It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

- All Categories 2.2K
- Programming with Categories Course 21
- Exercises - Programming with Categories Course 15
- Applied Category Theory Course 341
- Applied Category Theory Seminar 4
- Exercises - Applied Category Theory Course 149
- Discussion Groups 50
- How to Use MathJax 15
- Chat 487
- Azimuth Code Project 108
- News and Information 147
- Azimuth Blog 149
- Azimuth Forum 29
- Azimuth Project 189
- - Strategy 108
- - Conventions and Policies 21
- - Questions 43
- Azimuth Wiki 711
- - Latest Changes 701
- - - Action 14
- - - Biodiversity 8
- - - Books 2
- - - Carbon 9
- - - Computational methods 38
- - - Climate 53
- - - Earth science 23
- - - Ecology 43
- - - Energy 29
- - - Experiments 30
- - - Geoengineering 0
- - - Mathematical methods 69
- - - Meta 9
- - - Methodology 16
- - - Natural resources 7
- - - Oceans 4
- - - Organizations 34
- - - People 6
- - - Publishing 4
- - - Reports 3
- - - Software 21
- - - Statistical methods 2
- - - Sustainability 4
- - - Things to do 2
- - - Visualisation 1
- General 41

Options

in Chat

Hi everyone! Here's yet another introduction.

I'm a mathematician at the MPI for Mathematics in the Sciences. A large part of my work is about resource theories, which will soon be a topic in the Applied Category Theory course. I'm looking forward to discussing that stuff with you all, especially because there's such a diverse crowd here!

From my biased personal perspective, the most interesting application that we have so far of the resource theories formalism is to thermodynamics, where we've developed simple methods to answer questions like, "How much work can be extracted from a given state?", or "What is the maximal efficiency of a heat engine operating with a given amount of hot and cold substances?"

I also have a loosely related interest in the foundations of probability, on which I'm currently working with my student Paolo Perrone, and previously on entropy with John Baez and Tom Leinster.

## Comments

Hi, Tobias! It's good to have you here. Here's what will happen next in the course: I just finished talking about Chapter 1 (posets, adjoints, joins and meets), and since I'll be at ACT2018 from April 21st to May 5th we'll spend two weeks going through the exercises in this chapter. We'll start on Chapter 2 (monoidal posets, string diagrams and resource theories) after that. Maybe I should wake you up then. It would be good to talk about your paper on resource theories.

I hadn't seen your paper A resource theory for work and heat. It looks interesting, but it looks more like conventional physics than "symmetric monoidal posets". I wonder how it's connected to your earlier paper.

`Hi, Tobias! It's good to have you here. Here's what will happen next in the course: I just finished talking about Chapter 1 (posets, adjoints, joins and meets), and since I'll be at [ACT2018](https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2017/09/12/act-2018/) from April 21st to May 5th we'll spend two weeks going through the exercises in this chapter. We'll start on Chapter 2 (monoidal posets, string diagrams and resource theories) after that. Maybe I should wake you up then. It would be good to talk about [your paper on resource theories](https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.03661). I hadn't seen your paper [A resource theory for work and heat](https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01302). It looks interesting, but it looks more like conventional physics than "symmetric monoidal posets". I wonder how it's connected to your earlier paper.`

Hey Tobias!

I was wondering about your entropy paper with John Baez.

Is

FinStatthe opposite category of what Terrence Tao sketches in this 2010 blog post?(when suitably restricted to finite sets?)

`Hey Tobias! I was wondering about your entropy paper with John Baez. Is **FinStat** the opposite category of what Terrence Tao sketches in [this 2010 blog post](https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/254a-notes-0-a-review-of-probability-theory/)? > We say that one probability space \\((\Omega',{\mathcal B}', {\mathcal P}')\\) *extends* another \\((\Omega,{\mathcal B}, {\mathcal P})\\) if there is a surjective map \\(\pi: \Omega' \rightarrow \Omega\\) which is measurable (i.e. \\(\pi^{-1}(E) \in {\mathcal B}'\\) for every \\(E \in {\mathcal B}\\)) and probability preserving (i.e. \\({\bf P}'(\pi^{-1}(E)) = {\bf P}(E)\\) for every \\(E \in {\mathcal B}\\)). (when suitably restricted to finite sets?)`

Thank you, both! I guess I'll mostly be taking a long nap until May 5 then. Since David Spivak will be visiting here May 6–11, I'll be quite distracted during those days, but I'll still try to check in here as frequently as possible.

