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 am going through the adjuntions chapter of MacLane's CWM. I will follow his notation; it would be very difficult to try to describe all of the notation here. So excuse me for not explaining everything. Plus, I think everyone has a copy of CWM somewhere handy :)

In the proof of Corollary 1 (proof that left adjoints are unique up to natural isomorphism), he says "It is easy to verify that $\theta:F\to F'$ is natural". I am not sure if what I did is the proof he had in mind. Because I did not find this proof obvious (or at least as easy as one would expect re. proving naturality); maybe I am doing something wrong. So if someone could have a look at this, I would be grateful.

Let $f:x\to y$. We must prove that $\theta_y\circ Ff=F'f\circ \theta_x:Fx\to F'y$. Taking the "transpose" of the first morphism, we have \begin{eqnarray} \phi(\theta_y\circ Ff)&=& G(\theta_y \circ Ff)\circ \eta_y\\ &=&G\theta_y\circ GFf\circ\eta_x\\ &=&G\theta_y\circ\eta_y\circ f\\ &=&\eta_y'\circ f\\ &=&GF'f\circ \eta_x'\\ &=&GF'f\circ G\theta_x\circ \eta_x\\ &=&G(F'f\circ \theta_x)\circ \eta_x\\ &=&\phi(F'f\circ \theta_x). \end{eqnarray}

(where the third and fifth equalities hold by the definition of $F$ and $F'$ respectively on arrows -see Theorem 2.(ii) for example- and the fourth and sixth equalities hold by the definition of the isomorphism $\theta$ -see Corollary 1.)

Since the adjunct is unique, we must have $\theta_y\circ Ff=F'f\circ \theta_x$, as required.

(I know that this Corollary is immediately deduced from the Yoneda Lemma, if you consider the bijections on the hom-sets in the definitions of the adjunctions, but here I am only trying to prove naturality "manually", as asked in MacLane's proof.) Thanks for any help.

share|cite|improve this question
"I think everyone has a copy of CWM somewhere handy" I wish, that thing is expensive! – Najib Idrissi Apr 19 '14 at 7:02
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Written equalities are just confusing when dealing with categorical properties. Prefer diagrams to it.

Suppose $F,F' \colon A \to B$ admits both $G \colon B \to A$ as right adjoint. By definition, there are bijections $$ \iota(x,y) \colon \hom_A(x,Gy) \simeq \hom_B(Fx,y) \\ \iota'(x,y) \colon \hom_A(x,Gy) \simeq \hom_B(F'x,y)$$ natural in $x$ and $y$ (i.e. $\iota,\iota'$ is a natural transformation between the functors $\hom_A(-,G(?)),\, \hom_B(F(-),?) \colon A^\mathrm{op} \times B \to \mathsf{Set}$).

Define $\vartheta(x) \colon Fx \to F'x$ as the image by $\iota(x,F'x)$ of the unit component at $x$ of $F' \dashv G$ : $$\vartheta(x) = \iota(x,F'x)(\eta'_x \colon x \to GF'x) = \iota(x,F'x)\circ {\iota'}^{-1}(x,F'x) (\operatorname{id}_{F'x} \colon F'x \to F'x).$$ Then naturality comes from naturality of $\iota$ : if $f \colon x_0 \to x_1$ is an arrow in $A$, then commutes $$ \require{AMScd} \begin{CD} \hom_B(F'x_0,F'x_0) @>\sim>\iota'^{-1}(x_0,F'x_0)> \hom_A(x_0,GF'x_0) @>\sim>\iota(x_0,F'x_0)> \hom_B(Fx_0,F'x_0) \\ @V F'(f) \,\circ\, -VV @V GF'(f) \,\circ\, - VV @VV F'(f) \,\circ\, -V \\ \hom_B(F'x_0,F'x_1) @>\sim>\iota'^{-1}(x_0,F'x_1)> \hom_A(x_0,GF'x_1) @>\sim>\iota(x_0,F'x_1)>\hom_B(Fx_0,F'x_1) \\ @A -\,\circ\, F'(f) AA @A -\,\circ\, f AA @AA -\,\circ\,F(f) A \\ \hom_B(F'x_1,F'x_1) @>\sim>\iota'^{-1}(x_1,F'x_1)> \hom_A(x_1,GF'x_1) @>\sim>\iota(x_1,F'x_1)> \hom_B(Fx_1,F'x_1). \end{CD} $$ By definition of the composition : $F'(f) \circ \operatorname{id_{F'x_0}} = \operatorname{id_{F'x_1}} \circ F'(f)$, which concludes.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks! So, is my attempt wrong? – Niels.Remb05 Apr 20 '14 at 6:53
@Niels.Remb05 No, it seems pretty much the same as my diagram (I don't have CWM at hand though, so I can't check for sure). But I think it is much more readable as a diagram than as a sequence of equalities (maybe it is just me). One thing however : at the end "Since the adjunct is unique" should be "Since $\phi$ is bijective". – Pece Apr 20 '14 at 8:45

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.