667-
0.
J. Roger Hindley, Basic Simple Type Theory, Cambridge University Press, 2008, ISBN 0-521-05422-2 (also
1995, 1997). A good introduction to simple type theory for computer scientists; the system described is not
exactly Churchs STT though. Book review
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Type Theory" by Thierry Coquand.
Fairouz D. Kamareddine, Twan Laan, Rob P. Nederpelt, A modern perspective on type theory: from its origins
until today, Springer, 2004, ISBN 1-4020-2334-0
Jos Ferreirs, Jos Ferreirs Domnguez, Labyrinth of thought: a history of set theory and its role in modern
mathematics, Edition 2, Springer, 2007, ISBN 3-7643-8349-6, chapter X Logic and Type Theory in the
Interwar Period.
T. D. L. Laan, The evolution of type theory in logic and mathematics, PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of
Technology, 1997.

Robert L. Constable (ed.). Computational type theory. Scholarpedia.
The TYPES Forum moderated e-mail forum focusing on type theory in computer science, operating since
1987.
The Nuprl Book: "Introduction to Type Theory."

Types Project lecture notes of summer schools 20052008
The 2005 summer school has introductory lectures

17.13. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 133
17.13 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

17.13.1 Text
Cartesian closed category Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_closed_category?oldid=783181380 Contributors: AxelBoldt,
Chinju, Charles Matthews, Jitse Niesen, Wik, Phil Boswell, Robbot, MathMartin, Tea2min, Giftlite, Fropu, Niteowlneils, Smimram,
Leibniz, Linas, Jyavner, Fbkintanar, Salix alba, Vlad Patryshev, FlaBot, Adandrews, Hairy Dude, SmackBot, Dreadstar, Lambiam, Irides-
cent, Bruno321, Sam Staton, Pit-trout, Classicalecon, Addbot, Yobot, Pcap, Rubinbot, Zadneram, Omnipaedista, FrescoBot, Dinamik-
bot, EmausBot, ChuispastonBot, Omarct1989, BG19bot, Star767, Jayaguru-Shishya, GeoreyT2000, Chef Code, Magic links bot and
Anonymous: 27
Categorical logic Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_logic?oldid=783712290 Contributors: Toby Bartels, Edward, Michael
Hardy, Chinju, Charles Matthews, Elwikipedista~enwiki, SDC, AnmaFinotera, BD2412, Bgwhite, Hairy Dude, Michael Slone, Jon Aw-
brey, Physis, ErWenn, CBM, Gregbard, Michael Fourman, Oerjan, Headbomb, Nick Number, Rowandavies, Magioladitis, EagleFan,
Tim Band, Daniel5Ko, Classicalecon, UKoch, Wikidsp, Cookiehead, Anon126, Ozob, Tassedethe, Lightbot, Matj Grabovsk, Yobot,
Pcap, AnomieBOT, Ciphers, FrescoBot, Foobarnix, Hyperpiper, Helpful Pixie Bot, Accedie, Toploftical, Jochen Burghardt, Jpmarquis,
Zebrasandrobots and Anonymous: 10
Domain theory Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_theory?oldid=772706937 Contributors: Michael Hardy, Dominus, Suisui,
Hike395, Charles Matthews, Dysprosia, Malcohol, Phil Boswell, Robbot, Gandalf61, Tea2min, Markus Krtzsch, Ferkelparade, Salasks,
Leibniz, Zaslav, Elwikipedista~enwiki, Smalljim, Msh210, AndrejBauer, Kell, Oleg Alexandrov, Japanese Searobin, Novacatz, Ruud
Koot, Je3000, Kbdank71, MarSch, Mathbot, Hairy Dude, Koeyahoo, CarlHewitt, Jpbowen, BrEyes, FF2010, Crystallina, SmackBot,
Eskimbot, Mhss, Detter, Cybercobra, Physis, Mets501, Cydebot, Sam Staton, ST47, Erxnmedia, Theodore.norvell, R'n'B, Inquam,
Magmi, QplQyer, MystBot, Plmday, Addbot, DOI bot, Axlle, Yobot, Amirobot, Citation bot, Xqbot, Charvest, Undsoweiter, Citation bot
1, EmausBot, Dcirovic, Bethnim, Vdamanafshan, BattyBot, Pintoch, Kevin12xd, NYBrook098, Monkbot, SoSivr and Anonymous: 40
Enriched category Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_category?oldid=756837475 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Toby Bartels,
Michael Hardy, TakuyaMurata, Giftlite, Lethe, Fropu, Pascal666, Punry, Smimram, Gauge, Msh210, Linas, Marudubshinki, Salix
alba, Kompik, Khazar, David Eppstein, Anonymous Dissident, Ocsenave, Balrivo, Hildebrandt~enwiki, Cenarium, Pbubenik, ,
Legobot, Yobot, FrescoBot, John of Reading, ChuispastonBot, Omarct1989, Rfcrew, Mark viking, Monkbot, Zhagaram and Anonymous:
13
Group theory Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_theory?oldid=794108725 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Zundark, The Anome,
KF, Cwitty, Edward, Michael Hardy, Wshun, Dcljr, TakuyaMurata, Ellywa, JWSchmidt, Bogdangiusca, Poor Yorick, Rossami, Jordi Bur-
guet Castell, Charles Matthews, Lfh, Dysprosia, Jitse Niesen, Hyacinth, Fibonacci, Phys, Bevo, Kwantus, Finlay McWalter, PuzzletChung,
Gromlakh, Romanm, Mayooranathan, Gandalf61, MathMartin, Rursus, Papadopc, ComplexZeta, Tea2min, Giftlite, Graeme Bartlett, Re-
