text:
# The theory of opetopes via Kelly-Mac Lane graphs

## Introduction

In  Baez and Dolan give a definition of weak $`n`$-category in which the underlying shapes of cells are ‘opetopes’ and the underlying data are given by ‘opetopic sets’. In the present paper we give an alternative construction of opetopes using the language of closed categories. This is made possible by the results of , giving a precise correspondence between the trees involved in the construction of opetopes, and the allowable morphisms in certain closed categories.

The end result is a precise algebraic characterisation in place of the more geometric world of trees.

The idea is as follows. Recall () that a $`k`$-opetope is constructed as a ‘configuration’ for composing $`(k1)`$-opetopes; this is expressed as a tree (see ) whose nodes are labelled by the $`(k1)`$-opetopes in question, with the edges giving their inputs and outputs.

In order to express this more precisely, it is helpful to give a more formal description of trees, as a bijection between inputs and outputs of nodes subject to a condition ensuring that closed loops do not arise.

In fact, this leads to an abstract description of trees as certain Kelly-Mac Lane graphs; this is the subject of . In the present paper we apply the results of  to the construction of opetopes.

First we need to generalise the work of  since we require the ‘labelled’ version of the trees presented in that paper, and this is the subject of Section 1.1.

In Section 1.2 we give the actual construction. We use the result, from , that a tree is precisely an allowable Kelly-Mac Lane graph of a certain shape. We may therefore express the process of forming labelled trees more precisely, by seeking allowable morphisms in a certain closed category. The construction we use to build up dimensions in this way is what we call a ‘ladder’; the idea is to pick out precisely the allowable morphisms that satisfy two conditions. The first is that the morphism must be of the correct shape to correspond to a tree. For the second, recall that an arrow of a slice multicategory is a way of composing its source elements to give its target element; the second condition for the ‘ladder’ construction corresponds to this stipulation.

In Section 1.3 we give some low-dimensional examples of the above construction to help elucidate this rather abstract approach.

Then, in Section 2, we prove that this construction does give the same opetopes as defined in . This is the main result of this work. We conclude, in Section 3, with a brief discussion about the category of opetopes. This category is constructed explicitly in , and the work in the present paper extends to the construction of this category. We do not explicitly give this construction here, but we give some low-dimensional examples of the ‘face’ maps of opetopes in the new framework.

#### Terminology

1. Since we are concerned chiefly with weak $`n`$-categories, we follow Baez and Dolan () and omit the word ‘weak’ unless emphasis is required; we refer to strict $`n`$-categories as ‘strict $`n`$-categories’.
2. In  Baez and Dolan use the terms ‘operad’ and ‘types’ where we use ‘multicategory’ and ‘objects’; the latter terminology is more consistent with Leinster’s use of ‘operad’ to describe a multicategory whose ‘objects-object’ is 1.
3. As in , we work with opetopes not precisely the same as those given in , but rather as given by the opetopic theory as explained in  using multicategories with a category rather than a set of objects; we refer the reader to  for the full details.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a PhD grant from EPSRC. I would like to thank Martin Hyland and Tom Leinster for their support and guidance.

## 1 Opetopes

In this section we use the results of  to construct opetopes. We first need to introduce the notion of labelled Kelly-Mac Lane graphs.

### 1.1 Preliminaries

For the construction of opetopes we require the ‘labelled’ version of the theory presented in : labelled shapes, labelled graphs and labelled trees.

Given a category $``$ we can form labelled shapes (in $``$), that is, shapes labelled by the objects of $``$. A labelled shape is a shape $`T`$ with each 1 ‘labelled’ by an object $`A_i`$ of $``$. We write this as

$$|T|(A_1,\mathrm{},A_k).$$

The variable set is then defined to be the variable set of the underlying shape.

For example given

$$T=[[1,1]11,I]1$$

we have a labelled shape

$$\alpha =|T|(A_1,\mathrm{},A_5)=[[A_1,A_2]A_3A_4,I]A_5$$

with underlying shape $`T`$, and

$$v(\alpha )=v(T)=\{+,,,,+\}.$$

Given a category $``$ we can form labelled graphs, that is, graphs whose edges are labelled by morphisms of $``$ as follows. Consider labelled shapes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ with underlying shapes $`T`$ and $`S`$ respectively. A labelled graph

$$\alpha \beta $$

is a graph

$$\xi :TS$$

together with a morphism $`xy`$ for each pair of labels $`x,y`$ whose underlying variables are mates under $`\xi `$, with $`v(x)=`$ and $`v(y)=+`$ in the twisted sum. That is, the morphism is in the direction

$$+.$$

For example, the following is a labelled graph

with underlying graph and variances as below

.

Observe that, since the variances of the domain are reversed in the twisted sum, the direction of morphisms is also reversed in the domain.

We write $`K`$ for the category of labelled shapes and labelled graphs in $``$; thus $`G=K\text{1}`$ as mentioned in .

A labelled graph is called allowable if and only if its underlying graph is allowable. We write $`A`$ for the category of labelled shapes and allowable labelled morphisms. We observe immediately that the correspondence between trees and graphs exhibited in  generalises to a correspondence between labelled graphs and labelled trees.

