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.

Let $C$ be a small pre-additive category. Let $R(C)$ denote its category ring, that is, $$ R(C)=\bigoplus_{a,b\in \mathrm{Ob}(C)} C(a,b) $$ as Abelian group, where the direct sum runs over all object $a$, $b$ of $C$. The multiplication in $R(C)$ is given by composition of composable morphisms and 0 for uncomposable morphisms (extended by bilinearity).

This constuction is functorial: An additive functor $C\to D$ between small pre-additive categories induces a ring homomorphism $R(C)\to R(D)$ between the corresponding category rings in a canocical way.

Hence we have a functor $R$ from the category of small pre-additive categories (with additive functors as morhisms) to the category of rings (with ring homomorphisms as morphisms).

But the category of small pre-additive categories has a 2-categorical structure given by natural transformations.

Hence my question: Does this 2-categorical structure have a counterpart in the category of rings? More precisely, is there a natural notion of 2-morphisms between ring homomorphisms turning $R$ into a 2-functor?

share|improve this question
1  
Dear Rasmus: have you got a reference for this "category ring" nice construction? Thanks in advance! –  a.r. Sep 18 '10 at 2:20
2  
@Agusti Roig: Unfortunately not. But the neat thing about it is that a module over a small pre-additive category $C$ (i.e. an additive functor from $C$ to the category of abelian groups) is "the same" as a usual module over the ring $R(C)$. –  Rasmus Sep 18 '10 at 10:04
1  
There is a section about this ring in Gabriel's thesis. –  Martin Brandenburg Sep 18 '10 at 12:06
2  
@Martin Brandenburg: Maybe I'm a bit ignorant, but who is Gabriel? Do you have a link? –  Rasmus Sep 18 '10 at 13:03
2  
Pierre Gabriel, Des categories abeliennes. ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Des+Cat%C3%A9gories+Ab%C3%A9liennes –  Martin Brandenburg Sep 18 '10 at 13:56
show 2 more comments

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Rings are precisely those pre-additive categories with exactly one object. Thus the category of rings (noncommutative here) is a $2$-category. If $f,g : R \to S$ are $1$-morphisms, then a $2$-morphism $f \to g$ is an element $s \in S$ such that for all $r \in R$, we have $s f(r) = g(r) s$.

So take a natural transformation $\eta : F \to G$ between additive functors $F,G : C \to D$. Then we may take $s = \sum_{x \in C} \eta(x)$ as an element of $R(D)$. But wait, this sum does not have to be finite. Then let's define $R(-)$ simply as the product and not the direct sum. This causes other problems, see the answer of Agusti Roig.

Now the desired equation $s F(r) = G(r) s$ for some morphism $r : x \to y$ in $C$ is equivalent to

$\sum_{u : F(u)=F(x)} \eta(u) F(r) = \sum_{v : G(v)=G(x)} G(r) \eta(v)$.

This seems to be true only if $F$ and $G$ are injective on objects.

So my answer would be: No, unfortunately $R$ cannot be made into a $2$-functor.

But somehow, $R$ should be a $2$-functor, and perhaps we can modify the whole setting a but, so that it works.

share|improve this answer
add comment

This is not an answer, but an elementay question about this category ring $R({\cal C})$. Because of Martin's remark, I'll use the product notation: elements of $R({\cal C})$ are tuples

$$ f= (f_{ab}) \in \prod_{a, b \in {\mathrm ob} {\cal C}} {\cal C}(a,b) \ , $$

in which every $f_{ab} : a \longrightarrow b$ is a morphism of ${\cal C}$. Right?

(By the way: are we still in our universe when we make such a product? I mean: this won't be a "ring" at all, that is: a small ring.)

So, the problem that Martin has pointed out comes from the fact that, when you multiply two of these tuples $f=(f_{ab})$ and $g= (g_{ab})$ a sum appears in the $ab$-component of $g\cdot f$:

$$ \sum_x g_{xb}\circ f_{ax} \ . $$

Is it so?

share|improve this answer
    
Yes and this sum is infinite. So this product is not a ring. My "answer" was also not a real answer, but just shows all the problems I have encountered when I want to make $R$ into a $2$-functor. –  Martin Brandenburg Sep 19 '10 at 9:01
add comment

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.