centchanges, Dratman, Doshell, LiDaobing, Alberto da Calvairate~enwiki, Karl-Henner, Rich Farmbrough, FT2, Luqui, ArnoldReinhold,
H00kwurm, Paul August, Tompw, Jaimedv, Adan, Obradovic Goran, Friviere, Knucmo2, Ranveig, Masv~enwiki, HenryLi, Oleg Alexan-
drov, Tbsmith, Archie Paulson, OdedSchramm, Kmg90, PeterPearson, DaveApter, V8rik, BD2412, Chun-hian, Josh Parris, Rjwilmsi,
Dennis Estenson II, Salix alba, Ligulem, R.e.b., Brighterorange, FlaBot, Chris Pressey, Mathbot, Margosbot~enwiki, Rune.welsh, MTC,
Chobot, YurikBot, Hairy Dude, Hillman, Michael Slone, Grubber, Cate, Merlincooper, Petter Strandmark, DYLAN LENNON~enwiki,
Crasshopper, Googl, Tigershrike, Willtron, GrinBot~enwiki, RonnieBrown, Palapa, SmackBot, Reedy, Melchoir, Scullin, Natebarney,
Cessator, BiT, GBL, Bluebot, Pieter Kuiper, MalafayaBot, Colonies Chris, Jennica, NickPenguin, Ligulembot, Pilotguy, Davipo, Christo-
pherodonovan, Lambiam, Richard L. Peterson, Utopianheaven, Mike Fikes, Tawkerbot2, Chetvorno, CRGreathouse, Ale jrb, Gregbard,
Rieman 82, Tyskis, Mungomba, Headbomb, WVhybrid, Nadav1, RobHar, NERIUM, Escarbot, Seaphoto, M cua, VictorAnyakin,
JAnDbot, The Transhumanist, Bongwarrior, Jakob.scholbach, CountingPine, Baccyak4H, Gabriel Kielland, David Eppstein, MaEr, R'n'B,
David Callan, J.delanoy, Cmbankester, Indeed123, Gombang, Treisijs, Useight, Lemonaftertaste, VolkovBot, JohnBlackburne, Echo-
Bravo, Philip Trueman, Eakirkman, Magmi, Eubulides, ArzelaAscoli, Arcfrk, Andreas Carter, GoddersUK, Peter Stalin, Drschawrz,
SieBot, Ivan tambuk, WereSpielChequers, Viskonsas, Messagetolove, Lightmouse, JackSchmidt, NobillyT, StaticGull, Alpha Beta Ep-
silon, Justin W Smith, Alksentrs, Padicgroup, Bhuna71, Mspraveen, Avouac, Watchduck, Edwinconnell, Xylthixlm, Hans Adler, Veg-
etator, Johnuniq, TimothyRias, XLinkBot, JinJian, ClculIntegral, Addbot, Manuel Trujillo Berges, SpellingBot, Fluernutter, Kris-
tine8~enwiki, Favonian, Tide rolls, Luckas-bot, Yobot, TaBOT-zerem, Julia W, Eamonster, AnomieBOT, DemocraticLuntz, Rubinbot,
, WinoWeritas, Citation bot, Calcio33, Omnipaedista, Auclairde, FrescoBot, Lothar von Richthofen, Orhanghazi, Sawomir
Biay, Citation bot 1, Boulaur, Hard Sin, Hamtechperson, Ngyikp, D stankov, Jauhienij, Debator of mathematics, Lightlowemon, Oren-
burg1, FoxBot, Yger, SomeRandomPerson23, EmausBot, Fly by Night, Tommy2010, Shishir332, D15724C710N, Quondum, Kranix,
Wikiloop, Adgjdghjdety, Gottlob Gdel, ClueBot NG, Lord Roem, Ciro.santilli, HMSSolent, BG19bot, Ijgt, Solomon7968, CimanyD,
Meclee, Brad7777, Jochen Burghardt, Brirush, CsDix, Vycl1994, Laxfan1977, Chetan bagora, Edmundthe, KasparBot, Zyvov, Kub-
biebeef, Magic links bot and Anonymous: 148
Higher category theory Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_category_theory?oldid=794681365 Contributors: AxelBoldt, The
Anome, TakuyaMurata, Charles Matthews, Smimram, Ben Standeven, R.e.b., Hairy Dude, RonnieBrown, SmackBot, Zoran.skoda, Head-
bomb, JohnBlackburne, Cenarium, Wikidsp, Yobot, Fraggle81, AnomieBOT, Bci2, E141, Omnipaedista, Ringspectrum, Litoxe2718281828,
ComputScientist, Citation bot 1, Trappist the monk, Helpful Pixie Bot, Brad7777, ChrisGualtieri, AHusain314, Somegrass, Monkbot,
Michael.holper628 and Anonymous: 16
Higher-dimensional algebra Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-dimensional_algebra?oldid=785594508 Contributors: Michael
Hardy, TakuyaMurata, Giftlite, RHaworth, Rjwilmsi, Fram, RonnieBrown, SmackBot, CmdrObot, Headbomb, R'n'B, Daniel5Ko, John-
Blackburne, Mild Bill Hiccup, , Yobot, Kilom691, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, Bci1new, Bci2, Twri, JimVC3, Citation bot 1, John
of Reading, Stephan Spahn, Chricho, Helpful Pixie Bot, Brad7777, Arcandam, RotlinkBot, Monkbot, InternetArchiveBot, Magic links
bot and Anonymous: 5
Higher-order logic Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-order_logic?oldid=792822223 Contributors: Evercat, Charles Matthews,
David.Monniaux, Altenmann, Stephan Schulz, Gandalf61, MathMartin, Jason Quinn, Christopherlin, Saugart, Lucidish, Pmetzger, Ash-
tonBenson, Ruud Koot, Rjwilmsi, Mathbot, Tillmo, Eskimbot, Mhss, FordPrefect42, Jon Awbrey, Byelf2007, Physis, Mets501, CBM,
Sdorrance, Gregbard, Thijs!bot, David Eppstein, Crisperdue, Camrn86, Sapphic, Dale A Miller, Paradoctor, IsleLaMotte, Addbot, Ateth-
nekos, Jarble, Pcap, AnomieBOT, FrescoBot, Mfwitten, Chronulator, Gf uip, Klbrain, Quondum, Spirarel, Master ecclesias, Jochen
Burghardt, Mark viking, J.F1p., Monkbot, Magic links bot and Anonymous: 28
Intuitionistic logic Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionistic_logic?oldid=791275521 Contributors: Zundark, Toby Bartels,