###### Lemma 1.1

A labelled tree in $``$ is precisely an allowable morphism

$$\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _k\alpha A$$

with underlying shape

$$X_{m_1}\mathrm{}X_{m_k}X_{(_im_i)k+1}.$$

Recall () that a labelled tree gives a ‘configuration for composing’ arrows of a symmetric multicategory via object-morphisms, as used in the slice construction. By the above correspondence, a labelled graph as above may also be considered to give such a configuration; thus in Section 2.1 we will use such graphs to give an alternative description of the slice construction. We will need the following construction.

Given categories $``$ and $`𝔻`$ and a functor

$$F:K𝔻$$

we define a functor

$$KF:KK𝔻$$

as follows.

* on objects

An object in $`K`$ is a labelled shape

$$\alpha =|T|(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n);$$

put

$$KF(\alpha )=|T|(Fx_1,\mathrm{}Fx_n)K𝔻.$$

* on morphisms

Given a morphism

$$|T|(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)\stackrel{f}{}|S|(x_{n+1},\mathrm{},x_m)K$$

we define $`KFf`$ as follows. Suppose $`f`$ has underlying graph $`\xi `$, say. Consider a pair of mates $`a`$ and $`b`$ in $`\xi `$, with the edge joining them ‘labelled’ with morphism

$$g:ab.$$

This gives a morphism

$$Fg:FaFbK𝔻.$$

So $`Fg`$ is a graph labelled in $`𝔻`$. Then $`KFf`$ consists of all such graphs given by mates in $`\xi `$, positioned according to the positions in $`\xi `$.

Furthermore, if $`F:𝔻`$ then we get

$$AF:AA𝔻$$

by restricting the functor $`KF`$.

### 1.2 The construction of opetopes

We seek to define, for each $`k0`$, a category $`\text{Ope}_k`$ of $`k`$-opetopes. A $`k`$-opetope $`\theta `$ is to have a list of input $`(k1)`$-opetopes $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _m`$, say, and an output $`(k1)`$-opetope $`\alpha `$, say. This data is to be expressed as an object

$$[\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m,\alpha ]A\text{Ope}_{k1}$$

called the frame of $`\theta `$ (see ). Each frame has shape $`X_m=[1^m,1]`$ for some $`m0`$. So, for each $`k`$ we will have a functor

$$\varphi _k:\text{Ope}_kA\text{Ope}_{k1}$$

and thus

$$A\varphi _k:A\text{Ope}_kA\text{Ope}_{k1}.$$

$`\text{Ope}_k`$ is defined inductively; for $`k2`$ it is a certain full subcategory of the comma category

$$(IA\varphi _{k1})$$

with the following motivation. A $`k`$-opetope $`\theta `$ with frame

$$[\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m,\alpha ]$$

is a configuration for composing $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _m`$ to result in $`\alpha `$. That is, it is an allowable morphism

$$I\stackrel{\theta }{}[\varphi _{k1}\alpha _1\mathrm{}\varphi _{k1}\alpha _m,\varphi _{k1}\alpha ]A\text{Ope}_{k2}$$

such that the composition does result in $`\alpha `$. Such a $`\theta `$ is clearly an object of $`(IA\varphi _{k1})`$; so we take the full subcategory whose objects are all those of the correct form.

In fact we begin with a more general construction for building up dimensions.

###### Definition 1.2

A ladder is given by

* for each $`k0`$ a category $`𝔻_k`$
* for each $`k1`$ a functor $`F_k:𝔻_kA𝔻_{k1}`$

such that for each $`k2`$, $`F_k`$ is of the form

$$𝔻_k(IAF_{k1})A𝔻_{k1}$$

where the second morphism is the forgetful functor.

Note that given $`F_k:𝔻_kA𝔻_{k1}`$ we have a functor

$$AF_k:A𝔻_kA𝔻_{k1}$$

and the comma category $`(IAF_{k1})`$ has as its objects pairs $`(\theta ,z)`$ where $`zA𝔻_{k1}`$ and $`\theta `$ is an allowable morphism

$$I\stackrel{\theta }{}AF_{k1}(z)A𝔻_{k1}.$$

###### Definition 1.3

The opetope ladder is given as follows.

* $`𝔻_0=1=\{x\}`$, say
* $`𝔻=1=\{u\}`$, say, with

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \varphi _1:& 𝔻_1& & A𝔻_0\\ & u& & [x,x]\end{array}$$
* For $`k2`$, $`𝔻_k`$ is a full subcategory of $`(IA\varphi _{k1})`$. This comma category has objects $`(\theta ,z)`$ where $`zA𝔻_{k1}`$ and

$$I\stackrel{\theta }{}A\varphi _{k1}(z)$$

is an allowable morphism in $`A𝔻_{k2}`$. Then the subcategory $`𝔻_k`$ by the following two conditions:

1. The objects of $`𝔻_k`$ are all $`(\theta ,z)`$ such that $`z`$ has shape $`X_m`$ for some $`m0`$. So $`z=[\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m,\alpha ]`$ for some $`\alpha _i,\alpha 𝔻_{k1}`$.
    2. For $`k3`$ we require in addition that

    $$A\varphi _{k2}\overline{\theta }(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m)=\alpha $$

    as morphisms in $`A𝔻_{k3}`$.
* For $`k2`$ the functor $`\varphi _k:𝔻_kA𝔻_{k1}`$ is the following composite

$$𝔻_k(IA\varphi _{k1})A𝔻_{k1}$$

where the functors shown are the inclusion followed by the forgetful functor.

