Mixing
Abelian objects in a category
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If $mathcalC$ is a category, $AinmathcalC$ is an abelian object if $mathcalC(-,A)$ is naturally an abelian group. Assuming $mathcalC$ has enough limits, this is equivalent to there being a multiplication morphism $m:Atimes Ato A$, an identity $epsilon:*to A$ and an inverse $i:Ato A$, such that all the diagrams commutes.
I take this to mean $C(T,A)$ is an abelian group for every $TintextOb(mathcalC)$. Is that the correct interpretation? How then does 'having enough limits' induce this?
(Secondary curiosity, if anyone knows, would this mean that the $H$-spaces are the abelian objects in the category of pointed topological spaces, with morphisms being homotopy classes of maps.)
category-theory
asked Jul 30 at 9:31
user580497
112
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If $mathcalC$ is a category, $AinmathcalC$ is an abelian object if $mathcalC(-,A)$ is naturally an abelian group. Assuming $mathcalC$ has enough limits, this is equivalent to there being a multiplication morphism $m:Atimes Ato A$, an identity $epsilon:*to A$ and an inverse $i:Ato A$, such that all the diagrams commutes.
I take this to mean $C(T,A)$ is an abelian group for every $TintextOb(mathcalC)$. Is that the correct interpretation? How then does 'having enough limits' induce this?
(Secondary curiosity, if anyone knows, would this mean that the $H$-spaces are the abelian objects in the category of pointed topological spaces, with morphisms being homotopy classes of maps.)
category-theory
asked Jul 30 at 9:31
user580497
112
see ncatlab.org/nlab/show/group+object
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:19
@FreeSalad Apparently it reduces to that (somehow) when $mathcalC$ has enough limits. But I imagine these are distinct concepts otherwise?
– user580497
Jul 30 at 10:21
well, the question here is that we need a cartesian monoidal structure on a category to state the group axioms, so for categories which are of that nature it is easy to define internal groups, however for all other categories we have access to its presheaf category which is cartesian closed itself. It is just a matter of lifting the definition to the presheaf category in a compatible way.
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:55
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If $mathcalC$ is a category, $AinmathcalC$ is an abelian object if $mathcalC(-,A)$ is naturally an abelian group. Assuming $mathcalC$ has enough limits, this is equivalent to there being a multiplication morphism $m:Atimes Ato A$, an identity $epsilon:*to A$ and an inverse $i:Ato A$, such that all the diagrams commutes.
I take this to mean $C(T,A)$ is an abelian group for every $TintextOb(mathcalC)$. Is that the correct interpretation? How then does 'having enough limits' induce this?
(Secondary curiosity, if anyone knows, would this mean that the $H$-spaces are the abelian objects in the category of pointed topological spaces, with morphisms being homotopy classes of maps.)
category-theory
asked Jul 30 at 9:31
user580497
112
If $mathcalC$ is a category, $AinmathcalC$ is an abelian object if $mathcalC(-,A)$ is naturally an abelian group. Assuming $mathcalC$ has enough limits, this is equivalent to there being a multiplication morphism $m:Atimes Ato A$, an identity $epsilon:*to A$ and an inverse $i:Ato A$, such that all the diagrams commutes.
I take this to mean $C(T,A)$ is an abelian group for every $TintextOb(mathcalC)$. Is that the correct interpretation? How then does 'having enough limits' induce this?
(Secondary curiosity, if anyone knows, would this mean that the $H$-spaces are the abelian objects in the category of pointed topological spaces, with morphisms being homotopy classes of maps.)
category-theory
asked Jul 30 at 9:31
user580497
112
edited Jul 30 at 10:24
asked Jul 30 at 9:31
user580497
112
asked Jul 30 at 9:31
user580497
112
asked Jul 30 at 9:31
user580497
112
112
see ncatlab.org/nlab/show/group+object
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:19
@FreeSalad Apparently it reduces to that (somehow) when $mathcalC$ has enough limits. But I imagine these are distinct concepts otherwise?