Dominus, Justin Johnson, Fool, Zeno Gantner, AugPi, Charles Matthews, Timwi, Markhurd, Hyacinth, Populus, David.Monniaux, Math-
Martin, Tea2min, Snobot, Giftlite, Markus Krtzsch, Jason Quinn, Daniel Brockman, HorsePunchKid, Kntg, Leibniz, Thematicunity,
Elwikipedista~enwiki, Chalst, EmilJ, Txa, Mdd, Lysdexia, Ossiemanners, Oleg Alexandrov, Kzollman, GregorB, Rjwilmsi, FlaBot, Math-
bot, Smithph, Jrtayloriv, Quuxplusone, Tillmo, Hairy Dude, Spl, KSchutte, EngineerScotty, Trovatore, FatherBrain, SmackBot, Zeycus,
Eskimbot, Mhss, Bluebot, Clconway, Henning Makholm, Lambiam, Dbtfz, Physis, Mets501, Iridescent, Francl, Vaughan Pratt, CR-
Greathouse, CBM, Gregbard, Cydebot, Julian Mendez, Robertinventor, JAnDbot, Vernanimalcula, David Eppstein, N4nojohn, Jesper
Carlstrom, Rmkeller, TXiKiBoT, Lumi23, Linguist1, Fancytales, SimonTrew, Kumioko (renamed), CBM2, Classicalecon, JustinClark-
Casey, DragonBot, Addbot, , Rtaupe, Unzerlegbarkeit, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Uarrin, Cwbm (commons), Noamz, FrescoBot, Lu-
cienBOT, Tkuvho, Mattghg, N4m3, BertSeghers, John of Reading, Chharvey, Frietjes, Jraudhi, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Frze,
Vlasenko D, Andrewkh, Monkbot, YeOldeGentleman, KasparBot, Badtemperedgeezer, Luis150902, IWillBuildTheRoads, BardRapt,
Tomspacegood, Magic links bot and Anonymous: 62
Lambda calculus Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus?oldid=793058239 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Tobias Hoevekamp,
General Wesc, Dreamyshade, Derek Ross, Vulture, LC~enwiki, CYD, Bryan Derksen, The Anome, Jan Hidders, Andre Engels, Arvindn,
Fubar Obfusco, Spi~enwiki, Michael Hardy, Dominus, GTBacchus, Eric119, Minesweeper, Cyp, Nanshu, Glenn, AugPi, Tim Retout,
Smack, Charles Matthews, Timwi, Dysprosia, Malcohol, Greenrd, Markhurd, Furrykef, Populus, Shizhao, Kwantus, Joy, MH~enwiki,
Robbot, Lloyd~enwiki, Tomchiukc, Kowey, MathMartin, Jleedev, Tea2min, David Gerard, Ancheta Wis, Gploc, Centrx, Giftlite, Paul
Richter, MathKnight, Herbee, Everyking, Jonabbey, Dratman, Esap, Jorend, Jason Quinn, Neilc, Nomeata, Vadmium, PenguiN42, James
Crippen, Sarex, Urhixidur, Bbpen, Karl Dickman, Corti, Mormegil, R, Pyrop, Zaheen, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Leibniz, FiP,
ArnoldReinhold, Smyth, Slipstream, Bender235, ZeroOne, Elwikipedista~enwiki, MBisanz, Chalst, Tjic, Idmillington, Blonkm, John
Vandenberg, Cmdrjameson, Jjk, Lance Williams, Kensai, Chbarts, Matt McIrvin, Tromp, Zygmunt lozinski, Hooperbloob, Diego Moya,
Keenan Pepper, Sligocki, Evil Monkey, Tony Sidaway, Gpvos, TenOfAllTrades, Bfreis, LunaticFringe, Oleg Alexandrov, Siafu, Thry-
duulf, Pekinensis, Wedesoft, Linas, Jyavner, LOL, MattGiuca, Ruud Koot, Gruu, Apokrif, GregorB, Palica, Marudubshinki, BD2412,
Qwertyus, Jacob Finn, Rjwilmsi, MarSch, Venullian, Vegaswikian, Husky, Titoxd, VKokielov, EvanSeeds, John Baez, Mathbot, Grd-
Scarabe~enwiki, Lexspoon, Makkuro, StevenDaryl, Natkuhn, Vonkje, Chobot, Bgwhite, YurikBot, Wavelength, Hairy Dude, D.keenan,
RussBot, Michael Slone, Koeyahoo, Jtbandes, BlakeStone, CarlHewitt, Thunderforge, R.e.s., Joel7687, Kliph, Jpbowen, JulesH, Beas-
tRHIT, Bota47, Hakeem.gadi, CLW, Wknight94, Ms2ger, Saric, Liyang, Thnidu, Cedar101, Donhalcon, JLaTondre, GrinBot~enwiki,
Owl-syme, SmackBot, Pintman, TobyK, Ariovistus, Atomota, BiT, Sam Pointon, Mcld, Hmains, PJTraill, Serhei Makarov, Chris the
speller, Optikos, Theone256, Jyossarian, Jimmyzimms, Mcaruso, Javalenok, Detter, Khukri, Derek R Bullamore, Iridescence, JamieVi-
cary, Daniel.Cardenas, OlegAndreev, Lambiam, Antonielly, Physis, Mets501, Kripkenstein, Iridescent, JMK, Gabn1, Zero sharp, Tawker-
bot2, Nerfer, Wafulz, CBM, Nczempin, Neelix, Sanspeur, Gregbard, Cydebot, Krauss, Illpoint, Sam Staton, Blaisorblade, Julian Mendez,
Msreeharsha, Torc2, Nowhere man, Roccorossi, Bsmntbombdood, Morgaladh, Kirk Hilliard, Wikid77, Henk Barendregt, N5iln, Pjvpjv,
Hjoab, Escarbot, KrakatoaKatie, AntiVandalBot, Whiteknox, Gioto, Kba, MBParker, Dougher, JAnDbot, The Transhumanist, Rearete,
Workaphobia, Magioladitis, Abcarter, Fuchsias, Xb2u7Zjzc32, TehKeg, A3nm, David Eppstein, Airbornemihir, Shredderyin, Micah-
cowan, Tigrisek, Gwern, John Millikin, R'n'B, GoatGuy, Daniel5Ko, CeilingCrash, Raise exception, NewEnglandYankee, Policron,
