Wood fusion for magmal comonads
Abstract
The goal is to show how a 1978 paper of Richard Wood on monoidal comonads and exponentiation relates to more recent publications such as Pastro et alia [29] and Bruguiéres et alia [6]. In the process, we mildly extend the ideas to procomonads in a magmal setting and suggest it also works for algebras for any club in the sense of Max Kelly [17, 18].
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 16E45; 16D90; 18A40
Key words and phrases: Hopf comonad; monoidal comonad; magmal category; procomonad.
1 Introduction
This paper began when I moved offices and uncovering Richard Wood’s paper [39] in which he considers a closed monad on a closed category . He provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the natural promonoidal structure on the category of Eilenberg-Moore coalgebras for to be closed (that is, to be representable by an internal hom). He also provides necessary and sufficient conditions for to be closed in that way and for the underlying functor to be strong closed (that is, to preserve the internal hom).
The process involves morphisms
(1.1) |
for an object of and an object of . Here I am denoting the closed structure on by where the closed structure on is what I think of as the “left” kind. These are what I will call Wood fusion morphisms.
An aim of the present paper is to relate Wood fusion to the fusion occurring in more recent papers such as [34, 6, 7, 28].
Like Wood, I will write for monoidal closed . Actually, it became clear that the story applies to more general categorical structures. In particular, we could work with algebras for a club in the sense of Kelly [17, 18]. It is about the functors providing the operations (such as binary tensor product), while the structural natural transformations (such as associativity constraints) and axioms thereon (such as the Mac Lane pentagon) carry over automatically to the constructions. However, rather than review the notion of club and to keep the notation simple, I have written for the case of magmal categories; that is, categories equipped with a binary functorial operation which we still call and write as a tensor product. Indeed, as is our custom, we will be a little more general and work with hom -enriched categories throughout.
The unification of the monad and comonad cases is achieved by working with a magmal procomonad on a magmal .
2 Magmal comonads and cloaks
We work with categories enriched in a suitably complete and cocomplete, symmetric, monoidal category as base for enrichment (see Kelly [21]). The tensor of is denoted by and the tensor unit by . At times, we omit the prefix “-”, taking it for granted.
Definition 1.
A -category is magmal when it is equipped with a -functor (this overworked notation, written as usual between the arguments). A -functor between magmal -categories is called magmal when it is equipped with a -natural transformation as in (2.2).
(2.2) |
A -natural transformation between magmal -functors is called magmal when it satisfies the equation for all . A comonad is magmal when , and are all magmal.
Definition 2.
Suppose is a magmal -category and . We say is left cloaked by when there is an object and a morphism
such that the family
-natural in obtained by the Yoneda Lemma, consists of isomorphisms. In the language of Appendix B, and in the 2-category . We say is the left cloak of by ; if these exist for all , we have the components
of the counit and unit of an adjunction . If left cloaks exist for all , we say is left cloakal.
Proposition 1.
Suppose is a -functor between magmal -categories and . Suppose admits left cloaks by and admits left cloaks by . There is a bijection between families
-natural in and families
-natural in .
Proof.
This is an application of the mate bijection (in the sense of [20]) between -natural and under the adjunctions and . ∎
Obviously every monoidal category, functor, and natural transformation has an underlying magmal structure.
Let be a magmal comonad on a magmal -category . So we have -natural families , and .
As for monoidal -categories (see [39, 27, 26]), the category of Eilenberg-Moore -coalgebras becomes magmal with tensor product
(2.3) |
This gives the construction of coalgebras for comonads (in the sense of [30]) in the 2-category of magmal -categories, magmal -functors, and magmal -natural transformations.
The following result is an application of Proposition 26 and yet we still give a direct proof within the present context.
Lemma 2.
Let be a magmal comonad on a magmal -category . Suppose cloaks and exist in for the objects and of . Then the cloak exists if and only if the parallel pair
(2.6) |
has an equalizer in . If that holds, then
and the counit is determined by commutativity of the square (2.7).
(2.7) |
Proof.