Note that the composition in condition B is possible: each $`\alpha _i`$ is an object of $`𝔻_{k1}`$, so is by definition a morphism

$$IA\varphi _{k2}(\varphi _{k1}\alpha _i)A𝔻_{k3}.$$

Now $`\theta `$ is a morphism

$$I[\varphi _{k1}\alpha _1\mathrm{}\varphi _{k1}\alpha _m,\varphi _{k1}\alpha ]$$

so

$$\overline{\theta }:\varphi _{k1}\alpha _1\mathrm{}\varphi _{k1}\alpha _m\varphi _{k1}\alpha $$

so the domain of $`A\varphi _{k2}\overline{\theta }`$ is indeed the codomain of $`(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m)`$ and the composite in $`A𝔻_{k3}`$ may be formed.

###### Definition 1.4

For each $`k0`$ the category $`𝔻_k`$ defined above is the category of $`k`$-opetopes. We write $`𝔻_k=\text{Ope}_k`$. If the frame of a $`k`$-opetope has shape $`X_m`$ we say $`\theta `$ is an $`m`$-ary opetope.

###### Remarks 1.5

1. In general (that is for $`k3`$) the objects of $`𝔻_k`$ are those of $`(IA\varphi _{k1})`$ satisfying the conditions A and B. Condition A restricts our scope only to those objects having the correct shape; condition B ensures that the ‘output’ of the opetope is indeed the composite given. For $`k=2`$ condition B does not apply; any configuration of composing identity maps gives the identity.
2. A morphism $`(\theta ,z)\stackrel{f}{}(\theta ^{},z^{})`$ in $`(IA\varphi _{k1})`$ is a morphism

$$f:zz^{}A𝔻_{k1}$$

such that the following diagram commutes:

so a morphism $`\theta \stackrel{f}{}\theta ^{}`$ in $`𝔻_k`$ is given as follows. Writing

$$\varphi _k\theta =[\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m,\alpha ]$$

$$\varphi _k\theta ^{}=[\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _j,\beta ]$$

$`f`$ must be a morphism

$$[\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m,\alpha ][\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _j,\beta ]A𝔻_{k1}.$$

So we must have $`m=j`$ and $`f`$ has the form

that is, a permutation $`\sigma \text{S}_m`$ and morphisms

$$g_i:\beta _i\alpha _{\sigma (i)},\text{ for each }1im$$

$$g:\alpha \beta $$

in $`𝔻_{k1}`$, such that the following diagram commutes

### 1.3 Examples

We now give the first few stages of the construction explicitly, together with some examples.

* $`k=0`$

$`\text{Ope}_0=\text{1}`$, that is, there is only one 0-opetope. We may think of this as an object $``$ ; we write $`x`$ for convenience.

* $`k=1`$

$`\text{Ope}_1=\text{1}`$, that is, there is only one 1-opetope, $`u`$, say. We have

$$\varphi _1(u)=[x,x]A\text{Ope}_0$$

that is, the unique 1-opetope $`u`$ has one input 0-opetope and one output 0-opetope. We may think of this as

$$$$

or, showing variances

$$+$$

and then we have

,

an allowable morphism in $`A\text{Ope}_0`$. (We do not show arrowheads since all arrows in $`\text{Ope}_0`$ are identity arrows.)

* $`k=2`$

We seek to construct the category $`\text{Ope}_2`$. First we consider an object $`\alpha \text{Ope}_2`$. $`\alpha `$ has frame

$$\varphi _2\alpha A\text{Ope}_1$$

where $`\varphi _2\alpha `$ has shape $`X_m`$ for some $`m0`$. So we have

$$\varphi _2\alpha =[u^m,u]=[u\mathrm{}u,u].$$

Now $`\alpha `$ is an allowable morphism

$$I\stackrel{\alpha }{}[\varphi _1u\mathrm{}\varphi _1u,\varphi _1u]A\text{Ope}_0=A\text{1}$$

that is

$$I\stackrel{\alpha }{}[[x,x]\mathrm{}[x,x],[x,x]]$$

or equivalently a morphism

$$[x,x]\mathrm{}[x,x][x,x]A\text{1}.$$

For example, for $`m=3`$ we may have a graph

which we will later see corresponds to the following

where the numbers show the order in which the input 1-opetopes are listed.

For the nullary case $`m=0`$ we seek an allowable morphism

$$I[x,x].$$

There is precisely one such, given by the following graph

and we will later see that this corresponds to the nullary 2-opetope

.

We now consider a morphism

$$\alpha \stackrel{f}{}\alpha ^{}\text{Ope}_2.$$

We must have

$$\varphi _2\alpha =\varphi _2\alpha ^{}=[u^m,u],$$

say. Then $`f`$ is a morphism

$$[u^m,u][u^m,u]A\text{Ope}_1=A\text{1}.$$

So $`f`$ must be a permutation $`\sigma \text{S}_m`$, an isomorphism. So we have

$$\text{Ope}_2(\alpha ,\alpha ^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{S}_m\hfill & \text{if }\alpha \text{ and }\alpha ^{}\text{ are both }m\text{-ary}\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\text{Ope}_2`$ is equivalent to a discrete category whose objects are the natural numbers.