ScottBurson, Largoplazo, Potatoswatter, Ultra two, Adam1729, Pborenstein, The enemies of god, Meiskam, DPMulligan, LokiClock,
TXiKiBoT, Mattc58, Marcosaedro, Shades79, Softtest123, TelecomNut, Jesin, GlassFET, Abatishchev, Aeris-chan, Radagast3, Amigo-
Nico, SieBot, Equilibrioception, Gerakibot, Toddst1, Evaluist, Dddenton, Ctxppc, DancingPhilosopher, Valeria.depaiva, Dcattell, Lon-
gratana, Classicalecon, ClueBot, The Thing That Should Not Be, Dented42, DavisSta, EoGuy, Maniac18, Nonlinear149, HowardB-
Golden, Adrianwn, Ironrange, Hyh1048576, UKoch, Cinayakoshka, Alexbot, Pmronchi, Numl0k, Rhododendrites, Hans Adler, Alexey
Muranov, Awegmann, Dwiddows, AndreasBWagner, Afarnen, Hugo Herbelin, StevenDH, Qwfp, Joswig, Brianpeiris, XLinkBot, Dreblen,
Kizeral, Addbot, Trueyoutrueme, Some jerk on the Internet, Landon1980, Punto7, AnnaFrance, Roaryk, Numbo3-bot, Lightbot, Jar-
ble, Pedzsan, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Ht686rg90, Pcap, AnomieBOT, Enisbayramoglu, Royote, Karun.mahajan, , Citation bot,
Charlieegan3, Xqbot, Jebdm, YBG, Jonas AGX, Omnipaedista, Noamz, Stratocracy, CLeJ37, Aaditya 7, Bstarynk, Adamuu, Fres-
coBot, Util PM, ComputScientist, Artem M. Pelenitsyn, Sae1962, Demosthenes2k8, Umawera, Kallocain, Citation bot 1, Pinethicket,
Sherjilozair, WLoku, WaddSpoiley, CodeBlock, RedBot, WuTheFWasThat, Burritoburritoburrito, Lueckless, Lotje, Holoed, Edin-
wiki, Mrout, WillNess, LoStrangolatore, Martin Bjeldbak, Vcunat, Timtempleton, FalseAxiom, Bgeron, Wgunther, KHamsun, Grondilu,
ZroBot, ArachanoxReal, D.Lazard, Future ahead, Stanmanish, ResearchRave, ClueBot NG, Piast93, Ghartshaw, Frietjes, Thepigdog,
Nullzero, Helpful Pixie Bot, J.Dong820, Wbm1058, BG19bot, Lawandeconomics1, Tokoro14, Halfb1t, TypesGuy1234, Wolfgang42,
Glacialfox, ChrisGualtieri, Pintoch, Sean htx, Dtm1234, Splendor78, Paul1andrews, TheKing44, Mgns51, Jochen Burghardt, Me, Myself,
and I are Here, Dschslava, Alinsoar, Nitpicking polish, Pdecalculus, Melonkelon, BeastCCT, PIerre.Lescanne, Julia Abril, Glassbreaker,
EXist73, MergerDude, Paul2520, Aubreybardo, Ordnungswidrig, Jayaguru-Shishya, OMPIRE, Zeiimer, Axiarchist, Aasasd, Wombur,
Psychoceramicist, Mikhdm, Shubhamsoumit, Spli Joint Blunt, Iglpdc, Matrix1919, WikipediaIsAwesome9999, InternetArchiveBot,
Oknaye, Paxwell, Toku Jin, Olrik 113, Camaiocco, WallyWinker, JiapengZhang, Codedot, Zaenon and Anonymous: 464
List of important publications in mathematics Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_important_publications_in_mathematics?
oldid=784495490 Contributors: Gareth Owen, Edward, Michael Hardy, Dcljr, TakuyaMurata, Angela, Smack, Charles Matthews, Dfeuer,
Jitse Niesen, WhisperToMe, Markhurd, Altenmann, Gandalf61, MathMartin, Wile E. Heresiarch, Tea2min, Giftlite, Thorne, Fropu,
Duncharris, Alensha, Jason Quinn, Gzornenplatz, CryptoDerk, Kaldari, APH, Sam Hocevar, Kevyn, Spiy sperry, Rich Farmbrough,
Nparikh, Gadykozma, Bender235, Mateo SA, Gauge, Rgdboer, Nickj, Kanzure, Maurreen, Ardric47, JohnyDog, Proteus71, Theaterf-
reak64, Sl, LearnMore, Oleg Alexandrov, Simetrical, Woohookitty, Linas, Shreevatsa, LOL, Nefertum17, Mpatel, Poetsoutback, Isnow,
Stefanomione, Gisling, Blisco, Adking80, Rjwilmsi, Salix alba, R.e.b., Bharathrangarajan, Mathbot, Who, Adandrews, Sodin, Masn-
evets, Bgwhite, JamesLee, Deeptrivia, RMcGuigan, PaulGarner, Paki.tv, Dtrebbien, Trovatore, Hv, Tony1, Pegship, Closedmouth, Kung-
fuadam, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Haza-w, Reedy, Zerida, SaxTeacher, Jagged 85, Thunderboltz, XudongGuan~enwiki, Yamaguchi ,
Hmains, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Bduke, Silly rabbit, Taxipom, Clconway, Nbarth, Berland, Leland McInnes, Jon Awbrey, Wybot,
Henning Makholm, Tesseran, Lambiam, Xdamr, Syrcatbot, DVanDyck, Mets501, JdH, Colonel Warden, Madmath789, LadyofShalott,
Yendor1958, CRGreathouse, Gyopi, TheTito, Myasuda, Gregbard, Equendil, M a s, Headbomb, RobHar, Nick Number, Marokwitz,
Mathisreallycool, JenLouise, Sangwinc, Turgidson, Dsp13, Dream Focus, JamesBWatson, A3nm, David Eppstein, Grantsky, Nono64,
McSly, C quest000, Krishnachandranvn, Burkhard.Plache, PMajer, Marcosaedro, PDFbot, Milowent, Howard Cleeves, Sethkills, Gira-
soleDE, Cmdr Clarke, Taemyr, Svick, Anchor Link Bot, Melcombe, Randy Kryn, Niceguyedc, StephanNaro, Mathieu ottawa, Addbot,