We have the equalizer
(2.10) |
in . The “only if” direction is then clear since right adjointness of the functor implies it preserves the equalizer (2.10). For the other direction, note that morphisms are in bijection (via composition with ) with morphisms such that and so with morphisms such that . Using the equalizer (2.10), we see that is the stated cloak and that the last sentence of the lemma holds. ∎
The following lemma is essentially in [39].
Lemma 3.
Let be a magmal comonad on a magmal -category . Suppose the cloaks and exist in . Then a cloak of the cofree object by any object in is given by the cofree object with the composite
as .
3 Wood fusion morphisms
Notice that, if the cloak exists, then the evaluation in Lemma 3 corresponds, under the universal property of cloaks, to the composite
(3.12) |
Definition 3.
The of (3.12) are called Wood -fusion morphisms.
Notice that the Wood fusion morphism for cofree coalgebras occurs in the construction of a new skew-closed structure using a closed comonad; see Proposition 3 of [36].
We will be interested in when the Wood fusion morphisms are invertible. As with ordinary fusion (recalled in Section 4), invertibility for an arbitrary -coalgebra follows from invertibility for cofree -coalgebras.
Proposition 4.
For a -coalgebra and any object , the Wood fusion morphism is invertible if is invertible and is an epimorphism.
Proof.
For any coalgebra , we have an equalizer of the form
(3.15) |
which is preserved by all functors (that is, it is an absolute equalizer). It follows that the rows of (3.16) are coequalizers. The vertical morphisms give two composable morphisms of coequalizer diagrams (that is, the appropriate diagrams commute using naturality of , and coassociativity properties of and ).
(3.16) |
If the middle vertical composite is invertible and the left vertical composite is an epimorphism then the right vertical composite is invertible. ∎
Definition 4.
The closed comonad on is Hopf-Wood when the Wood fusion morphisms are all invertible. By Proposition 4, it suffices to know that all are invertible; then the property can be expressed without reference to Eilenberg-Moore coalgebras.
Lemma 5.
Definition 5.
A strong magmal functor is said to create the cloak of by in when the cloak of by exists in , and there exist in and in with the following two properties:
-
(i)
there exists a unique morphism such that the square
(3.20) commutes;
-
(ii)
the object with is a cloak for by .
The following lemma is straightforward.
Lemma 6.
Suppose (3.21) is a pullback of magmal -categories and strong magmal -functors with fully faithful. Suppose are such that creates the cloak of by . If for some then creates the cloak of by .
(3.21) |
Lemma 7.
Proof.
Assume exists in and the Wood -fusion morphism (3.12) is invertible. In the definition of creation, take and . Commutativity of diagram (3.20) means, in this case, that must be the clockwise route around the diagram
and the diagram shows that is the evaluation displayed in Lemma 3. By Lemma 3 we have what we need for “if”.
Now suppose creates the exponential which we know from Lemma 3 is the object with the evaluation as displayed in that lemma. Since and , we have the existence of and that there is an isomorphism such that . This last equation means that corresponds to under the universal property of ; that is, , which proves “only if”. ∎
Proposition 8.
Let be a magmal comonad on a magmal -category . Suppose is such that and exist for all . The Wood -fusion morphisms are invertible for all if and only if creates all cloaks by . In this case, for any ,
Proof.
Lemma 7 gives “if”. Suppose all are invertible. We will use facts involved in the Beck monadicity theorem [25] in dual form for comonads. We have the cosplit equalizer (3.15). From Lemma 7, the parallel pair in equalizer (2.6) is taken by to the cosplit pair
(3.25) |
which, by applying to (3.15), has the cosplit equalizer
(3.28) |
Since is comonadic, there exists a unique -coalgebra and an equalizer
(3.31) |
in , where (using Lemma 5) the coactions and are transported from the coactions on and on under the invertible Wood fusion morphisms. So we have condition (ii) for to create the cloak. For condition (i), note that commutativity of (2.7) in Lemma 2 with shows that is the G-coalgebra morphism for the unique solution to diagram (3.20). ∎
4 Fusion for opmagmal monads
Let be an opmagmal monad on the magmal -category . The monad structure involves a unit and a multiplication . The opmagmal structure involves a natural family of morphisms . We denote the magmal category of Eilenberg-Moore -algebras by with strong magmal forgetful functor . The tensor product for is defined by
Suppose has a right adjoint functor . As discussed in [14], becomes a comonad on and there is an isomorphism of categories over . These matters involve the calculus of mates (in the sense of [20]) as does the fact that becomes a monoidal comonad and the isomorphism becomes strong monoidal.
