What makes natural transformations, natural?19 Oct 2019
Learning category theory often involves patiently sitting with a concept until it—eventually—clicks and then considering it as a building block for the next1.
Grokking natural transformations went that way for me.
I still remember the team lunch last spring where I couldn’t keep my excitement for the abstraction a secret and had to share with everyone (I’m a blast at parties).
After mentioning the often-cited example of a natural transformation in engineering,
Collection.first (a transformation between the
Optional functors), a teammate asked me the question heading this note:
What makes a natural transformation, natural?
I found an interpretation of the word.
Say we have some categories
D and functors
G between them, diagrammed below:
If we wanted to move from the image of
F acting on
C to the image of
G, we have to find a way of moving between objects in the same category.
The question, rephrased, becomes what connects objects in a category? Well, morphisms!
Now, how do we pick them? Another condition on natural transformations is that the square formed by mapping two objects,
B connected by a morphism
f, across two functors
G must commute.
Let’s call our choices of morphisms between
f flips directions across
G—i.e. they’re contravariant functors—our choice in
α_B is fixed!
The definition, the choice of morphisms, seems to naturally follow from structure at hand. It doesn’t depend on arbitrary choices.
Tangentially, a definition shaking out from some structure reminds me of how the Curry–Howard correspondence causes certain functions to have a unique implementation. Brandon covered this topic in a past Brooklyn Swift presentation (timestamped).
For more resources on natural transformations:
- What is a Natural Transformation? Definition and Examples
- What is a Natural Transformation? Definition and Examples, Part 2
- Bartosz’s 1.9.1 lecture on the topic.