Note that the action of $`\varphi _2`$ on morphisms is given as follows. Given a morphism $`f`$ as above, the morphism

$$\varphi _2f:\varphi _2\alpha \varphi _2\alpha ^{}A\text{Ope}_1$$

is given by the forgetful functor

$$(IA\varphi _1)A\text{Ope}_1$$

so is simply the graph given by the permutation $`\sigma `$.

* $`k=3`$

We now seek to construct the category $`\text{Ope}_3`$. We first consider an $`m`$-ary opetope $`\theta \text{Ope}_3`$ with frame

$$[\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m,\alpha ]A\text{Ope}_2$$

such that

$$\varphi _2\alpha _i=[u^{n_i},u]\text{ for each }1im$$

$$\varphi _2\alpha =[u^n,u].$$

So $`\theta `$ is an allowable morphism

$$I\stackrel{\theta }{}[[u^{n_1},u]\mathrm{}[u^{n_m},u],[u^n,u]]$$

or equivalently

$$[u^{n_1},u]\mathrm{}[u^{n_m},u]\stackrel{\overline{\theta }}{}[u^n,u]A\text{Ope}_1,$$

such that

$$(A\varphi _1)\overline{\theta }(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m)=\alpha $$

as morphisms in $`A\text{Ope}_0`$.

For example for $`m=2`$ consider

so

$$\varphi _2\alpha _1=[uuu,u]$$

$$\varphi _2\alpha _2=[uu,u]$$

$$\varphi _2\alpha =[uuuu,u]$$

Then $`\overline{\theta }`$ may have the following graph in $`A\text{Ope}_1`$

The condition B is seen to be satisfied by the following diagram; we apply $`\varphi _1`$ to each component, and compose with $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$:

This corresponds to a 3-opetope of the form

.

Note that we still do not need to label the edges of the graph since $`\text{Ope}_1`$ also only has identity arrows.

A morphism

$$\theta \stackrel{f}{}\theta ^{}\text{Ope}_3$$

then has one of the following two forms

or

where $`g_1,g_2,g`$ are morphisms in $`\text{Ope}_2`$. Since all morphisms in $`\text{Ope}_2`$ are isomorphisms, it follows that all morphisms in $`\text{Ope}_3`$ are isomorphisms. In fact, since $`\text{Ope}_2`$ is equivalent to a discrete category, $`\text{Ope}_3`$ is also, and similarly $`\text{Ope}_k`$ for all $`k0`$; this is proved in Section 2.

* $`k=4`$

Finally we give an example of a 4-opetope $`\gamma \text{Ope}_4`$, with

$$\varphi _4\gamma =[\theta _1\theta _2,\theta ]$$

where

and we have

$$\varphi _3\theta _1=[[u^3,u][u^2,u],[u^4,u]]=[U_3U_2,U_4],\text{ say}$$

$$\varphi _3\theta _2=[[u^2,u][u^2,u],[u^3,u]]=[U_2U_2,U_3]$$

$$\varphi _3\theta =[U_2U_2U_2,U_4].$$

Then $`\overline{\gamma }`$ may be given by the following graph in $`A\text{Ope}_2`$

where each $`\sigma _i`$ is a morphism in $`\text{Ope}_2`$, that is, a permutation. We then check condition B by the following diagram:

giving the composite $`\theta `$ as required. Note that the permutations $`\sigma _i`$ appear as permutations of the appropriate edges in the above diagram.

This corresponds to an opetope of the following form:

## 2 Comparison with the multicategory approach

In , opetopes are constructing using symmetric multicategories. Dimensions are built up using the slicing process. We compare this process with the use of closed categories as above.

### 2.1 The slice construction

Recall the slice construction for a symmetric multicategory. Let $`Q`$ be a symmetric multicategory. Then the slice multicategory $`Q^+`$ is given by

* Objects: $`o(Q^+)=\text{elt}Q`$
* Arrows: $`Q^+(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n;f)`$ is given by the set of ‘configurations’ for composing $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n`$ as arrows of $`Q`$, to yield $`f`$.

Recall further that such a configuration for composing is given by a labelled tree $`(T,\rho ,\tau )`$ where the nodes give the positions for composing the $`f_i`$. So by the results of  we may restate this using allowable morphisms in $`K`$, where $`=o(Q)`$.

Let $`Q`$ be a symmetric multicategory with category of objects $``$. Given an arrow $`fQ(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;x)`$ we write

$$\varphi f=[x_1\mathrm{}x_m,x]A.$$

Then the slice multicategory $`Q^+`$ is given as follows.

* objects $`o(Q^+)=\text{elt}Q`$
* an arrow $`\theta Q^+(f_1,\mathrm{},f_j;f)`$ is an arrow

$$\theta A(I,[\varphi f_1\mathrm{}\varphi f_j,\varphi f])$$

such that composing the $`f_i`$ in this configuration gives $`f`$.

###### Lemma 2.1

$`\varphi `$ extends to a functor

$$\varphi :\text{elt}QA.$$

Proof.  Let

$$fQ(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;x)$$

$$gQ(y_1,\mathrm{},y_j;y).$$

Then $`\text{elt}Q(f,g)=\mathrm{}`$ unless $`m=j`$. If $`m=j`$ then a morphism $`f\stackrel{\gamma }{}g`$ is given by a permutation $`\sigma \text{S}_m`$ together with morphisms

$$t_i:y_ix_{\sigma (i)}$$

$$t:xy$$

satisfying certain conditions. This specifies a unique allowable morphism

$$[x_1\mathrm{}x_m,x][y_1\mathrm{}y_m,y]A$$

and we define $`\varphi \gamma `$ to be this morphism. This makes $`\varphi `$ into a functor. $`\mathrm{}`$

We call $`\varphi `$ the frame functor for $`Q`$. We now show how the slicing process corresponds to moving one rung up the ‘ladder’.