– user580497
Jul 30 at 10:21
well, the question here is that we need a cartesian monoidal structure on a category to state the group axioms, so for categories which are of that nature it is easy to define internal groups, however for all other categories we have access to its presheaf category which is cartesian closed itself. It is just a matter of lifting the definition to the presheaf category in a compatible way.
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:55
add a comment |Â
see ncatlab.org/nlab/show/group+object
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:19
@FreeSalad Apparently it reduces to that (somehow) when $mathcalC$ has enough limits. But I imagine these are distinct concepts otherwise?
– user580497
Jul 30 at 10:21
well, the question here is that we need a cartesian monoidal structure on a category to state the group axioms, so for categories which are of that nature it is easy to define internal groups, however for all other categories we have access to its presheaf category which is cartesian closed itself. It is just a matter of lifting the definition to the presheaf category in a compatible way.
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:55
see ncatlab.org/nlab/show/group+object
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:19
see ncatlab.org/nlab/show/group+object
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:19
@FreeSalad Apparently it reduces to that (somehow) when $mathcalC$ has enough limits. But I imagine these are distinct concepts otherwise?
– user580497
Jul 30 at 10:21
@FreeSalad Apparently it reduces to that (somehow) when $mathcalC$ has enough limits. But I imagine these are distinct concepts otherwise?
– user580497
Jul 30 at 10:21
well, the question here is that we need a cartesian monoidal structure on a category to state the group axioms, so for categories which are of that nature it is easy to define internal groups, however for all other categories we have access to its presheaf category which is cartesian closed itself. It is just a matter of lifting the definition to the presheaf category in a compatible way.
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:55
well, the question here is that we need a cartesian monoidal structure on a category to state the group axioms, so for categories which are of that nature it is easy to define internal groups, however for all other categories we have access to its presheaf category which is cartesian closed itself. It is just a matter of lifting the definition to the presheaf category in a compatible way.
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:55
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
The part "$mathcal C(-,A)$ is a naturally abelian group" means that there exists a functor $mathbf A : mathcal C^rm op to mathsfAb$ such that that $U circ mathbf A$ and $mathcal C(-,A)$ are isomorphic (as functors $mathcal C^rm op to mathsfSet$) where $U$ is the forgetful functor $mathsfAb to mathsfSet$.
The part "$mathcal C$ has enough limits" is just to justify the existence of the product $Atimes A$ and of the terminal object $ast$ in use just after.
Now that the vocabulary is set, the proof is more or less tautological. Given maps $epsilon, i, m$ making the wanted diagrams commute, you can defined a "pointwise" abelian group structure on $mathcal C(X,A)$: the unit is $Xto astoverset epsilonto A$, the inverse operation is taking $f: X to A$ to $Xoverset fto A overset ito A$, and the multiplication takes $f,g: Xto A$ to $Xoversetdeltato Xtimes X overset ftimes gto Atimes A overset m to A$. You need to check that it is indeed an abelian group, and that it is functorial.
Conversely, given that "$mathcal C(-,A)$ is naturally an abelian group", you get natural transformations $$boldsymbolepsilon :mathcal C(-,ast) to mathcal C(-,A) \ mathbf i:mathcal C(-,A) to mathcal C(-,A) \ mathbf m : mathcal C(-,Atimes A)simeq mathcal C(-,A)timesmathcal C(-,A) to mathcal C(-,A)$$ defined at component $X$ as the unit, the inverse and the multiplication of $mathbf A(X)$ respectively. You need to check that this is actually natural. By Yoneda lemma, it gives $epsilon, i, m$ such as wanted. The fact that they make all the wanted diagrams commute will be given by $mathbf A(X)$ being an abelian group for each $X$.
answered Jul 30 at 10:57
Pece
7,92211040
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
The part "$mathcal C(-,A)$ is a naturally abelian group" means that there exists a functor $mathbf A : mathcal C^rm op to mathsfAb$ such that that $U circ mathbf A$ and $mathcal C(-,A)$ are isomorphic (as functors $mathcal C^rm op to mathsfSet$) where $U$ is the forgetful functor $mathsfAb to mathsfSet$.