DOI bot, Upeksharuvani, Humbugde, Uncia, Ozob, Yobot, Dizzyjosh, AnomieBOT, WebsterRiver, Citation bot, Bci2, Geregen2, Lil-
Helpa, Xqbot, Timmyshin, RJGray, Gilo1969, Omnipaedista, Tobby72, Citation bot 1, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, RobinK, Tcnuk, Double sharp,
Shay Ben Moshe, DolphinL, Fly by Night, Slawekb, Pro translator, WeijiBaikeBianji, H3llBot, Quondum, RockMagnetist, ClueBot
NG, Wcherowi, Snotbot, Moritz37, MerlIwBot, Helpful Pixie Bot, Curb Chain, BG19bot, Lockwoods, Northamerica1000, Toplofti-
cal, Alexjbest, Dexbot, Letsbeends, Ybidzian, Jodosma, AustinBuchanan, K9re11, Monkbot, Zeiimer, Federico Leva (BEIC), Lcia D.
Coelho, Ira Leviton, Srednuas Lenoroc, BD2412bot, GreenC bot, Elindarie, Masterxilo1992 and Anonymous: 76
Outline of category theory Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_category_theory?oldid=743829736 Contributors: Axel-
Boldt, Michael Hardy, TakuyaMurata, Charles Matthews, Phil Boswell, Fropu, DefLog~enwiki, D6, Smimram, ZeroOne, Gauge,
Quiddity, Mathbot, Robertbyrne, Zoran.skoda, Jon Awbrey, Syrcatbot, Cydebot, The Transhumanist, Cic, LW77, MitchB, InXistant,
Cenarium, Yobot, Minnecologies, Magmalex, Magicus69, Tutelary, Mark viking, Kmccargo and Anonymous: 13
Pointless topology Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointless_topology?oldid=766839830 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Zundark, Gareth
Owen, Michael Hardy, Charles Matthews, Phys, MathMartin, Tea2min, Markus Krtzsch, Lethe, DefLog~enwiki, Bender235, Gauge,
AshtonBenson, Drbreznjev, Linas, Salix alba, Chris Pressey, Rune.welsh, Masnevets, Hairy Dude, Crasshopper, SmackBot, Persian Poet
Gal, Physis, CBM, Sam Staton, Seaphoto, Avaya1, Magioladitis, Tokenzero, David Eppstein, Oda Mari, Linforest, D.scain.farenzena,
Legobot, Yobot, Materialscientist, DSisyphBot, Noamz, Jan.Keromnes, Chronulator, Wiki2103, Pintoch, Brirush and Anonymous: 22
Sheaf (mathematics) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheaf_(mathematics)?oldid=788674591 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Zundark,
Youssefsan, Toby Bartels, Miguel~enwiki, Nommonomanac, Michael Hardy, Dominus, Komap, TakuyaMurata, Karada, Angela, Ci-
phergoth, Charles Matthews, Dysprosia, Jitse Niesen, Phys, Robbot, Pfortuny, Rvollmert, MathMartin, Jor, Giftlite, Graeme Bartlett,
Lethe, Fropu, Jason Quinn, Brockert, UgenBot, JoJan, Sam Hocevar, Avihu, Vivacissamamente, Smimram, Rich Farmbrough, Paul
August, Jnestorius, Elwikipedista~enwiki, Gauge, Rgdboer, Chalst, Kwamikagami, Crislax, Blotwell, Kundor, Marc van Woerkom,
Msh210, Mlm42, ED, Oleg Alexandrov, Linas, Je3000, Hypercube~enwiki, MFH, GregorB, BD2412, Rjwilmsi, Joe Decker, MarSch,
Chobot, YurikBot, Dmharvey, Michael Slone, Archelon, Ibotty~enwiki, Zwobot, Netrapt, SmackBot, Mhss, Ron.garcia, Nbarth, DHN-
bot~enwiki, Ccero, Leland McInnes, Henning Makholm, Clicketyclack, Tesseran, Ivanip, Makyen, Tyrrell McAllister, James pic, CR-
Greathouse, Ksoileau, Myasuda, Gregbard, NormHardy, Ntsimp, Dharma6662000, AntiVandalBot, WinBot, PhilKnight, JamesBWatson,
Jakob.scholbach, Hans Lundmark, Shinsonh, MNAdam, Dr Caligari, S84, C quest000, Daniele.tampieri, AntiSpamBot, Mistercupcake,
VolkovBot, LokiClock, Wikimorphism, Geometry guy, AJRobbins, Arcfrk, AlleborgoBot, Stca74, Filos96, Maelgwnbot, CohesionBot,
PixelBot, Rswarbrick, David96~enwiki, Beroal, Addbot, Boomur, Ozob, Luckas-bot, TaBOT-zerem, AnomieBOT, Galoubet, Unara,
Citation bot, DannyAsher, Freebirth Toad, GrouchoBot, Omnipaedista, Negi(afk), Citation bot 1, Tkuvho, A Thousand Clowns, Red-
frettchen, Miracle Pen, Bj norge, EmausBot, John of Reading, Fly by Night, Slawekb, BTotaro, BG19bot, CitationCleanerBot, Zeeyanwiki,
Enyokoyama, Gsdrg zsdfv bvbgyj, Mark viking, Hamoudafg, Lawrencevu, Siddharthist and Anonymous: 106
Timeline of category theory and related mathematics Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_category_theory_and_related_
mathematics?oldid=758889909 Contributors: Michael Hardy, TakuyaMurata, Charles Matthews, Topbanana, Phil Boswell, Giftlite,
Rich Farmbrough, Bender235, Momotaro, BD2412, Imnotminkus, Wavelength, Welsh, RonnieBrown, SmackBot, TdanTce, Myasuda,
Dougher, KConWiki, EagleFan, R'n'B, Daniel5Ko, Saibod, Truthanado, Henry Delforn (old), Classicalecon, Niceguyedc, Arjayay, Bte99,