###### Lemma 2.2

Let $`Q`$ be a symmetric multicategory with category of objects $``$. Then the category $`\text{elt}Q^+`$ is isomorphic to a full subcategory of the comma category $`(IA\varphi )`$ and the frame functor for $`Q^+`$ is given by

$$\text{elt}Q^+(IA\varphi )A(\text{elt}Q)$$

where the functors shown are the inclusion followed by the forgetful functor.

Proof.  Write $`_1=\text{elt}Q=o(Q^+)`$.

An object of $`\text{elt}Q^+`$ is $`(\theta ,p)`$ where $`p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\text{ op}}\times _1`$ and $`\theta Q^+(p)`$.

Write

$$p=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m;f).$$

Then $`\theta `$ is an allowable morphism

$$I\stackrel{\theta }{}A\varphi [f_1\mathrm{}f_m,f]$$

that is, an object

$$(\theta ,[f_1\mathrm{}f_m,f])(IA\varphi )$$

such that composing the $`f_i`$ according to $`\theta `$ results in $`f`$.

A morphism $`(\theta ,p)(\theta ^{},p^{})`$ in $`\text{elt}Q^+`$ is a morphism $`pp^{}`$ in $`_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\text{ op}}\times _1`$ such that a certain commuting condition holds. Such a morphism is precisely an allowable morphism

$$[f_1\mathrm{}f_m,f][f_1^{}\mathrm{}f_m^{},f^{}]A_1$$

and the commuting condition is precisely that ensuring that this is a morphism $`\theta \theta ^{}`$ in $`(IA\varphi )`$.

It is then clear that the frame functor is given by the inclusion followed by the forgetful functor as asserted. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.3

The category $`\text{elt}Q^+`$ is the full subcategory of $`(IA\varphi )`$ whose objects are all $`(\theta ,p)`$ satisfying the following two conditions:

1. $`p`$ has shape $`X_m`$ for some $`m0`$ so $`p=[f_1\mathrm{}f_m,f]`$
2. the result of composing the $`f_i`$ according to $`\theta `$ is $`f`$.

If $`Q`$ is itself a slice multicategory then we can state the condition (ii) in the language of closed categories as well, since each $`f_i`$ is itself an allowable graph.

So we now consider forming $`Q^{++}`$, that is, the slice of a slice multicategory. Let $`Q`$ be a symmetric multicategory with category of objects $`_0`$. We write

$$_1=o(Q^+)$$

with frame functor

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \varphi _1:& _1& & A_0\\ & fQ(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m;x)& & [x_1\mathrm{}x_m,x]\end{array}$$

Also, we write

$$_2=\text{elt}Q^+$$

with frame functor

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill \varphi _2:& _2& & A_1\\ & \alpha Q^+(f_1,\mathrm{},f_m;f)& & [f_1\mathrm{}f_m,f]\end{array}$$

###### Lemma 2.4

Let $`\theta `$ be a configuration for composing $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _j\text{elt}Q^+=_2`$ expressed as an allowable morphism

$$I\stackrel{\theta }{}[\varphi _2\alpha _1\mathrm{}\varphi _2\alpha _j,\varphi _2\alpha ]A_1.$$

Then the result of composing the $`\alpha _i`$ in this configuration is

$$(A\varphi _1)\overline{\theta }(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _j)$$

composed as morphisms of $`A_0`$.

Proof.  By definition, each $`\alpha _i`$ is a morphism in $`A_0`$ of shape

$$I[X_{im_1}\mathrm{}X_{im_i},X],$$

so is a tree labelled in $`_0`$. These trees are composed by node-replacement composition (see ) and the “composition graph” is given by $`\overline{\theta }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.5

An arrow $`\theta Q^{++}(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _j;\alpha )`$ is precisely a morphism

$$\theta A_1(I,[\varphi _2\alpha _1\mathrm{}\varphi _2\alpha _j,\varphi _2\alpha ])$$

such that

$$(A\varphi _1)\overline{\theta }(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _j)=\alpha A_0$$

###### Corollary 2.6

$`\text{elt}Q^{++}`$ is the full subcategory of $`(IA\varphi _2)`$ whose objects are all $`(\theta ,p)`$ satisfying the following two conditions:

1. $`p`$ has shape $`X_m`$ for some $`m0`$, so $`p=[\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m;\alpha ]A_2`$
2. $`(A\varphi _1)\overline{\theta }(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _j)=\alpha `$.

Finally we are ready to show that the opetopes constructed using symmetric multicategories correspond to those constructed in closed categories.

###### Corollary 2.7

Let $`Q`$ be the symmetric multicategory with just one object and one (identity) morphism. Then for all $`k0`$

$$o(Q^{k+})\text{Ope}_k$$

where $`Q^{0+}=Q`$.

