3
$\begingroup$

Looking at the list of adjunctions (in CWM) I strongly get the impression that the components $\eta_x$ of the unit $\eta$ involved are all monomorphisms.

But uptil now I have missed/overlooked any theorem about that, and was unable to find a proof for this conjecture myself.

This all in contrast with co-unit $\varepsilon$ wich can be shown to have epimorphisms as components under the extra condition that the adjoint functor is faithful.

I did manage to prove that faithfulness of the left adjoint functor is a sufficient condition in this context, but is it necessary?

Can it be proved that components of units of adjunctions are monomorphisms?

If not then can you provide a counterexample and/or appropriate extra conditions under which this is the case?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I might point out that the "adjoint/coadjoint" language is much less common than left/right adjoint. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Carlson May 4 '16 at 14:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KevinCarlson To make the question more accessible I changed co-adjoint in left adjoint. $\endgroup$ – drhab May 4 '16 at 17:06
10
$\begingroup$

The components of the unit are monomorphisms iff the left adjoint functor is faithful.

Indeed, suppose you have the adjunction $(L,R)$, with unit $\eta_X:X\to R(L(X))$. Then $\eta_X$ is a monomorphism iff for any $f,g:Y\to X$ such that $\eta_X\circ f = \eta_X\circ g$, then $f=g$.

But $\eta_X\circ f: Y\to R(L(X))$ corresponds to $L(f):L(Y)\to L(X)$, and likewise for $g$. So the condition above can be written as "$L(f) = L(g)$ implies $f=g$", which exactly means that $L$ is faithful.


Now for an example of a $L$ that is not faithful : take the scalar extension functor from $\mathbb{Z}$-modules to $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$-modules (given by $A\mapsto A\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$), which has the restriction functor as right adjoint.

Then the unit is $\eta_A:A\to A\otimes \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ given by $a\mapsto a\otimes 1$ which is not a monomorphism.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you. Especially for the necessity of the condition and the counterexample. I forgot to mention it in my question (sorry, I will repair) that I allready found out myself that faithfulness of the co-adjoint functor is sufficient. The proof of that shows resemblance with the proof concerning the epi co-unit. $\endgroup$ – drhab May 4 '16 at 13:15

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.