2
$\begingroup$

I'm confused about the notion of simple objects. Now ncatlab says that an object is simple in an abelian category if it only has itself and 0 as subobjects. On another page, it says that the simple objects $X_i$ in $\mathcal{C}$ are those that have $\mathcal{C}(X_i, X_j) \cong \delta_{i,j} k$, where $\mathcal{C}$ is $k$-linear (that does not imply abelian, though)?

Then, some light at the issue: On the first page, it says that being simple in an abelian and $k$-linear category implies that $\mathcal{C}(X_i, X_j) \cong \delta_{i,j} k$.

But then, in a Kuperberg article, he calls an object $X$ "strongly simple" if $\mathcal{C}(X,X) \cong k$, somehow implicitly implying that this property implies simplicity, and not the other way around.

What's the right definition now? In case that abelian categories and linear categories are too different, I care for the case needed to define fusion categories (and only for the fields $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$).

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The two definitions are not equivalent, and the first does not imply the second; in a $k$-linear abelian category, any division algebra $D$ over $k$ can occur as the endomorphism $k$-algebra of a simple object $X$ (e.g. in the category of right $D$-modules).

If $k$ is required to be algebraically closed (which I think is a standard simplifying assumption when dealing with fusion categories), then the only finite-dimensional endomorphism algebra that can occur is $k$ itself, and if $X$ is in turn required to be dualizable (which is part of the definition of a fusion category) then I believe this implies that $\text{End}(X)$ is finite-dimensional.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ And for my money, the first definition is the correct one, at least in an abelian category. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Mar 24 '15 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ But you agree that "strongly simple" implies simple? $\endgroup$ – Turion Mar 25 '15 at 10:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Turion: strongly simple implies simple in a semisimple abelian category; the point is that if $X$ has any nontrivial subobjects then the inclusion $S \to X$ of such a subobject induces a splitting $X \cong S \oplus X/S$ (this requires that the ambient category be semisimple and that we can take cokernels) and hence $\text{End}(X)$ has a nontrivial idempotent in it. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Mar 25 '15 at 18:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.