5
$\begingroup$

The category of $\mathbb F$-linear representations of a group $G$ is closed, with internal hom given by the underlying internal hom of vector spaces, and $G$-action defined by $$f(v)\mapsto g\cdot f(g^{-1}\cdot v).$$

  1. How to see this is the correct formula (giving a right adjoint), and not e.g $f(v)\mapsto g\cdot f(g\cdot v)$?

I think this carries over to linear representations $F,G:\mathsf G\to \mathsf{Vect_\mathbb{F}}$ of a groupoid using the formulas $$\begin{gathered}\mathsf{hom}(F,G)(A)=\mathsf{hom}(FA,GA), \\ \mathsf{hom}(F,G)(f:A\to B)=\mathsf{hom}(Ff^{-1},Gf).\end{gathered}$$ But what happens for categories? By abstract nonsense the functor category should still inherit the closed structure.

Theorem. Let $\mathscr V$ be a complete monoidal closed category and $\mathsf C$ a small category. Then the functor category $[\mathsf C,\mathscr V]$ is monoidal closed with pointwise tensor product.

Unfortunately the proof is a bit terse for me and I don't know how to read off what the internal hom should be in the functor category $[\mathsf C,\mathsf{Vect_\mathbb{F}}]$ of $\mathbb F$-linear representations of $\mathsf C$.

  1. What's the internal hom in the category of representations of a fixed small category $\mathsf C$?
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ For 2, IIRC you can adapt the Yoneda lemma. Then, since a functor is determined by its values on objects and morphisms, you can simply compute the values of $[F,G]$ on objects and morphisms by expressing them as natural transformations to which you can apply the hom-tensor adjunction. $\endgroup$
    – user14972
    Jun 24 '17 at 12:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Hurkyl your comment is a bit terse for me, sorry. I don't understand what the formula for the internal hom should be. $\endgroup$
    – Arrow
    Jun 24 '17 at 18:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $f(v) \mapsto gf(gv)$ is not an action at all (check this). $\endgroup$ Jun 25 '17 at 0:32
2
$\begingroup$

It might be helpful to take a significantly different approach, here, with apologies if I just add to the confusion. It's a bit unnatural to think of $C$ as a plain category in putting a closed structure on $[C,V]$, since the internal hom has $F^G$ has to send $c$ to an object of $V$, rather than just a set. Here's the intuition: if $V=\mathbf{Set}$, then $F^G(c)=\mathrm{Nat}(\hat c\times G,F)$ is some kind of set of natural transformations from $G$ to $F$ weighted by $c$. (In particular, if $c$ is initial, then we recover the ordinary set of natural transformations.) Now for more general $V$, $F^G(c)$ has to be an object of $V$. Perhaps you'll buy that this should feel like an object of (weighted) $V$-natural transformations between $G$ and $F$; but that doesn't make sense if $F,G$ are ordinary functors, rather than $V$-functors.

However, if we assume $V$ is cocomplete, then we can construct the free $V$-category $V(C)$ on $C$, which has the same objects $C$ and as hom-objects $V(C)(c_1,c_2)=\coprod_{C(c_1,c_2)} I$, where $I$ is the monoidal unit of $V$. In case this construction seems unfamiliar, work it out in the case $C$ is a group and $V$ is abelian groups-you should just get the group ring! Now $V$-functors from $V(C)$ to $V$ are the same as functors from $C$ to $V$ (recovering the fact that $G$-representations are modules over the group ring) and we now have easier access to $V$-objects of ($V$-)natural tranformations between functors $C\to V$. Recall the definition of $V-\mathrm{Nat}(F,G)$ as the end $\int_C G(c)^{F(c)}$, which can be calculated as the equalizer of the two maps $\prod_C G(c)^{F(c)}$ to $\prod_{f:c_1\to c_2} G(c_2)^{F(c_1)}$ whose components at $f$ are, respectively, $G(f)^{F(c_1)}$ and $G(c_2)^{F(f)}$. Thus again in case $C$ is a group and $V$ is abelian groups, the $V$-natural transformations between two $C$-modules $F$ and $G$ are those abelian group homomorphisms $a:F\to G$ such that, for every $f$ in $C$, $G(f)\circ a=a\circ F(f)$. In more traditional notation, $a(fx)=f(ax)$, for every $x\in F$: these are just the equivariant group homomorphisms, as expected, and indeed the points of the object of $V$-natural transformations between $V$-functors out of free $V$-categories are just ordinary natural transformations, so that over something like abelian groups we don't notice much difference. (Over something with a more dramatic forgetful functor, more would already have happened: the category structure on the natural transformations between functors from a category to the monoidal category of categories invents for us the notion of modification.)