Proof.  For $`k1`$ the result is immediate by Definition 1.3. For $`k=2`$ we use Corollary 2.3 on $`Q^+`$; the result follows since condition (ii) is trivially satisfied. For $`k3`$ we use Corollary 2.6 on $`Q^{(k3)+}`$; the result follow since the $`\varphi _2`$ in the Corollary is $`\varphi _{k2}`$ in the case in question. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 The category of opetopes

Recall that in  we defined the category $`𝒪`$ of opetopes. It is now possible to restate this definition in the framework of Kelly-Mac Lane graphs; we copy the definition exactly, using the fact that the bijection giving the formal definition of a tree gives the mates in the corresponding Kelly-Mac Lane graph.

Although we do not give the construction explicitly here, we give some examples of low-dimensional face maps. We use the example of a 3-opetope as given in Section 1.3.

For the 2-opetopes we have face maps

together with the isomorphic cases.

For 1-opetopes we then have

$$s_1,s_2,s_3,t:u\alpha _1$$

$$s_1,s_2,t:u\alpha _2$$

$$s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4,t:u\alpha $$

but by considering the generating relations, here given by mates in the graph $`\theta `$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}s_1s_1& =& s_2t\\ s_1s_2& =& ts_2\\ s_1s_3& =& ts_3\\ s_1t& =& tt\\ s_2s_1& =& ts_1\\ s_2s_2& =& ts_4;\end{array}$$

note that $`s_is_j`$ give the $`jth`$ source of the $`ith`$ source of $`\theta `$.

For 0-opetopes we have in addition face maps

$$xu$$

and the relations on composites

$$x\theta $$

are generated by relations on composites

$$x\alpha _i$$

as well as by those on composites

$$u\theta .$$

For the former relations we are considering mates under graphs $`\alpha _iA\text{Ope}_0`$, and for the latter, mates under the graph $`(A\varphi _1)\overline{\theta }A\text{Ope}_0`$. So in fact we are considering, in total, all objects connected in the composite graph

$$(A\varphi _1)\overline{\theta }(\alpha \mathrm{}\alpha _m)A\text{Ope}_1.$$

So we have

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}ts_1s& =& s_2s_1s& =& s_2s_2t& =& ts_4t& & & & \\ ts_1t& =& s_2s_1t& =& s_2tt& =& s_1s_1t& =& s_1s_2s& =& ts_2s\\ ts_2t& =& s_1s_2t& =& s_1s_3s& =& ts_3s& & & & \\ ts_3t& =& s_1s_3t& =& s_1tt& =& ttt& & & & \\ ts_4s& =& s_2s_2s& =& s_2ts& =& s_1s_1s& =& s_1ts& =& tts\end{array}$$

Note that since

$$(A\varphi _1)\overline{\varphi }(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _m)=\alpha $$

the 0-cell face maps for $`\theta `$ are precisely those of the form $`tf`$ where $`f`$ is a 0-cell face map of $`\alpha =t(\theta )`$. This reflects the fact that, when $`2`$-opetopes are composed along $`1`$-opetopes, the composite is formed by ‘deleting’ the boundary 1-opetopes, but no 0-cells are deleted. This result generalises to $`k`$-opetopes, but we do not prove this here.


format: text

text:
# Solving diophantine equations 𝑥⁴+𝑦⁴=𝑞𝑧^𝑝

## 1 Introduction

When considering the non-existence of primitive solutions in integers for the equation:

$$x^4+y^4=qz^p(1.1)$$

for a fixed prime $`q`$ and $`p`$ running over all sufficiently large prime exponents, there are two sets of values of $`q`$ where the answer is immediate. On the one hand, for primes $`q`$ that can be written as the sum of two biquadrates, like $`17=1+16`$, one already has a trivial solution for the equation above for an arbitrary value of $`p`$ just taking $`z=1`$. On the other hand, a necessary condition for the existence of primitive solutions in integers is the existence of solutions modulo $`q`$, and it is easy to see that this is equivalent to ask for the existence of solutions of $`u^41(modq)`$, and by the classical theory of cyclotomic fields we know that this congruence has solutions if and only if $`q1(mod8)`$. Thus, for any odd prime $`q`$ not verifying this condition (1.1) can not have primitive solutions, for any value of $`p`$.
From now on we will restrict to primes $`q1(mod8)`$ such that $`qa^4+b^4`$ and we will give an algorithm that, using the modularity of the Q-curve constructed by Darmon-Ellenberg attached to a hypothetical solution of (1.1) and imitating the Frey-Ribet approach, ends up for some values of $`q`$ in an “impossible congruence”, thus proving the non-existence of primitive solutions.