Matj Grabovsk, Pcap, Fotino, Tad Lincoln, Omnipaedista, FrescoBot, PigFlu Oink, John of Reading, Dewritech, Davidaedwards, Bruce
Bartlett, Brad7777, Escspeed, Zeiimer, Srednuas Lenoroc and Anonymous: 12
Topos Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topos?oldid=786517120 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Dreamyshade, Brion VIBBER, Toby
Bartels, B4hand, Stevertigo, Michael Hardy, Dominus, TakuyaMurata, Dori, Ghewgill, Charles Matthews, Pedant17, Phys, Ed g2s,
THSlone, Chithanh~enwiki, Tea2min, Giftlite, Markus Krtzsch, Niteowlneils, Guanaco, DefLog~enwiki, MarkSweep, Smimram, Dis-
cospinster, Elwikipedista~enwiki, Gauge, Chalst, SurrealWarrior, RHaworth, Carcharoth, Marudubshinki, Dpaking, Graham87, SixWinged-
Seraph, Thoughtactivist, Salix alba, Goclenius, FlaBot, Vonkje, Matt314, YurikBot, Hairy Dude, Michael Slone, Loom91, KSmrq,
Crasshopper, Netrapt, Byorgey, Ignirtoq, Leland McInnes, Cronholm144, Vaughan Pratt, CBM, Cydebot, Sam Staton, Thijs!bot, Hamaryns,
Changbao, Jakob.scholbach, David Eppstein, Gwern, Filll, Maurice Carbonaro, Cspan64, LordAnubisBOT, JohnKel, Wikimorphism,
Penarc, Jnkfrancis, BotMultichill, Pit-trout, Classicalecon, Excirial, Cenarium, DumZiBoT, Trifonov~enwiki, Addbot, , Ozob,
Matj Grabovsk, ManSpan, Yobot, AnomieBOT, NathanoNL, Galoubet, Omnipaedista, Ringspectrum, Tkuvho, Jonesey95, Apsward,
Asward2, Mika58, SteveVickers, Goudsbloem, ClueBot NG, Helpful Pixie Bot, Justin noel, Kephir, Mark viking, Jayaguru-Shishya,
GeoreyT2000 and Anonymous: 47
Type theory Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory?oldid=792814633 Contributors: AxelBoldt, Mav, Zundark, The Anome,
BenBaker, B4hand, K.lee, Patrick, Michael Hardy, Dominus, TakuyaMurata, Delirium, Darkov, Dysprosia, Malcohol, Markhurd, Hy-
acinth, David.Monniaux, Fredrik, Gandalf61, Millosh, Tea2min, Ancheta Wis, Giftlite, Esap, Behnam, Just Another Dan, Sam Hoce-
var, Smimram, Rich Farmbrough, Leibniz, Adamrmoss, Kzzl, Elwikipedista~enwiki, El C, Rgdboer, Chalst, Ntmatter, Hooperbloob,
Thringer, Diego Moya, BeeJay~enwiki, Oleg Alexandrov, Linas, Ruud Koot, John Hill, Salix alba, Cjoev, Mkehrt, Jameshsher, Jr-
tayloriv, ...adam..., YurikBot, Nmondal, RussBot, Neither, Trovatore, Yahya Abdal-Aziz, Mikeblas, Donhalcon, TuukkaH, SmackBot,
BiT, Hmains, Mhss, Chris the speller, Oatmeal batman, Charles Moss, Nixeagle, Cybercobra, Paddy3118, Leaord, Pats1, Byelf2007,
Bn, Lambiam, Wvbailey, Mets501, Chickencha, CRGreathouse, CmdrObot, CBM, Ezrakilty, MarkusQ, Gregbard, RichardVeryard,
100110100, TAnthony, Rustyfence, R'n'B, Ps ttf, Daniel5Ko, Quejlfaspasma, Crisperdue, Camrn86, JohnBlackburne, Edvard Munchkin,
Aaron Rotenberg, Knight Of The Woeful Countenance, Jamelan, Kbrose, SieBot, Paradoctor, IsleLaMotte, CBM2, ClueBot, Niceguyedc,
Muhandes, Vilem77, Baudway, MystBot, Mabdul, CanadianLinuxUser, Mdnahas, Legobot, Luckas-bot, Yobot, Amirobot, Pcap, AnomieBOT,
Ciphers, Galoubet, Xqbot, The Evil IP address, Omnipaedista, Noamz, RibotBOT, FrescoBot, G. Blaine, Sawomir Biay, Maggyero,
Elockid, TomT0m, Azmisov, John of Reading, R*elation, GoingBatty, Jmencisom, Pseudosection, Straightontillmorning, ZroBot, Avi-
cAWB, Dominique.devriese, Tijfo098, ClueBot NG, Masssly, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, Brad7777, Jecllns, Fronx, Upsidedowntophat,
Biogeographist, Dough34, Nobody particular, Gamebuster, Malan, Qzd, Dmitrizaitsev, Deacon Vorbis, L0g1c4p3 and Anonymous: 102
17.13.2 Images
File:Ambox_globe_content.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Ambox_globe_content.svg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: Own work, using File:Information icon3.svg and File:Earth clip art.svg Original artist: penubag
File:Ambox_important.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Ambox_important.svg License: Public do-
main Contributors: Own work based on: Ambox scales.svg Original artist: Dsmurat, penubag
File:Caesar3.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Caesar3.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Own
work Original artist: Cepheus
File:Cayley_graph_of_F2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Cayley_graph_of_F2.svg License: Pub-
lic domain Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: PD Contributors: ? Orig-