Proposition 9.
Suppose is an opmagmal monad on the magmal -category . Suppose is a right adjoint magmal comonad for . Let correspond to . The -fusion morphism is invertible for all if and only if the Wood -fusion morphism is invertible for all .
Proof.
Apply the Yoneda Lemma to the following commutative diagram where is the counit of .
where is the counit of . ∎
Example 1.
Let be a braided closed monoidal category. Let be a monoid in the monoidal category of comagma in . Then is an opmagmal monad with right adjoint . Proposition 9 relates Wood fusion for the magmal comonad with the fusion morphism
for . We say is Hopf when its fusion morphism is invertible. This is equivalent to Hopf and to Hopf-Wood.
5 Procomonads
Let be a symmetric closed monoidal category which is complete and cocomplete. Let be the bicategory of -categories and -modules in the terminology of [32, 11] and elsewhere; modules are also called “bimodules” by Lawvere [23], and first “profunctors” [4] and then “distributors” [5] by Bénabou. The bicategory has homs enriched in ; we equate the hom with the -functor -category . Composition of -modules and is defined by coends
Each -functor gives -modules and with in ; indeed, and . A module is called Cauchy when it has a right adjoint in . A module is called convergent or representable when for some -functor .
We write for the -category with one object and hom (the tensor unit of ). Then , the category of -presheaves on . Composition with transports to a left adjoint -functor
where
(5.34) |
In fact, is the object function of a biequivalence between the bicategory and the 2-category of -presheaf categories, left adjoint -functors, and -natural transformations.
A -procomonad is a comonad in and so consists of a -category , a -module , a -natural transformation , and a -natural transformation satisfying the coassociativity and counital conditions. We say is a -procomonad on . For any -category , we obtain a -comonad on the -category . Then we have the -category of Eilenberg-Moore -coalgebras. In particular, when , we obtain a -comonad on the presheaf -category and its -category of Eilenberg-Moore -coalgebras.
The following definition agrees with the category defined by Thiébaud [38] in the case .
Definition 6.
The -category of -algebras in is defined by the pullback (5.35) in of the underlying -functor along the Yoneda embedding .
(5.35) |
So such a -algebra consists of an object equipped with a coaction morphism , subject to the two axioms (5.36). We will write for the natural family corresponding to under the Yoneda bijection. Similarly we have .
(5.36) |
We will call any -functor into , isomorphic over to , Thiébaud algebraic over .
Example 2.
The construction includes the Eilenberg-Moore constructions for both -monads and -comonads.
-
1.
If is a -monad on the -category and we take so that with counit and comultiplication induced by the unit and multiplication then , the -category of -algebras.
-
2.
If is a -comonad on the -category and we take so that with counit and comultiplication induced by those of then , the -category of -coalgebras.
The two main closure properties Thiébaud proved in [38] were that Thiébaud algebraicity is closed under pullback and exponentiation. We now look at that.
Given a -functor and a -procomonad on , we have the -procomonad on ; it is the lifting of through in (see Section 2 of [30]).
Proposition 10.
The following square is a pullback.
Proof.
Using Yoneda, we deduce that . The remaining details are routine. ∎
Corollary 11.
Thiébaud algebraicity is the closure under pullback of comonadicity.
Given -categories and , each -procomonad on defines a -procomonad on via the commutative diagram (5.37); it is the lifting of through and satisfies the simple formula:
(5.37) |
Proposition 12.
over .
