1
$\begingroup$

Perhaps this question has a trivial answer, but it eludes me. I am thinking about functors between categories and their duals, specifically for the category $ \textbf{Rel}\ $ and its dual $ \textbf{Rel*}\ $, but if possible I'd like to approach this as a general question concerning the notion of "turning around the arrows" to form a dual.

Here's my problem: Suppose we want to find a functor $ F $ from a category $ C $ to its dual $ C* $ such that the functor takes each morphism and object in $ C $ to a exactly one morphism or object in $ C* $. For me, the problem arises because "turn the arrow around" is not a valid operation for a functor.

Of course for a single morphism $ f \colon A \to B $ we can effectively turn that particular arrow around by letting $ F(A)=B $ and $ F(B) = A $. But, thinking geometrically, whenever we simply switch $ A $ and $ B $ , we no longer have other arrows pointing correctly from $ A $ or $ B $ to all the other objects, $ C, D, E,... $, etc.

Using the strict definition of a functor as two functions (one function for objects to objects, and one function for morphisms to morphisms), how do we know there is a functor that connects a category to its dual in the bijective fashion as described above?

[P.S. My specific problem arise from Awodey p.25, part (c) of the first exercise for $ \textbf{Rel}\ $ and its dual but, if possible, I'd like to concentrate on the most general case.]

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Could you please remind those of us without Awodey's book to hand, what the category Rel is? $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Aug 11 '17 at 4:53
  • $\begingroup$ @LordSharktheUnknown $\mathbf{Rel}$ is the category whose objects are sets and arrows are relations, with the usual composition of relations (i.e. $S\circ R=\{(x,z)|\exists y \ s.t.\ (xRy)\wedge (ySz)\}$). $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Aug 11 '17 at 8:16
2
$\begingroup$

For a general category $C$, there is in general no way to define a funtor $C\to C^{op}$. For this problem, you really need to use the fact that your arrows are relations between sets to construct such a functor; it will exist because every relation $R:X\to Y$ has an "opposite relation" $R^{o}:Y\to X$ defined by $yR^{o}x\Leftrightarrow xRy$. You can check that this defines a functor $\mathbf{Rel}\to \mathbf{Rel}^{op}$ (which is the identity on objects). You can also check that it is bijective; in fact, it is its own inverse (or rather, its dual is). This is makes it an example of dagger category.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for that answer, but I have one question. Where is that definition for $ R^0 $ coming from? Although it makes sense, I can't seem to derive it from other definitions or theorems. $\endgroup$ – MPitts Aug 11 '17 at 22:51
  • $\begingroup$ @MPitts $X\times Y$ is naturally isomorphic to $Y\times X$; since a relation $R:X\to Y$ is a subset of $X\times Y$, it's easy to transform it into a subset of $Y\times X$, i.e. a relation $R^{o}:Y\to X$. In some sense, with relations the domain and codomain are more symmetric than with functions, so it's easy to turn them around. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Aug 12 '17 at 13:37
  • $\begingroup$ Let's take an example. Suppose the relation in question is ' < ', and we look at $ f \colon \mathbb { N } \to \mathbb{N} $. So the morphism is the set $ \lbrace(1,2),(1,3),(1,4),...(2,3),(2,4),...(3,4),(3,5),...\rbrace $. Now consider f* (the asterisk indicates the morphism f in the context of the dual). There seem be be two possibilities here. (continued...) $\endgroup$ – MPitts Aug 12 '17 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ (a) the morphism f* becomes ' > ' in the dual and so pairs like (1,2) become (2,1) to reflect the change in the morphism, or alternatively, (b) the morphism f stays the same, except now pairs such as $ (1,2) \in A \times B $ are simply expressed differently as $ (2,1) \in B \times A $. I assume (b) is the right way to look at things, right? $\endgroup$ – MPitts Aug 12 '17 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ Both are right actually... $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Aug 12 '17 at 20:48

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.