3
$\begingroup$

EDIT: I trimmed down the exposition a bit. I really just wanted everyone to know what my approach has been, but what I had was a bit bloated.

Suppose we have a closed category $V$ as defined here, and suppose that for each $b \in V$, $[b, -]$ has a left adjoint $-\otimes b$. My conjecture is that $- \otimes -$ makes $V$ into a monoidal category. To this end, I've been able to define all the structural natural isomorphisms for a monoidal category (and show that they really are natural isomorphisms) except $\alpha^{-1} \colon a \otimes (b \otimes c) \rightarrow (a \otimes b) \otimes c$.

My usual approach has been to work with Hom-sets and use adjointness to get to a Hom-set that has a morphism that I've already defined. This approach failed for $\alpha^{-1}$. Instead I was able to show that I'd be able to get to $\alpha^{-1}$ if I had either $$ \Psi^* \colon [a, [b,c]] \rightarrow [a \otimes b, c] $$ or $$ T \colon [a, b] \rightarrow [a \otimes c, b \otimes c] $$

Question: Given a closed catgory $V$ such that $[b, -]$ has a left adjoint $- \otimes b$ for each object $b \in V$, how can we (or can we) define a natural map $\alpha^{-1} \colon a \otimes (b \otimes c) \rightarrow (a \otimes b) \otimes c$?

If not, what is a counterexample to this conjecture? It seems unlikely to me that we would be able to define every structural morphism for a monoidal category except $\alpha^{-1}$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

According to G.M. Kelly's Examples of Non-monadic Structures on Categories (page 63), downloadable here, $\alpha$ is not necessarily an isomorphism if we only have a closed category with an adjoint to $[-,-]$. Unfortunately, as far I can tell, Kelly does not give a counterexample.

Thanks to Buschi Sergio in the comments for this question for pointing me to Day and LaPlaza's paper On Embedding Closed Categories which has an example of this behavior. Once I understand this example better, I'll try to explain it here. It uses a certain subcategory of the category of topological spaces to get the desired behavior.

Regardless, if we require the adjoint to be "internal" in the sense that we have a natural isomorphism $$ \Psi^* \colon [a, [b, c]] \rightarrow [a \otimes b, c] $$

then everything works out and $\alpha$ is an isomophism, and the resulting structure is a monoidal category.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.