The part "$mathcal C$ has enough limits" is just to justify the existence of the product $Atimes A$ and of the terminal object $ast$ in use just after.
Now that the vocabulary is set, the proof is more or less tautological. Given maps $epsilon, i, m$ making the wanted diagrams commute, you can defined a "pointwise" abelian group structure on $mathcal C(X,A)$: the unit is $Xto astoverset epsilonto A$, the inverse operation is taking $f: X to A$ to $Xoverset fto A overset ito A$, and the multiplication takes $f,g: Xto A$ to $Xoversetdeltato Xtimes X overset ftimes gto Atimes A overset m to A$. You need to check that it is indeed an abelian group, and that it is functorial.
Conversely, given that "$mathcal C(-,A)$ is naturally an abelian group", you get natural transformations $$boldsymbolepsilon :mathcal C(-,ast) to mathcal C(-,A) \ mathbf i:mathcal C(-,A) to mathcal C(-,A) \ mathbf m : mathcal C(-,Atimes A)simeq mathcal C(-,A)timesmathcal C(-,A) to mathcal C(-,A)$$ defined at component $X$ as the unit, the inverse and the multiplication of $mathbf A(X)$ respectively. You need to check that this is actually natural. By Yoneda lemma, it gives $epsilon, i, m$ such as wanted. The fact that they make all the wanted diagrams commute will be given by $mathbf A(X)$ being an abelian group for each $X$.
answered Jul 30 at 10:57
Pece
7,92211040
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
The part "$mathcal C(-,A)$ is a naturally abelian group" means that there exists a functor $mathbf A : mathcal C^rm op to mathsfAb$ such that that $U circ mathbf A$ and $mathcal C(-,A)$ are isomorphic (as functors $mathcal C^rm op to mathsfSet$) where $U$ is the forgetful functor $mathsfAb to mathsfSet$.
The part "$mathcal C$ has enough limits" is just to justify the existence of the product $Atimes A$ and of the terminal object $ast$ in use just after.
Now that the vocabulary is set, the proof is more or less tautological. Given maps $epsilon, i, m$ making the wanted diagrams commute, you can defined a "pointwise" abelian group structure on $mathcal C(X,A)$: the unit is $Xto astoverset epsilonto A$, the inverse operation is taking $f: X to A$ to $Xoverset fto A overset ito A$, and the multiplication takes $f,g: Xto A$ to $Xoversetdeltato Xtimes X overset ftimes gto Atimes A overset m to A$. You need to check that it is indeed an abelian group, and that it is functorial.
Conversely, given that "$mathcal C(-,A)$ is naturally an abelian group", you get natural transformations $$boldsymbolepsilon :mathcal C(-,ast) to mathcal C(-,A) \ mathbf i:mathcal C(-,A) to mathcal C(-,A) \ mathbf m : mathcal C(-,Atimes A)simeq mathcal C(-,A)timesmathcal C(-,A) to mathcal C(-,A)$$ defined at component $X$ as the unit, the inverse and the multiplication of $mathbf A(X)$ respectively. You need to check that this is actually natural. By Yoneda lemma, it gives $epsilon, i, m$ such as wanted. The fact that they make all the wanted diagrams commute will be given by $mathbf A(X)$ being an abelian group for each $X$.
answered Jul 30 at 10:57
Pece
7,92211040
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
The part "$mathcal C(-,A)$ is a naturally abelian group" means that there exists a functor $mathbf A : mathcal C^rm op to mathsfAb$ such that that $U circ mathbf A$ and $mathcal C(-,A)$ are isomorphic (as functors $mathcal C^rm op to mathsfSet$) where $U$ is the forgetful functor $mathsfAb to mathsfSet$.
The part "$mathcal C$ has enough limits" is just to justify the existence of the product $Atimes A$ and of the terminal object $ast$ in use just after.
