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

I'm trying to follow Day's argument to prove that $[\mathbf C,\mathbf{Sets}]$, where $\bf C$ is symmetric monoidal, is itself symmetric monoidal, but I'm stuck at the very beginning. Is there a way to prove that the convolution of two functors defines an associative "tensor" on $Psh(\mathbf C)$?

I apologize if the question seems too boring, please notice that

  1. Day's original paper is out of reach where I am;
  2. Google seems to give me nothing useful,
  3. As you can see, the nlab page lacks the proof of associativity.

If I try to write down $F\star G\star H$ in the two ways, I feel I have to exploit some kind of Yoneda lemma written in coend form, but I'm not such an expert on ''endy'' notation to find such a form out.


share|cite|improve this question
BTW, the natural monoidal structure is induced on $[\mathcal{C}^{op}, \mathbf{Set}]$ not on $[\mathcal{C}, \mathbf{Set}]$. – Michal R. Przybylek Jan 31 '13 at 17:56
up vote 4 down vote accepted

You are right that the Yoneda lemma plays the key role in the proof.

By the definition of convolution: $$(F \otimes G) \otimes H \approx \int^{C, D} \left(\int^{A, B} F(A) \times G(B) \times \hom(C, A \otimes B)\right) \times H(D) \times \hom(-, C \otimes D)$$ Because products in $\mathbf{Set}$ preserve coends, the above is isomorphic to: $$\int^{A, B, C, D} F(A) \times G(B) \times \hom(C, A \otimes B) \times H(D) \times \hom(-, C \otimes D)$$

The Yoneda lemma says that any covariant functor $K(A)$ is naturally isomorphic to $\hom(\hom(A, -), K)$. By definition, the last object is the end $\int_C K(C)^{\hom(A, C)}$. Therefore the Yoneda lemma says: $$K(A) \approx \int_C K(C)^{\hom(A, C)}$$ By duality, we get the Yoneda lemma for contravariant functors $K$: $$K(A) \approx \int^C K(C) \times \hom(A, C)$$ and from the perspective of the opposite category, for covariant functors $K$: $$K(A) \approx \int^C K(C) \times \hom(C, A)$$ where the end turned into the coend and the exponent turned into the product. In our case, we may reduce by Yoneda $\hom(C, A\otimes B)$ with $\hom(-, C \otimes D)$ under the coend: $$\int^C \hom(-, C \otimes D) \times \hom(C, A\otimes B) \approx \hom(-, (A \otimes B) \otimes D)$$ obtaining: $$\int^{A, B, D} F(A) \times G(B) \times H(D) \times \hom(-, (A \otimes B) \otimes D)$$ Due to associativity of $\otimes$ we know that $(A \otimes B) \otimes D \approx A \otimes (B \otimes D)$. Now it suffices to "unwind" the coend in the other direction.

share|cite|improve this answer

The category of cocontinuous functors on $\widehat{C}$ with values in a cocomplete category is equivalent to the category of functors on $C$. In order to construct a natural isomorphism $(F \otimes G) \otimes H \cong F \otimes (G \otimes H)$ for $F,G,H \in \widehat{C}$, it is therefore enough to treat the case $F \in C$. Similarily, one reduces to $G \in C$ and $H \in C$. But then we use the associativity in $C$.

share|cite|improve this answer
I am a bit confused by your answer (it may be the case that I do not fully understand you). Clearly, what you have written is true. However, I think you need one additional fact to make the argument rigorous, and I am not sure if writing all these facts together is really different from the coend computation. – Michal R. Przybylek Feb 1 '13 at 23:47
No, it's completely elementary. – Martin Brandenburg Apr 14 '13 at 21:05

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.