## 2 From non-existence of trivial solutions to non-existence of solutions

Fix a value of $`q`$ as above (an “interesting” value) and assume that for some $`p>13`$ there exists a primitive solution $`(A,B,C)`$ of (1.1). We are assuming in particular that $`q`$ is odd (because $`2=1^4+1^4`$), and it is easy to see that $`C`$ must be odd, and prime to $`3`$. By assumption, $`C1`$. $`A`$ and $`B`$ have different parity, thus we can assume that $`A`$ is even. Following the construction of Darmon and Ellenberg we can attach, as we did in \[D\] for the equation $`x^4+y^4=z^p`$, two Q-curves to the triple $`(A,B,C)`$. For simplicity we will just consider one of them (see, however, the remark at the end of this section concerning the case $`q=41`$), the curve:

$$E_{(A,B)}:y^2=x^3+2(1+i)Ax^2+(B^2+iA^2)x$$

It follows from the results in \[E\], that $`E_{(A,B)}`$ is a degree $`2`$ Q-curve defined over $`(i)`$ semistable outside $`2`$. Odd primes of bad reduction are precisely the primes dividing $`qC`$. Thus, the curve has good reduction at $`3`$, and therefore it is known to be modular (cf. \[E-S\]). Modularity can be interpreted in “Galois language” as follows: consider the compatible family of two-dimensional Galois representations $`\rho _\lambda `$ of the full Galois group of $``$ attached to (the Weil restriction of) $`E_{(A,B)}`$. There exists a weight $`2`$ cuspidal modular form $`f`$ such that the representations $`\rho _\lambda `$ are attached to it, i.e., the trace $`a_t`$ of the image of $`\mathrm{Frob}t`$ agrees with the $`t`$-th Hecke eigenvalue of $`f`$, for every prime $`t2qC`$. We know that the representations $`\rho _\lambda `$ have coefficients in $`(\sqrt{2})`$, and moreover that their restrictions to the Galois group of $`(i)`$ have rational coefficients. Thus, $`f`$ has an inner twist, i.e., $`f^\sigma =f\varphi `$, where $`f^\sigma `$ is the Galois conjugate of $`f`$, and $`\varphi `$ is the quadratic character corresponding to $`(i)`$.
We list some properties of the representations $`\rho _\lambda `$ that are proved in \[E\]: The $`2`$-part of the conductor of this family is $`32`$ (recall that $`A`$ is even), the residual representations $`\overline{\rho }_\lambda `$, for every $`\mathrm{}>13`$, $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, are irreducible, and their (projective) images can not fall in the normalizer of a split Cartan subgroup of $`\mathrm{PGL}_2(𝔽_{\mathrm{}})`$ (these two properties generalize similar results proved by Mazur and Momose for elliptic curves over $``$).
The close relation between the discriminant of $`E_{(A,B)}`$ and $`qC^p`$ is a key point, allowing us to apply Frey’s trick: Every odd prime $`q^{}q`$ of bad reduction of the curve disappears when considering the (irreducible) residual representation $`\overline{\rho }_P`$, $`Pp`$: this residual representation has conductor $`32q`$. Then, applying Ribet’s level-lowering result, we conclude that there exists a weight $`2`$ newform $`f_2`$ of level $`32q`$ such that, if $`\{b_t\}`$ is the set of Hecke eigenvalues of $`f_2`$ and $`\{a_t\}`$ the one of the modular form $`f`$ associated to $`E_{(A,B)}`$, we have the congruence:

$$a_tb_t(modP)(2.1)$$

for every prime $`t2qC`$.
As $`(A,B,C)`$ is a primitive solution of (1.1), every prime dividing $`C`$ is of the form $`8n+1`$; in particular, the level of $`f`$ does not contain any prime $`t3(mod4)`$.
Now, we want to derive a contradiction from the above $`\mathrm{mod}P`$ congruences by just looking at a few primes $`t3(mod4)`$. On the one hand, we can control the values of the eigenvalues $`a_t`$ of the modular form $`f`$ (whose level we do not know) for such values of $`t`$ because $`f`$ has an inner twist given by the $`\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}`$ character, hence these numbers must verify $`a_t=c\sqrt{2}`$, for a rational integer $`c`$ that we can easily bound using $`|a_t|2\sqrt{t}`$. For example, we know that $`a_3`$ must be one of the following: $`0,\pm \sqrt{2},\pm 2\sqrt{2}`$. On the other hand $`f_2`$ is new of level $`32q`$, so by looking at the tables in \[S\] (or by applying the Hecke software developed by W. Stein in Magma) we can compute for this finite set of eigenforms the first eigenvalues $`b_t`$.
The desired contradiction will be obtained as long as in the space of modular forms of level $`32q`$ no newform has its eigenvalues $`b_t`$ for the first values of $`t3(mod4)`$ of the form $`c\sqrt{2}`$. If this happens to be the case, then congruences (2.1) will only have solutions for a few primes $`p`$, and by computing several $`b_t`$ one can shrink this set of primes.
Before computing some examples, we must stress that for certain values of $`q`$ we know a priori that the method proposed will not be successful. In fact, for a prime $`q`$ that can be written as a sum of two biquadrates $`q=A^4+B^4`$, the method is useless because there will be a newform $`f_2`$ of level $`32q`$ whose eigenvalues $`b_t`$ behave precisely as above, namely the newform attached to the Q-curve corresponding to the trivial solution $`(A,B,1)`$. In fact, this newform will have field of coefficients $`(\sqrt{2})`$ and an inner twist by the character corresponding to $`(i)`$. Thus, a non-trivial solution $`(A^{},B^{},C)`$ of (1.1) for such values of $`q`$, that would correspond to a newform $`f`$ of higher level, may not exist, but we can not answer this question with our method.
For a similar reason, our method does not work for primes $`q`$ that can be written as $`(2A)^4+B^2`$ (for example, $`41=2^4+5^2`$), because even in this case a Q-curve can be attached (cf. \[E\]) to the triple $`(2A,B,1)`$ and the corresponding newform again will have level $`32q`$ and the same field of coefficients and inner twist as above. However, there is still an opportunity to rescue some of these primes: one can consider the second Q-curve attached to a hypothetical solution $`(A^{},B^{},C^{})`$ of $`x^4+y^4=qz^p`$, the curve $`E_{(B^{},A^{})}`$ defined in \[D\] (we are assuming that $`B^{}`$ is odd). The same method as above can now be applied, this time the congruences relate the eigenvalues of the newform attached to this Q-curve with those of a newform of level $`256q`$, and one can hope that in level $`256q`$ there is no newform with coefficients in $`(\sqrt{2})`$ and an inner twist by the $`\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}`$ character (the equation $`A^4+(2B)^2=q`$ has no solutions, thus there is no obvious way to construct a Q-curve such that the corresponding newform has level $`256q`$). This alternative method has not been tested by us in any example because it involves computations with too large levels: $`256q25641>10000`$.