inal artist: ?
File:Cyclic_group.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Cyclic_group.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Con-
tributors:
Cyclic_group.png Original artist:
derivative work: Pbroks13 (talk)
File:Edit-clear.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: Public domain Contributors: The
Tango! Desktop Project. Original artist:
The people from the Tango! project. And according to the meta-data in the le, specically: Andreas Nilsson, and Jakub Steiner (although
minimally).
File:Enrichedidentity.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Enrichedidentity.png License: CC-BY-SA-
3.0 Contributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by SreeBot. Original artist: Lethe at en.wikipedia
File:Enrichedmult.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Enrichedmult.png License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Con-
tributors: Transferred from en.wikipedia by SreeBot Original artist: Lethe at en.wikipedia
File:Euler_-_Institutiones_calculi_differentialis,_1768_-_1338320_F.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/
c/cc/Euler_-_Institutiones_calculi_differentialis%2C_1768_-_1338320_F.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Available in the
BEIC digital library and uploaded in partnership with BEIC Foundation. Original artist: Euler, Leonhard
File:Fifths.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Fifths.png License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Orig-
inal artist: ?
File:Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/48/Folder_Hexagonal_Icon.svg License: Cc-
by-sa-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Internet_map_1024.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Internet_map_1024.jpg License: CC BY
2.5 Contributors: Originally from the English Wikipedia; description page is/was here. Original artist: The Opte Project
File:Lock-green.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Lock-green.svg License: CC0 Contributors: en:
File:Free-to-read_lock_75.svg Original artist: User:Trappist the monk
File:Logic_portal.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Logic_portal.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: <a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Watchduck.svg' class='image'><img alt='Watchduck.svg'
src='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Watchduck.svg/40px-Watchduck.svg.png' width='40' height='46' srcset='https:
//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Watchduck.svg/60px-Watchduck.svg.png 1.5x, https://upload.wikimedia.org/
wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Watchduck.svg/80px-Watchduck.svg.png 2x' data-le-width='703' data-le-height='806' /></a> Watchduck
(a.k.a. Tilman Piesk)
File:Math-enriched_category_associativity.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Math-enriched_category_
associativity.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rfcrew
File:Math-enriched_category_identity1.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Math-enriched_category_
identity1.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rfcrew
File:Math-enriched_category_identity2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Math-enriched_category_
identity2.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rfcrew
File:Miri2.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Miri2.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own
work Original artist: J:136401
File:Nuvola_apps_edu_mathematics_blue-p.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Nuvola_apps_edu_
mathematics_blue-p.svg License: GPL Contributors: Derivative work from Image:Nuvola apps edu mathematics.png and Image:Nuvola
apps edu mathematics-p.svg Original artist: David Vignoni (original icon); Flamurai (SVG convertion); bayo (color)
File:Oxyrhynchus_papyrus_with_Euclid{}s_Elements.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/P._Oxy.
_I_29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: http://www.math.ubc.ca/~{}cass/Euclid/papyrus/tha.jpg Original artist: Euclid
File:People_icon.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/People_icon.svg License: CC0 Contributors: Open-
Clipart Original artist: OpenClipart
File:Portal-puzzle.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/Portal-puzzle.svg License: Public domain Contributors:
? Original artist: ?
File:Question_book-new.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0
Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007
File:Rieger-Nishimura.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Rieger-Nishimura.svg License: GFDL Con-
tributors: Own work Original artist: EmilJ
File:Rubik{}s_cube.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Rubik%27s_cube.svg License: CC-BY-SA-
3.0 Contributors: Based on Image:Rubiks cube.jpg Original artist: This image was created by me, Booyabazooka
File:SheafMorphism-01a.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/SheafMorphism-01a.png License: CC
BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Kundor
File:SubobjectPullbackTopos.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/SubobjectPullbackTopos.svg License:
Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: Vaughan Pratt
File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_
with_red_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg
from the Tango project. Original artist: Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham)
File:Torus.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Torus.png License: Public domain Contributors: This