Proof.
An object of a monoidal bicategory (see [11]) is magmal when a 1-morphism is specified. For example, every monoidale (called pseudomonoid by [11] and elsewhere) in has an underlying magmal object.
In particular, a magmal object in is called a magmal -category as in Definition 1. A module between magmal -categories is called magmal when it is equipped with a -natural family of morphisms
such families, by the universal property of coend and Yoneda’s Lemma, are in bijection with -natural families of morphisms
and in bijection with -natural families of morphisms
A module morphism is magmal when
A -functor is magmal as in Definition 1 if and only if the module is. Using the Yoneda Lemma, we see that this amounts to a -natural family of morphisms
as in diagram (2.2). Call strong magmal when all are invertible.
If is a small magmal -category then the presheaf -category has the Day convolution magmal structure
defined by
The Yoneda embedding is strong magmal and has the (bicategorical) universal property of the magmal small cocompletion of : for any small-cocomplete magmal , the category of [strong-]magmal -functors is equivalent (via left Kan extension along ) to the category of colimit-preserving [strong-]magmal -functors .
A procomonad on a -category is magmal when are all magmal.
Let be a magmal procomonad on the magmal -category . Then is a magmal comonad on . To obtain we use the isomorphisms
and
to transport to obtain . Using (2.3), we obtain a magmal structure on . This restricts along the fully faithful -functor to a magmal structure on which is defined by
Definition 7.
Suppose is a -functor between magmal -categories. Suppose is left cloaked by in . We say preserves the left cloaking of by when provides a left cloaking of by . If this holds for all then we say is strong left cloakal; by Proposition 1, it follows that is magmal, but it is not necessarily strong magmal.
Proposition 13.
For any magmal -category , the convolution magmal presheaf -category is left cloakal. For , the left cloaking of by is given by
In particular, so that the Yoneda embedding preserves any left cloakings admits.
Proof.
This follows mutatis mutandis the proof by Day [8] in the monoidal case. ∎
Definition 8.
The fusion morphisms for magmal procomonad are the Wood fusion morphisms for the magmal comonad restricted to representables.
Let us make this definition more explicit. According to Definition 3, Wood fusion for is the composite
(5.39) |
for and . For and , put , , and , then we write instead of . Using Yoneda, we obtain
Proposition 14.
Let be a magmal procomonad on the magmal -category . Suppose . The diagram (5.40) commutes.
(5.40) |
Proof.
Replace the end vertex of the diagram by the Yoneda isomorphic . The morphism transports to the composite
It suffices to show that the two paths around (5.40) agree after we precompose the diagram with each injection
and postcompose with each projection
Now we need to show that two paths
are equal. By Yoneda, it suffices to check them equal after taking and evaluating at the identity (that is, on precomposing with
Two commutative diagrams then show that both paths reduce to the morphism
corresponding to
under the closed-monoidal adjunction for . ∎
Corollary 15.
Proof.
We leave this as an exercise for the reader. ∎
Definition 9.
We call Hopf at when is invertible for all .
Lemma 16.
Suppose is such that exists for all . Then is Hopf at if and only if is Hopf at .
Proof.
“If” is clear since is defined as a special case of Wood fusion for . Conversely, suppose for all . For , one easily calculates that , so
where the fifth isomorphism uses the invertible -fusion morphisms . The composite is (5.39) for and . ∎
Suppose is left cloaked by in the magmal -category and . Suppose is Hopf at . Then we have defined by commutativity of (5.42).
(5.42) |
Via Example 2, we obtain our unification of [6] and [39] as an application of Proposition 8 with , using Lemmas 6 and 16.
Theorem 17.
Let be a magmal procomonad on a magmal -category . Suppose is such that exists for all . Then is Hopf at if and only if creates all cloaks by . In this case, for any ,
where is defined by (5.42).
Remark 18.
In general the -functor has neither left nor right adjoint. Example 2 is where it does.