Now that the vocabulary is set, the proof is more or less tautological. Given maps $epsilon, i, m$ making the wanted diagrams commute, you can defined a "pointwise" abelian group structure on $mathcal C(X,A)$: the unit is $Xto astoverset epsilonto A$, the inverse operation is taking $f: X to A$ to $Xoverset fto A overset ito A$, and the multiplication takes $f,g: Xto A$ to $Xoversetdeltato Xtimes X overset ftimes gto Atimes A overset m to A$. You need to check that it is indeed an abelian group, and that it is functorial.
Conversely, given that "$mathcal C(-,A)$ is naturally an abelian group", you get natural transformations $$boldsymbolepsilon :mathcal C(-,ast) to mathcal C(-,A) \ mathbf i:mathcal C(-,A) to mathcal C(-,A) \ mathbf m : mathcal C(-,Atimes A)simeq mathcal C(-,A)timesmathcal C(-,A) to mathcal C(-,A)$$ defined at component $X$ as the unit, the inverse and the multiplication of $mathbf A(X)$ respectively. You need to check that this is actually natural. By Yoneda lemma, it gives $epsilon, i, m$ such as wanted. The fact that they make all the wanted diagrams commute will be given by $mathbf A(X)$ being an abelian group for each $X$.
answered Jul 30 at 10:57
Pece
7,92211040
The part "$mathcal C(-,A)$ is a naturally abelian group" means that there exists a functor $mathbf A : mathcal C^rm op to mathsfAb$ such that that $U circ mathbf A$ and $mathcal C(-,A)$ are isomorphic (as functors $mathcal C^rm op to mathsfSet$) where $U$ is the forgetful functor $mathsfAb to mathsfSet$.
The part "$mathcal C$ has enough limits" is just to justify the existence of the product $Atimes A$ and of the terminal object $ast$ in use just after.
Now that the vocabulary is set, the proof is more or less tautological. Given maps $epsilon, i, m$ making the wanted diagrams commute, you can defined a "pointwise" abelian group structure on $mathcal C(X,A)$: the unit is $Xto astoverset epsilonto A$, the inverse operation is taking $f: X to A$ to $Xoverset fto A overset ito A$, and the multiplication takes $f,g: Xto A$ to $Xoversetdeltato Xtimes X overset ftimes gto Atimes A overset m to A$. You need to check that it is indeed an abelian group, and that it is functorial.
Conversely, given that "$mathcal C(-,A)$ is naturally an abelian group", you get natural transformations $$boldsymbolepsilon :mathcal C(-,ast) to mathcal C(-,A) \ mathbf i:mathcal C(-,A) to mathcal C(-,A) \ mathbf m : mathcal C(-,Atimes A)simeq mathcal C(-,A)timesmathcal C(-,A) to mathcal C(-,A)$$ defined at component $X$ as the unit, the inverse and the multiplication of $mathbf A(X)$ respectively. You need to check that this is actually natural. By Yoneda lemma, it gives $epsilon, i, m$ such as wanted. The fact that they make all the wanted diagrams commute will be given by $mathbf A(X)$ being an abelian group for each $X$.
answered Jul 30 at 10:57
Pece
7,92211040
answered Jul 30 at 10:57
Pece
7,92211040
answered Jul 30 at 10:57
Pece
7,92211040
answered Jul 30 at 10:57
Pece
7,92211040
7,92211040
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2866833%2fabelian-objects-in-a-category%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
see ncatlab.org/nlab/show/group+object
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:19
@FreeSalad Apparently it reduces to that (somehow) when $mathcalC$ has enough limits. But I imagine these are distinct concepts otherwise?
– user580497
Jul 30 at 10:21
well, the question here is that we need a cartesian monoidal structure on a category to state the group axioms, so for categories which are of that nature it is easy to define internal groups, however for all other categories we have access to its presheaf category which is cartesian closed itself. It is just a matter of lifting the definition to the presheaf category in a compatible way.
– FreeSalad
Jul 30 at 10:55