Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
I’ve recently come to appreciate monads as 2-arrows from the terminal object in a 2-category; quoting nLab:
… a monad in [a category] K is a lax 2-functor from the terminal bicategory 1 to K: the unique object * of 1 is sent to the object a, the morphism 1 becomes [the endomorphism] t, and [the unit] η and [the join] μ arise from the coherent 2-cells expressing lax functoriality.
This is a nifty demystification of the data of a monad. Why do endofunctors tend to carry monads? Because endofunctors on categories C tend to be expressible as endomorphisms in 2-categories where C is an object! Since this latter condition is typically trivial, it follows that endofunctors on C typically carry monads (and that any counterexamples depend on the structure of C and choice of 2-category.)
I’ve recently come to appreciate monads as 2-arrows from the terminal object in a 2-category; quoting nLab:
This is a nifty demystification of the data of a monad. Why do endofunctors tend to carry monads? Because endofunctors on categories
Ctend to be expressible as endomorphisms in 2-categories whereCis an object! Since this latter condition is typically trivial, it follows that endofunctors onCtypically carry monads (and that any counterexamples depend on the structure ofCand choice of 2-category.)