Appendix A Lifting adjunctions and doctrinal adjunction
After my talk on Wood fusion in the Australian Category Seminar on 8 February 2023, Steve Lack and Richard Garner suggested that the results I presented were obtainable from adjoint lifting theorems and that I should look at Peter Johnstone’s paper [15]. This section addresses that suggestion.
Richard Wood [39] already referred to William Keigher [16]. Johnstone states he learned of [16] after writing [15].
We revisit the Adjoint Triangle Theorem of Eduardo Dubuc [12] in Appendix B. Now we will see that other adjoint lifting results can be viewed as consequences of doctrinal adjunction (in the sense of Max Kelly in [19]) involving examples as in Theorem 9 of [30] and Theorem 1 of [31].
Let denote the bicategory of monads in a bicategory essentially as defined in [30]. An object is a pair consisting of an object and a monoid (called a monad on ) in the endomonoidal category . The unit and multiplication of will be denoted by and . A morphism (called a monad morphism) consists of a morphism equipped with a 2-morphism
(A.43) |
in compatible with , in the obvious way. A 2-morphism is a 2-morphism in such that . Composition is performed by pasting. There is a forgetful pseudofunctor
(A.44) |
A morphism in is called a monad opmorphism: the 2-morphism in (A.43) is reversed. A morphism in is called a comonad morphism. A morphism in is called a comonad opmorphism.
Example 3.
Part of doctrinal adjunction is the fact that, if is a monad morphism and is an adjunction, then is a monad opmorphism where is the mate of . The other part is obtained by examining adjunctions
(A.45) |
in . Since pseudofunctors preserve adjunctions, we use (A.44) to deduce that in and that the counit and unit must be 2-morphisms in . Using only the first of these, a little diagram shows that has inverse the mate
(A.46) |
of . Yet, if this mate of has an inverse at all, one sees that both and are 2-morphisms in . This proves:
Proposition 19.
A morphism has a left adjoint in if and only if has a left adjoint and the mate (A.46) of is invertible.
Let denote the lax morphism bicategory of . An object is a morphism in . A morphism is a diagram
(A.47) |
in . A 2-morphism is a pair of 2-morphisms in satisfying . A morphism is called strong when is invertible. Let denote the sub-2-category of obtained by restricting to the strong morphisms.
Let us look at adjunctions in . As before, because of the existence of forgetful pseudofunctors, we must have adjunctions and in such that the counits and units form 2-morphisms and in . The first of these yields that the mate of is a left inverse for while the second yields that is a right inverse for . On the other hand, any inverse for does render and 2-morphisms.
Proposition 20.
A morphism has a left adjoint in if and only if both and have left adjoints and the mate of is invertible. Any left adjoint in is in . Any in has a right adjoint in if and only if and have right adjoints in .
Now suppose admits the construction of algebras in the bicategorical sense: for each monad , there is an Eilenberg-Moore -algebra with action for which the functor
is an equivalence for all . Then we have a pseudofunctor
(A.48) |
defined as follows. For each monad , we put . For each monad morphism , we have a -algebra
(A.49) |
so there exist (uniquely up to isomorphism) a morphism and an isomorphism such that becomes a -algebra isomorphism from to the -algebra (A.49). We put ; it is a strong morphism. For a 2-morphism , there is a unique 2-morphism such that is a 2-morphism in ; we put .
Proposition 21.
The pseudofunctor (A.48) is an equivalence on homcategories.
Proof.
Take in and let be the mate of under the adjunctions and . Now put
(A.50) |
Recalling how the unit and multiplication of the monads are obtained from the unit and counit of the generating adjunctions, we routinely check that is a morphism of (a string diagram proof is attractive) and that . From the definition of on 2-morphisms we see, for each , that is the unique 2-morphism of with . ∎
Remark 22.
In the above proof, notice that, since composing with is conservative, is invertible if and only if is. This is Lemma 3 of Johnstone [15].
Corollary 23.
A monad morphism has a left adjoint in if and only if has a left adjoint in .