Now we'll try to get the internal hom in $V^J$ for any small $V$-category $J$ in a way familiar from the case $V=\mathrm{Set}$. We have an enriched Yoneda lemma guaranteeing that, for $F,G:J\to V$, we must have $G^F(j)=V^J(\hat j,G^F)=V^J(\hat j\otimes F,G)$, for every $j\in J$; the action of $G^F$ on morphism objects, $J(j_1,j_2)\to V(V^J(\hat j_1\otimes F,G),V^J(\hat j_2\otimes F,G))$, is defined by the composition $$J(j_1,j_2)\otimes V^J(\hat j_1\otimes F,G)\to V^J(\hat j_2\otimes F,\hat j_1\otimes F)\otimes V^J(\hat j_1\otimes F,G)\to V^J(\hat j_2\otimes F,G)$$ The first map there applies Yoneda, $J(j_1,j_2)\to V^J(\hat j_2,\hat j_1)$, and then tensors with $F$; the second map is just composition. Using the enriched co-Yoneda lemma, that makes every functor a colimit of representables, one can show that this really does give a Cartesian closed structure on $V^J$.

Hopefully that's a less obscure, if ludicrously wordier, approach to the Cartesian closure of the general functor categories. Anyway, what's this all mean in the case $J=V(C)$ with $C$ a group and $V$ abelian groups? Given $F$ and $G$, we know $G^F(c)$, where $c\in C$ is the unique object, is supposed to be $V^C(F\otimes \hat c, G)$, the abelian group of equivariant homomorphisms into $G$ from $F$ tensored with the regular representation (with the left action.) Now comes a trick: equivariant homomorphisms $\bar h:F\otimes \hat c\to G$ are naturally identified with arbitrary homomorphisms $h: F\to G$! This is because $\hat c$ is free and transitive: we can choose $\bar h$ arbitrarily on the summand of $\hat c(c)$ corresponding to the identity morphism, and everything else is uniquely determined.

So, we've finally found that $G^F(c)$ is the group of non-equivariant homomorphisms $F\to G$, and we have only to determine the $C$-action. Well, we worked out the formula above: a morphism/element of the group $f:c\to c$ acts on $h:F\to G$ by viewing $h$ as an equivariant map $\bar h: F\otimes \hat c\to G$ and acting by $f$ on the $\hat c$ coordinate. But note that the contravariance of the Yoneda we're using here makes $f$ act on the right (otherwise it also wouldn't be a module map.) So, abusing notation, we can say $f\bar h(x\otimes f')=\bar h(x\otimes f'f)$. Now to turn $f\bar h$ back into a non-equivariant map $F\to G$, we evaluate on the identity. So $$(fh)(x)=f\bar h(x\otimes e)=\bar h(x\otimes f)=f \bar h(f^{-1} x\otimes e)=f(h(f^{-1}x))$$

And there you have it! Notice that the appearance of an inverse here suggests things aren't so simple for monoids (or categories!) as indeed they aren't-if $C$ is a monoid that's not a group then an equivariant map out of $F\otimes \hat c$ is not uniquely determined by its restriction to the identity component. However, this internal hom is still not always bad to calculate. I highly recommend trying it for functors out of the arrow category as an exercise.

Notice also that I could (should?) have told this story a lot faster by sticking with $V=\mathrm{Set}$-you get the same internal hom formula for $G$-sets as from $G$-representations.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for this answer. It will probably take me a while to digest it. I have also asked this related question. Is there an internal tensor-hom adjunction hiding anywhere in your answer? Also, I still don't understand how a category representation - even a monoid representation - should act on arrows. $\endgroup$
    – Arrow
    Jun 25 '17 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure what you're distinguishing by mentioning "internal" adjunction. For the other question, this can be calculated using the formula I gave, so that $F^G(c)$ is the equivariant maps $G\otimes\hat c\to F$, with action in the $\hat c$ variable. So say $C$ is the monoid freely generated by an idempotent element $a$; then we have functions $f_1:G\otimes 1\to F$ and $f_2:G\otimes a\to F$ such that $f_2(ax\otimes a)=af_1(x)$. And $a$ acts on the hom representation by sending $(f_1,f_2)$ to $(f_2,f_2)$. Notice that the fixed points are still the equivariant maps $G\to F$. $\endgroup$ Jun 26 '17 at 2:47
  • $\begingroup$ By internal adjunction I mean natural isomorphisms $\mathsf{hom}(A\otimes B,C)\cong \mathsf{hom}(A,\mathsf{hom}(B,C))$ where all homs are internal, not just the inner one on the right. For the rest, I will have to digest for a while :) $\endgroup$
    – Arrow
    Jun 26 '17 at 10:10
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, got it. No, I didn't mention anything about this in my answer. But it should also be true, for formal reasons coming from $V$. $\endgroup$ Jun 26 '17 at 10:48
1
$\begingroup$

About question 1 I guess that there are many possible different answers but the most easy, at least to me, is that with that actions the classical unit and counit of the adjunction $$-\otimes W \dashv [W,-]$$ in $\mathbb K$-vect that is the mappings $$\epsilon_{V} \colon [V,W] \otimes V \longrightarrow W$$ $$\epsilon_{V} (f \otimes v) = f(v)$$ and $$\eta_V \colon V \longrightarrow [W,V \otimes W]$$ $$\eta_V(v)(w) = v \otimes w$$ become morphisms of $G$-representations. In this way you basically prove that the whole adjunction $(-\otimes W,[W,-],\epsilon,\eta)$ lift to an adjunction in $\mathbf{GRep}$ (the category of $G$-representations).

About question 2 I am a little bit short in the adjoint lifting theorem, so I'll need some time to think it through.

$\endgroup$
0

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.