## 3 Three successful examples

Let us consider the first three examples of “interesting” primes that can not be written as $`(2A)^4+B^2`$:

$$q=73,89,113$$

We have applied the algorithm described in the previous section to solve the diophantine equations (1.1) for these values of $`q`$ and $`p>13`$. To do this, we extracted from the tables in \[S\] the eigenvalues $`b_3,b_7,b_{11}`$ and $`b_{19}`$ for all newforms of level $`32q`$ for these values of $`q`$. For all the considered newforms at least one of these eigenvalues is not of the form $`c\sqrt{2}`$, $`c`$ an integer. Moreover, solving the congruences $`a_tb_t(modP)`$ where $`a_t=c\sqrt{2}`$, for every integer $`c`$ such that $`|a_t|=|c|\sqrt{2}2\sqrt{t}`$ and $`t=3,7,11`$ and $`19`$, we obtain only one case where these congruences have a solution: $`q=73`$, $`p=17`$ and the newform of level $`7332`$ named as $`2336L`$ in \[S\] (to solve the congruences, we just compute the primes in the resultant between the minimal polynomials of $`a_t`$ and $`b_t`$).
Thus, except for the case $`q=73`$ and $`p=17`$, we obtain a contradiction, which proves the following:

###### Theorem 3.1

The diophantine equations $`x^4+y^4=qz^p`$ do not have primitive solutions for $`q=73,89`$ and $`113`$ and $`p>13`$.

Remark: The method proposed in this article can be used to compute more examples. One can even ask the following question: Is there an interesting prime $`q`$ (not a sum of two biquadrates) such that the equation $`x^4+y^4=qz^p`$ has a primitive solution for some $`p>13`$? What if we restrict to primes $`q`$ not of the form $`A^4+B^2`$?

It remains to prove the theorem for $`q=73`$ and $`p=17`$. We will see that the non-existence of solutions in this case follows from the results in \[E\].
What happens to the $`\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}17}`$ representation attached to the newform $`2336L`$ is that it has image contained in the normalizer of a Cartan subgroup (in fact, for this modular form congruences (2.1) hold modulo $`17`$ precisely when we take $`a_t=0`$, for $`t3(mod4)`$). Moreover, this is due to a congruence between $`2336L`$ and the newform of level $`32`$. The congruence between these two cusp forms can be proved by direct computation, checking that it holds for sufficiently many eigenvalues and applying Sturm’s bound. The image is dihedral because of this congruence, since the newform of level $`32`$ has Complex Multiplication: the Galois representations attached to it are reducible when restricted to the Galois group of $`(i)`$. As $`171(mod4)`$, we see that the $`\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}17}`$ representation attached to the newform of level $`32`$ has its image contained in the normalizer of a split Cartan subgroup. Now consider the newform $`f`$ corresponding to a solution of (1.1) with $`q=73`$ and $`p=17`$. If we suppose that we have a congruence $`\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}17}`$ between $`f`$ and the newform $`2336L`$, then we obtain a congruence also between $`f`$ and the newform of level $`32`$, and in particular we conclude that the image of the $`\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}17}`$ representation attached to $`f`$ will be contained in the normalizer of a split Cartan subgroup, but this contradicts Ellenberg’s generalization to Q-curves of results of Momose (see section 2).
Another way of obtaining a contradiction without applying the results of Ellenberg-Momose is the following: the $`\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}17}`$ representation attached to the Q-curve can not have conductor $`32`$, its conductor must be $`3273`$, because it has semistable reduction at primes above $`73`$ and the formula for the discriminant of this Q-curve shows that the prime $`17`$ does not divide the number of connected components of the reduction of the curve modulo a prime of $`(i)`$ dividing $`73`$ (the exact power of such a prime dividing the discriminant is not a multiple of $`17`$).

## 4 Bibliography

\[D\] Dieulefait, L., Modular congruences, Q-curves, and the diophantine equation $`x^4+y^4=z^p`$ , preprint; available at:
http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/gtem/view.php (preprint 55)

\[E\] Ellenberg, J.,Galois representations attached to Q-curves and the generalized Fermat equation $`A^4+B^2=C^p`$, preprint; available at:
http://www.math.princeton.edu/ ellenber/papers.html

\[ES\] Ellenberg, J., Skinner, C., On the modularity of Q-curves, Duke Math. J., 109 (2001), 97-122

\[S\] Stein, W., The Modular Forms Database, available at:
http://modular.fas.harvard.edu/Tables/index.html