Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a category with finite products. Then $\mathcal{C}$ is a braided monoidal category with the product as the monoidal product and terminal object as the monoidal unit, and braiding $\tau_{A,B}$ the unique isomorphism $A\times B \cong B\times A$ induced since both of sides are the product of $A$ and $B$. For every object $A$ in $\mathcal{C}$, $A$ has the unique structure of a comonoid with comultiplication given by the diagonal map, $\Delta$, and counit the unique map to the terminal object. Now suppose $A$ is a monoidal object with multiplication $\mu$. I'd like to show that the monoidal and comonoidal structures are compatible in the sense that $\Delta$ is a monoid morphism. This is part of the justification for calling Hopf algebras "group objects" in braided monoidal categories. I'm stuck trying to show that $\Delta\circ\mu = \mu\times\mu\circ(\text{id}\times\tau\times\text{id})\circ \Delta \times \Delta$.

share|cite|improve this question
By Yoneda Lemma (olr evalutation by representables) you can put $\mathcal{C}=Set$, now a monoid is a usual algebraic monoid, and is trivial see that $\Delta$ is a monoid morphism. – Buschi Sergio Aug 22 '13 at 10:37

This has very little to do with monoidal categories and much more to do with the properties of the cartesian product (and, very specifically, $\Delta$). Observe:

$$\begin{split} \Delta(\mu(x, y)) & = (\mu(x, y), \mu(x, y)) \\ & = (\mu \times \mu) (x, y, x, y) \\ & = ((\mu \times \mu) \circ (\textrm{id} \times \tau \times \textrm{id})) (x, x, y, y) \\ & = ((\mu \times \mu) \circ (\textrm{id} \times \tau \times \textrm{id}) \circ (\Delta \times \Delta)) (x, y) \end{split}$$

You can interpret $x$ and $y$ as generalised elements $U \to A$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for your answer. I've never heard of generalized elements before. Are you saying that we can use generalized elements to reduce the problem to a proof that the property holds in the category of sets with Cartesian product? I tried looking online on Wikipedia and nLab, but so far haven't been able to understand how generalized elements work yet. Is there a good reference for this? Is it in Maclane? – Seth Jun 3 '12 at 18:39
-ish. Roughly speaking, what we are doing is taking the Yoneda representation of a category. Then a morphism $U \to A$ genuinely is an "element" – specifically an element of the representable presheaf $\textrm{Hom}(-, A)$. Mac Lane does a special kind of generalised element in Chapter VIII. Lawvere and Rosebrugh [Sets for mathematics] also discuss generalised elements a bit. – Zhen Lin Jun 3 '12 at 18:51

Your Answer


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.