The second sentence of Corollary 24 is Theorem 4 of [15] and the dual of Corollary 2.3 of [16]. Furthermore, by way of Example 3, it relates to Theorem 3.6 of [6] and to our Proposition 8.
Corollary 24.
A monad morphism has a right adjoint in if and only if has a right adjoint in . In particular, if has a right adjoint and is invertible then has a right adjoint with .
Appendix B Liftings
We work in a bicategory . We use the notation
(B.51) |
to depict a right lifting (see [37]) of the 1-morphism through the 1-morphism . The defining property is that pasting with (B.51) gives a bijection
(This concept is a dual of Kan extension.)
The right lifting is said to be respected by the 1-morphism when exhibits as a right lifting of through . If has a right adjoint then and so is respected by all 1-morphisms . On the other hand, if exists and is respected by then .
If is a 2-morphism and and have right liftings through , we write for the 2-morphism defined by
As with all cartesian morphisms, we have this simple property.
Proposition 25.
Suppose are 1-morphisms such that exists. Then
in the sense that one side exists if and only if the other does and is the pasted composite of and .
Proposition 26.
Suppose are 1-morphisms. Suppose is a 2-morphism with a regular monomorphism in and a monomorphism in for all .
-
(i)
For all ,
(B.54) is an equalizer in .
-
(ii)
Suppose right liftings and exist and are respected by . The existence of a right lifting respected by is equivalent to the existence of an equalizer
(B.57) preserved by .
-
(iii)
In the situation of (ii), there is an isomorphism whose composite with is .
Proof.
For (i), we know that is the equalizer of some pair . Take such that . Then
and similarly . So . Since is a monomorphism, we have so that for some which is unique because is also a monomorphism.
For (ii), using (i), we have
naturally in .
For (iii), by Yoneda, there is an isomorphism inducing the composite isomorphism (B); this gives commutativity of the square
By applying the bijection
we obtain the result stated. ∎
Proposition 27.
Suppose and are 1-morphisms. Suppose exists and is respected by all 1-morphisms . Suppose the 2-morphism , defined by , is such that is a regular monomorphism in and is a monomorphism in for all . Suppose both and exist and are respected by . Then has the same universal property as the equalizer of the pair of 2-morphisms from to in corresponding (via the universal property of ) to the two paths in (B.59). Moreover, is respected by if and only if the equalizer is preserved by .
(B.59) |
Proof.
Corollary 28 (Dubuc Adjoint Triangle Theorem [12]).
Suppose the 1-morphism has a right adjoint with the unit a regular monomorphism preserved by the functors for all 1-morphisms with target . A 1-morphism has a right adjoint if and only if the composite has a right adjoint and the coreflexive pair of 2-morphisms
(B.60) |
admits an equalizer preserved by the functors for all 1-morphisms with target , where , are the counit and unit for .
References
- [1] Appelgate, H. Acyclic models and resolvent functors. (PhD Thesis, Columbia University, 1965).
- [2] Barr, M. and Wells, C. Toposes, Triples and Theories. Grundlehren der math. Wissenschaften 278, Springer-Verlag, 1985.
- [3] Beck, J.M. Triples, algebras and cohomology. Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories 2 (2003) 1–59.
- [4] Bénabou, J. Introduction to bicategories. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 47 (Springer-Verlag, 1967) 1–77.
- [5] Bénabou, J. Les distributeurs. Seminaires de Math. Pure, Rapport No. 33 (Univ. Catholique de Louvain, 1973).
- [6] Bruguiéres, A., Lack, S. and Virelizier, A. Hopf monads on monoidal categories. Advances in Mathematics 227(2) (2011) 745–800.
- [7] Chikhladze, D., Lack, S. and Street, R. Hopf monoidal comonads. Theory and Applications of Categories 24(19) (2010) 554–563.
- [8] Day, B.J. On closed categories of functors. Lecture Notes in Math. 137 (Springer 1970) 1–38.
- [9] Day, B.J. Promonoidal functor categories. J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A 23(3) (1977) 312–328.
