Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose $F: C \rightarrow D$ is a covariant functor and $G: C \rightarrow D$ is contravariant. Does it make sense to define natural transformations $\eta_1 : F \Rightarrow G$ or $\eta_2 : G \Rightarrow F$ or are there any obstructions?

share|improve this question
7  
Well, no. Some of the arrows point the wrong way in the obvious "commutative diagram" you'd want to write down. –  Qiaochu Yuan Mar 15 '12 at 2:58
    
Natural transformations are only defined between functors of the same type. Since a contravariant functor from $\mathcal{C}$ to $\mathcal{D}$ is really just a functor $\mathcal{C}^\textrm{op} \to \mathcal{D}$, you can't really talk about natural transformations from a functor $\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ to $\mathcal{C}^\textrm{op} \to \mathcal{D}$. That said, there is a notion of "extraordinary natural transformation", which in a degenerate case lets you transform a functor $\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ to a functor $\mathcal{C}^\textrm{op} \to \mathcal{D}$. –  Zhen Lin Mar 15 '12 at 7:25

1 Answer 1

It does make sense. If $F$ is covariant and $G$ is contravariant, a transformation $F \to G$ is a family of maps $F(x) \to G(x)$ such that for every morphism $x \to y$ the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc} F(x) & \rightarrow & G(x) \\ \downarrow && \uparrow \\ F(y) & \rightarrow & G(y) \end{array}$$

commutes. In fact, this is a special case of the more general notion of dinatural transformations.

share|improve this answer
    
Sure, that's what I said in my comments. It's not really a natural transformation, however. –  Zhen Lin Mar 25 '13 at 22:53

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.