image was created with POV-Ray Original artist: LucasVB
File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: This le was derived from Wiki letter w.svg: <a href='//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w.
svg' class='image'><img alt='Wiki letter w.svg' src='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg/
50px-Wiki_letter_w.svg.png' width='50' height='50' srcset='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Wiki_letter_
w.svg/75px-Wiki_letter_w.svg.png 1.5x, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg/100px-Wiki_
letter_w.svg.png 2x' data-le-width='44' data-le-height='44' /></a>
Original artist: Derivative work by Thumperward
File:Wikiquote-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Wikiquote-logo.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Rei-artur
17.13.3 Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0

Category Theory

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Category Theory

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Category theory

Cartesian closed category

It has a terminal object.

which is natural in both X and Z.

The category of nite G-sets is also Cartesian closed.

1.4 Equational theory

[2] S. Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician

1.6 External links

2.2 See also

2.5 Further reading

2.6 External links

3.1 Motivation and intuition

approximated from below.

3.2 A guide to the formal denitions

3.2.1 Directed sets as converging specications

3.2.2 Computations and domains

3.2.3 Approximation and niteness

3.2.4 Way-below relation

there is some element d in D such that

Then one also says that x approximates y and writes

This does imply that

{0}, {0, 1}, {0, 1, 2}, . . .

3.2.5 Bases of domains

3.2.6 Special types of domains

3.3 Important results

Topological domain theory

3.5 See also

Scott information system

3.6 Further reading

Carl A. Gunter (1992). Semantics of Programming Languages. MIT Press.

V. Stoltenberg-Hansen; I. Lindstrom; E. R. Grior (1994). Mathematical Theory of Domains. Cambridge

3.7 External links

a class ob(C) of objects of C,

an object C(a, b) of M for every pair of objects a, b in C,

an arrow ida : I C(a, a) in M designating an identity for every object a in C, and

4.2 Examples of enriched categories

d(b,c) + d(a,b) d(a,c) (triangle inequality)

4.3 Relationship with monoidal functors

4.4 Enriched functors

commutes, which amounts to the equation

Taa ida = idT (a) ,

commute, which is analogous to the rule F(fg)=F(f)F(g) for ordinary functors.

4.5 See also

Enriched category in nLab

5.1 Main classes of groups

5.1.1 Permutation groups

5.1.2 Matrix groups

5.1.3 Transformation groups

5.1.4 Abstract groups

5.1.5 Topological and algebraic groups

5.2 Branches of group theory

5.2.1 Finite group theory

5.2.2 Representation of groups

5.2.3 Lie theory

5.2.4 Combinatorial and geometric group theory

it may not be obvious that these groups are isomorphic.[7]

The Cayley graph of x, y , the free group of rank 2.

5.3 Connection of groups and symmetry

5.4 Applications of group theory

5.4.1 Galois theory

Main article: Galois theory

5.4.2 Algebraic topology

Main article: Algebraic topology

5.4.3 Algebraic geometry and cryptography