- [10] Day, B.J. Biclosed bicategories: Localisation of convolution. Macquarie Mathematics Report 81-0030 (Macquarie University, April 1981). https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3485
- [11] Day, B.J. and Street, R. Monoidal bicategories and Hopf algebroids. Advances in Math. 129 (1997) 99–157.
- [12] Dubuc, E. Adjoint triangles. Lecture Notes in Math. 61 (Springer-Verlag, 1968) 69–91.
- [13] Eilenberg, S. and Kelly, G.M. Closed categories. Proceedings of the Conference on Categorical Algebra (La Jolla, 1965) (Springer-Verlag,1966) 421–562.
- [14] Eilenberg, S. and Moore, J.C. Adjoint functors and triples. Illinois Journal of Mathematics 9 (1965) 381–398.
- [15] Johnstone, P.T. Adjoint lifting theorems for categories of algebras. Bulletin London Math. Soc. 59(1) (1975) 294–297.
- [16] Keigher, W.F. Adjunctions and comonads in differential algebra. Pacific J. Math. 59(1) (1975) 99–112.
- [17] Kelly, G.M. Many-variable functorial calculus. I. Lecture Notes in Math. 281 (Springer, Berlin, 1972) 66–105.
- [18] Kelly, G.M. An abstract approach to coherence. Lecture Notes in Math. 281 (Springer, Berlin, 1972) 106–147
- [19] Kelly, G.M. Doctrinal adjunction. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 420 (Springer-Verlag, 1974) 257–280.
- [20] Kelly, G.M. and Street, R. Review of the elements of 2-categories. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 420 (Springer-Verlag, 1974) 75–103.
- [21] Kelly, G.M. Basic concepts of enriched category theory. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 64 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1982); also, Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories, 10 (2005) 1–136.
- [22] Kleisli, H. Every standard construction is induced by a pair of adjoint functors. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (1965) 544–546.
- [23] Lawvere, F.W. Metric spaces, generalized logic and closed categories. Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories 1 (2002) 1–37.
- [24] Linton, F.E.J. The multilinear Yoneda lemmas: Toccata, fugue, and fantasia on themes by Eilenberg- Kelly and Yoneda. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 195 (Springer, Berlin, 1971) 209–229.
- [25] Mac Lane, S. Categories for the Working Mathematician. Graduate Texts in Mathematics 5 (Springer-Verlag, 1971).
- [26] McCrudden, P. Opmonoidal monads. Theory and Applications of Categories 10 (2002) 469–485.
- [27] Moerdijk, I. Monads on tensor categories. Journal of Pure Appl. Algebra 168 (2002) 189–208.
- [28] Pastro, C. Note on star-autonomous comonads. Theory and Applications of Categories 26(7) (2012) 194–203.
- [29] Pastro, C. and Street, R. Closed categories, star-autonomy, and monoidal comonads. Journal of Algebra 321(11) (1 June 2009) 3494–3520.
- [30] Street, R. The formal theory of monads. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 2(2) (1972) 149–168.
- [31] Street, R. Two constructions on lax functors. Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle 13 (1972) 217–264.
- [32] Street, R. Enriched categories and cohomology with author commentary. Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories 14 (2005) 1–18.
- [33] Street, R. Absolute colimits in enriched categories. Cahiers de topologie et géométrie différentielle 24 (1983) 377–379.
- [34] Street, R. Fusion operators and cocycloids in monoidal categories. Applied Categorical Structures 6 (2) (1998) 177–191.
- [35] Street, R. Quantum Groups: A Path to Current Algebra. Australian Mathematical Society Lecture Series 19. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
- [36] Street, R. Skew-closed categories. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 217(6) (June 2013) 973–988.
- [37] Street, R. and Walters, R.F.C. Yoneda structures on 2-categories. J. Algebra 50 (1978) 350–379.
- [38] Thiébaud M. Self-dual structure-semantics and algebraic categories. Dalhousie University, PhD (Halifax, August 1971).
- [39] Wood, R.J. Coalgebras for closed comonads. Communications in Algebra 6(14) (1978) 1497–1504.