Roughly, the story is like this: people who study thermodynamics at the nanoscale—or

single-shotthermodynamics as they call it—secretly work with a symmetric monoidal poset. Its elements are states of some physical system where one is above another if there exists a 'thermodynamic transformation' that turns the first into the second. When you take this symmetric monoidal poset and perform the regularization from my Resource convertibility and ordered commutative monoids paper on it, then you get macroscopic thermodynamics! Mathematically, the regularization of the symmetric monoidal poset is the positive cone of an ordered vector space. This is the cone that we've studied in the thermodynamics paper: one of its directions is 'amount of substance', and when you slice it a unit amount of substance, then you then get the convex set that we've called the energy-entropy diagram. The energy-entropy diagram is a very convenient tool e.g. for analyzing heat engines with finite (but large) reservoirs. What still astonishes me is that this seems to be new.When I say 'roughly' in my first sentence, this is because I've made some statements that are morally correct, but technically false. Like in any other information-theoretic context, it's all about being able to implement

approximatetransformations between states that can get arbitrarily close to the target state. I still don't know how to fit this into the framework of symmetric monoidal posets. I've tried out three different approaches which all looked promising at first, but none of them actually works. Another loose end is to find a physically meaningful derivation of what a 'thermodynamic transformation' is—but I should stop talking about this now, unless people want to know more.Matthew, nice to hear from you!

No, Terry Tao's category is what I would call 'the category of probability spaces'. If you restrict this to finite sets, then you get a category that we've called

FinProb—see Definition 1 from our first paper. A morphism between finite probability spaces \((X,p)\) and \((Y,q)\) inFinStatalso consists of a measure-preserving map \(f : X\to Y\), butin additionyou must specify a stochastic map \(s : Y\to X\) such that \(f\circ s = 1_Y\). There is a functorFinStat\(\rightarrow\)FinProbwhich forgets \(s\).We've interpreted this definition of

FinStatin terms of subjective Bayesian probability: imagine that \((X,p)\) describes the possible states of the world, and \((Y,q)\) describes your possible perceptions of the world. Since every state of the world leads to a unique perception, we have a measure-preserving map \(f : X\to Y\). Now if you experience some particular perception \(y\in Y\), what do you think that the state of the world is? It clearly must be some element of the set \(f^{-1}(y)\). But since you don't know which one, you'll have some probability distribution on \(f^{-1}(y)\), and this is exactly \(s(y)\).`Thank you, both! I guess I'll mostly be taking a long nap until May 5 then. Since David Spivak will be visiting here May 6–11, I'll be quite distracted during those days, but I'll still try to check in here as frequently as possible. > I hadn't seen your paper [A resource theory for work and heat](https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01302). It looks interesting, but it looks more like conventional physics than "symmetric monoidal posets". I wonder how it's connected to your earlier paper. Roughly, the story is like this: people who study [thermodynamics at the nanoscale](https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2076)—or *single-shot* thermodynamics as they call it—secretly work with a symmetric monoidal poset. Its elements are states of some physical system where one is above another if there exists a 'thermodynamic transformation' that turns the first into the second. When you take this symmetric monoidal poset and perform the regularization from my [Resource convertibility and ordered commutative monoids](https://arxiv.org/abs/1504.03661) paper on it, then you get macroscopic thermodynamics! Mathematically, the regularization of the symmetric monoidal poset is the positive cone of an ordered vector space. This is the cone that we've studied in the thermodynamics paper: one of its directions is 'amount of substance', and when you slice it a unit amount of substance, then you then get the convex set that we've called the energy-entropy diagram. The energy-entropy diagram is a very convenient tool e.g. for analyzing heat engines with finite (but large) reservoirs. What still astonishes me is that this seems to be new. When I say 'roughly' in my first sentence, this is because I've made some statements that are morally correct, but technically false. Like in any other information-theoretic context, it's all about being able to implement *approximate* transformations between states that can get arbitrarily close to the target state. I still don't know how to fit this into the framework of symmetric monoidal posets. I've tried out three different approaches which all looked promising at first, but none of them actually works. Another loose end is to find a physically meaningful derivation of what a 'thermodynamic transformation' is—but I should stop talking about this now, unless people want to know more. *** Matthew, nice to hear from you! > Is FinStat the opposite category of what Terrence Tao sketches in this 2010 blog post? No, Terry Tao's category is what I would call 'the category of probability spaces'. If you restrict this to finite sets, then you get a category that we've called **FinProb**—see Definition 1 from our [first paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/1106.1791). A morphism between finite probability spaces \\((X,p)\\) and \\((Y,q)\\) in **FinStat** also consists of a measure-preserving map \\(f : X\to Y\\), but *in addition* you must specify a stochastic map \\(s : Y\to X\\) such that \\(f\circ s = 1_Y\\). There is a functor **FinStat** \\(\rightarrow\\) **FinProb** which forgets \\(s\\). We've interpreted this definition of **FinStat** in terms of subjective Bayesian probability: imagine that \\((X,p)\\) describes the possible states of the world, and \\((Y,q)\\) describes your possible perceptions of the world. Since every state of the world leads to a unique perception, we have a measure-preserving map \\(f : X\to Y\\). Now if you experience some particular perception \\(y\in Y\\), what do you think that the state of the world is? It clearly must be some element of the set \\(f^{-1}(y)\\). But since you don't know which one, you'll have some probability distribution on \\(f^{-1}(y)\\), and this is exactly \\(s(y)\\).`