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.

Suppose that $\mathcal{C}$ has finite products. Why is the unit $\eta_c:c\to c\times c$ of the adjunction $\Delta\dashv \times:\mathcal{C}\times\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{C}$ the arrow $\langle 1_c,1_c\rangle$? In other words, why is $\pi_1\circ \eta_c=1_c=\pi_2\circ\eta_c$?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

The adjunction is saying that morphisms $$(f,g) : (c,c) \to (a,b)$$ in $\mathcal{C} \times \mathcal{C}$ correspond naturally with morphisms $$h : c \to a \times b$$ in $\mathcal{C}$. This correspondence is fairly obviously given by putting $h=\langle f,g \rangle$, where $\langle f,g \rangle$ is the unique morphism $c \to a \times b$ induced by $f : c \to a$ and $g : c \to b$ by the universal property of the product. (And vice versa.)

The $c$-component of the unit is therefore the morphism corresponding to $1_{(c,c)}$. But $1_{(c,c)} = (1_c, 1_c)$, meaning that $$\eta_c = \langle 1_c, 1_c \rangle : c \to c \times c$$ Likewise the counit is the morphism corresponding with $1_{a \times b} : a \times b \to a \times b$. But $1_{a \times b} = \langle \pi_1, \pi_2 \rangle$, and so $$\varepsilon_{(a,b)} = (\pi_1, \pi_2) : (a \times b, a \times b) \to (a,b)$$

share|improve this answer
    
Hmm, thanks! I actually tried to find the explicit form of the adjunct, and, if $\phi$ is the bijection of the adjunction, and $f:c\to a$, $g:c\to b$, I found via naturality, that $$\phi(f,g)=(f\times g)\circ \eta_c$$ I struggle a bit to see why this is precisely $\langle f,g\rangle$. Am I doing something wrong? –  Niels.Remb05 Apr 25 at 5:38
    
@Niels.Remb05: Right, and now $$(f \times g) \circ \eta_c = (f \times g) \circ \langle 1_c, 1_c \rangle = \langle f \circ 1_c, g \circ 1_c \rangle = \langle f,g \rangle$$ Remember $f \times g = \langle f \circ \pi_1, g \circ \pi_2 \rangle$. –  Clive Newstead Apr 25 at 19:46
    
... but this uses the fact that $\eta_c=\langle 1_c,1_c\rangle$, which is what I want to prove, doesn't it?...I was trying to prove that form of the adjunct, in order to prove that $\eta_c=\langle 1_c,1_c\rangle$...Isn't this your argument? –  Niels.Remb05 Apr 25 at 19:52
    
You can check adjunctions in many ways. Either find a natural isomorphism, then your unit and counit are given by what the identities map to; or define what you want to be your unit and counit and prove that they satisfy the required conditions (i.e. either they induce the appropriate natural isomorphism, or they satisfy the trangle identities, or whatever). I can't tell which way round you're working here. –  Clive Newstead Apr 25 at 20:37
    
So either (a) check that the isomorphism $(\mathcal{C} \times \mathcal{C})((c,c),(a,b)) \cong \mathcal{C}(c,a \times b)$ given by $(f,g) \mapsto \langle f,g \rangle$ is natural in $c$ and in $(a,b)$ and find what $1_{(c,c)}$ maps to to get your unit $\eta_c$; or (b) define $\eta_c = \langle 1_c, 1_c \rangle$ and verify that the map $(f,g) \mapsto (f \times g) \circ \eta_c$ induces a natural isomorphism on hom sets. (Likewise for the counit.) –  Clive Newstead Apr 25 at 20:38

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.