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. In our lecture, a group object in $\mathcal C$ is defined as

  • an object $c ∈ \mathcal C$,
  • interpreted by a contravariant functor $L \colon \mathcal C^\mathrm{op} → \mathrm{Grp}$,
  • such that$?L = \mathrm{mor}_\mathcal C (–,c)$,

where $? \colon \mathrm{Grp} → \mathrm{Set}$ is the forgetful functor and $\mathrm{mor}_\mathcal C (–,c)$ is the contravariant homfunctor at $c$.

Now, our exercise is to show the equivalence of this definition with the usual one involving an object $G ∈ \mathcal C$, a multiplication morphism $μ \colon G × G → G$, an inversion morphism $ι \colon G → G$ and the neutral morphism $η \colon * → G$, assuming $\mathcal C$ has all products and a terminal $*$.


This is what I got: The definition in our lecture reads that $c$ is a group object if any set of morphisms into $c$ can be interpreted as a group (e.g. by pointwise multiplication for $\mathcal C = \mathrm{Set}$).

So, of course, if I take the usual definition, I can indeed define a pointwise multiplication on any mor-set by postcomposing $μ$ (i.e. $f·g := μ(f×g))$. This seems to be the right way for interpreting a group object by the usual definition as a group object by our definition.

But how, on the other hand, can I interpret a group object by our definition as a group object by the usual definition? My initial idea was to try to somehow lift the group structure of $Lc$ to $c$, but I don’t know how I can do this. I mean, I have to construct arrows $μ$, $η$ and $ι$, but I don’t even know if $L$ is full or not.

Any hints are greatly appreciated.


In the meantime, I actually have found the idea I was looking for myself. (What should now be done to this question?)

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Misleadingly, I was vaguely thinking about lifting corresponding $μ$s, $ηs$ and $ι$s in $\mathrm{Grp}$ to $\mathcal C$ by using the functor $L$ in some way.

But that’s not a good way to approach the problem, especially since there are no such morphisms living there naturally (they would be group homomorphisms then).

One needs to create morphisms $μ \colon c × c → c$, $η \colon * → c$ and $ι \colon c → c$ which are, of course, elements of $\mathrm{mor}_{\mathcal C}(c×c,c)$, $\mathrm{mor}_{\mathcal C}(*,c)$ and $\mathrm{mor}_{\mathcal C}(c,c)$, all of which are sets which carry a group structure via $L$ by hypothesis.

Now, one can use the fact that these groups admit morphisms, corresponding to the usual definitions,

  • $μ' \colon \mathrm{mor}_{\mathcal C}(c×c,c) × \mathrm{mor}_{\mathcal C}(c×c,c) → \mathrm{mor}_{\mathcal C}(c×c,c)$,
  • $η' \colon • → \mathrm{mor}_{\mathcal C}(*,c)$ (where $•$ is an terminal object in $\mathrm{Set}$), and
  • $ι' \colon \mathrm{mor}_{\mathcal C}(c,c) → \mathrm{mor}_{\mathcal C}(c,c)$.

By evaluating them (these are in $\mathrm{Set}$, so they are maps) respectiely at suitable elements, one gets morphisms with the correct signatures for $μ$, $η$, and $ι$ as morphisms in $\mathcal C$.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.