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.

I'm trying to get my head around adjoints to the forgetful functor $U:\bf{C^M}\to \bf {C}$ where $M$ is a monoid interpreted as a category.

My current line of thinking is that the left adjoint $L:\bf C\to C^M$ is given by $L(A)=M\times A$ where $M$ acts on $M\times A$ by $m(M\times A)=(mM)\times A$, the unit $u:A\to M\times A$ is given by the inclusion $u(A)=(1,A)$ and the counit is $\varepsilon:M\times A\to A$ is given by $\varepsilon((m,A))=mA$

It seems to me that this works out quite well though I havent written the down the bijection. One problem that comes to mind is that $M\times A$ might not be an object in $C$, in which case it's not an object in the functor category, and I'm not quite sure how to address this.

Regarding the right adjoint, I'm thinking $R(A)=Hom(M,A)$ but I have almost no idea of how to proceed here. I know that we can interpet the $Hom(M,A)$ sets as objects in many categories, but it does not seem like a general phenomenon.

Anyways, any thought or comments would be helpful, thanks in advance

Edit1:

Ok, i think i got it for $\bf{Set}$. We let the unit $u_A:A\to Hom(M,A)$ be the map $u_A(a)=f_a:M\to A$ given by $f(M)=a$ and the counit $\varepsilon_B:Hom(M,B)\to B$ be given by $\varepsilon(f)=f(1)$. Chasing the diagram seems to work out fine and all so im guessing its alright, ganna write down the bijection in a min. I'm still a bit unsure as to when $Hom_{\bf C}(M,-) $ can be considered an object in $\bf C$ it works out fine in most, (all?), algebraic categories but beyonde this i have no idea.

Anyways, thanks for the replies, they were very helpful, though i have no idea as to why the forgetful functor should be both a tensor functor and a hom functor, some reference would be nice

share|improve this question
1  
Do you know the answer when $C = \text{Set}$? –  Qiaochu Yuan May 7 '12 at 18:29
    
@user25470: If $\mathbf{C}$ is a nice category (say, a Grothendieck topos) then you can view $U$ as a hom functor and as a tensor functor. Then apply the tensor–hom adjunction. (You can make sense of $M \times A$ in any cocomplete category: it's the coproduct of $M$-many copies of $A$.) –  Zhen Lin May 7 '12 at 18:39

1 Answer 1

First, let's deal with the case where $M$ is an internal monoid in a monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$; then $\mathcal{C}^M$ should be interpreted as the category of left $M$-modules in $\mathcal{C}$. It is not hard to verify that $$\mathcal{C}(X, U A) \cong \mathcal{C}^M (M \otimes X, A)$$ naturally for all objects $X$ in $\mathcal{C}$ and all objects $A$ in $\mathcal{C}^M$, where $M \otimes X$ is regarded as a left $M$-module in the evident way. Thus, we have a left adjoint to $U$: $$M \otimes - \dashv U : \mathcal{C}^M \to \mathcal{C}$$

Morally, this is an instance of the tensor–hom adjunction. Indeed, if $\mathcal{C}$ is monoidally closed (in the sense that $X \otimes -$ has a right adjoint), then we can construct $\mathcal{C}^M (B, A)$ as an equaliser as below: $$\mathcal{C}^M (B, A) \rightarrow \mathcal{C} (B, A) \rightrightarrows \mathcal{C} (M \otimes B, A) $$ The first morphism $\mathcal{C} (B, A) \to \mathcal{C} (M \otimes B, A)$ is the one that corresponds to the morphism $M \otimes B \otimes \mathcal{C} (B, A) \to A$ which evaluates a morphism $B \to A$ on an element of $B$ and then acts on the result by an element of $M$; the second morphism corresponds to the one that acts on an element of $B$ by an element of $M$ and then evaluates a morphism $B \to A$ on the result. But it is clear that $$\mathcal{C} (I, U A) \cong U A \cong \mathcal{C}^M (M, A)$$ so $U$ is enriched-representable by $M$.

The right adjoint is indeed more troublesome. We want $$\mathcal{C}(U A, X) \cong \mathcal{C}^M(A, R X)$$ so, taking advantage of representability and setting $A = M$, we get $$\mathcal{C}(M, X) \cong \mathcal{C}^M(M, R X) \cong U R X$$ Thus, we must find some way of making $\mathcal{C}(M, X)$ into a left $M$-module. This means we have to find a morphism of type $$M \otimes \mathcal{C}(M, X) \to \mathcal{C}(M, X)$$ and by the tensor–hom adjunction this amounts to finding a morphism of type $$\mathcal{C}(M, X) \to \mathcal{C}(M, \mathcal{C}(M, X))$$ but the codomain is $\mathcal{C}(M \otimes M, X)$ by the tensor–hom adjunction again, and so precomposing with the multiplication morphism $M \otimes M \to M$ gives us what we need – but again, all this assuming $\mathcal{C}$ is monoidal closed. Thus, we have a right adjoint of $U$: $$U \dashv \mathcal{C}(M, -) : \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{C}^M$$

Again, morally this is a tensor–hom adjunction, but it's not as easy to describe. We have to assume $\mathcal{C}$ is a cocomplete category: then we can define the tensor product of a right $M$-module and a left $M$-module and construct a general tensor–hom adjunction; when this is done, $U \cong M \otimes _M -$, so it's no surprise that its right adjoint is a hom functor.


The case where $M$ is an external monoid is a little more complicated. The easiest way to proceed is to assume $\mathcal{C}$ has all small coproducts, so that we can define $M \odot X$ to be the coproduct of $M$-many copies of $X$. In that case, it will be true that $$\mathcal{C} (M \odot X, -) \cong M \times \mathcal{C} (X, -)$$ much like when $\mathcal{C} = \textbf{Set}$. We make the RHS into a right $M$-set, and then Yoneda lemma then turns $M \odot X$ into a left $M$-object in $\mathcal{C}$, in the sense of a functor $\mathcal{B} M \to \mathcal{C}$, where $\mathcal{B} M$ is the delooping of $M$. It is then clear that any $M$-equivariant homomorphism $M \odot X \to A$ must be determined by one of the components $X \to A$, so again we have a left adjoint: $$M \odot - \dashv U : \mathcal{C}^M \to \mathcal{C}$$

Similarly, if we assume $\mathcal{C}$ has all small products, then we can define $X^M$ to be the product of $M$-many copies of $X$, so that we have $$\mathcal{C}(-, X^M) \cong \mathcal{C}(-, X)^M$$ The RHS is automatically a left $M$-set, so the Yoneda lemma makes $X^M$ into a left $M$-object. One sees that any $M$-equivariant homomorphism $A \to X^M$ is determined by one of the components $A \to X$, so we obtain the desired right adjoint: $$U \dashv (-)^M : \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{C}^M$$


In the case where $\mathcal{C}$ is a Grothendieck topos, both the internal and external approach give the same answer, so I suspect there is a unified way of looking at both. But this is probably enough for now.

share|improve this answer
    
I feel very guilty now, I appreacihiate you took the time to give such a thurough answer, unfortunatly it's way beyond my current level of understanding. But i promise you will take the time to look over again and again untill i get it, ill just have to read up on monoidal categories and representability first. –  user25470 May 8 '12 at 13:15
1  
It is slightly scary that the best reference available online for $BM$ is that... –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jul 12 '12 at 16:48

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.