25
$\begingroup$

Suppose $G$ and $H$ are groups and we have an equivalence of categories between $G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set}$ and $H\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set}$. (One can think of this as a form of "nonlinear Morita equivalence".) What can be said about $G$ and $H$? I suspect that $G$ and $H$ have to be isomorphic, but I can't prove it. If this is too hard in general, I'm also interested in the case that $G$ and $H$ are assumed to be finite.

Here are some things I've tried:

Since $G$-modules are the abelian group objects in $G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set}$, we get a Morita equivalence between $\Bbb{Z}[G]$ and $\Bbb{Z}[H]$. So if we tensor with any field $k$, we get a Morita equivalence between $k[G]$ and $k[H]$.
Assume for a moment that $G$ and $H$ are finite. If we take $k = \Bbb{C}$, then this means that $G$ and $H$ have the same number of irreducible representations, so the same number of conjugacy classes. If we take $k=\Bbb{R}, \Bbb{Q}, \overline{\Bbb{F}_p}$, we also get the same number of real, rational and $p$-regular conjugacy classes.

While this approach gives some common properties between $G$ and $H$, it's not possible to conclude that $G$ and $H$ are isomorphic, because there are known examples of non-isomorphic finite groups with isomorphic integral group algebras. (See here) This means that we have to use some of the "nonlinear" information from the category $G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set}$.

Another thing I considered is that the automorphism group of the forgetful functor $G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set} \to \mathbf{Set}$ is isomorphic to $G$, by a simple Yoneda-argument, so if we could somehow reconstruct the forgetful functor just from the category $G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set}$, this would show that $G$ and $H$ must be isomorphic. I haven't been able to do this, but I reconstructed some other functors: The terminal object in $G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set}$ is a one-point set with a trivial action, denote this $G$-set by $\{*\}$, we have a natural bijection $\operatorname{Hom}_{G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set}}(\{*\},X) \cong X^G$, where $X^G$ denotes the set of fixed points under the action of $G$. So we can reconstruct the fixed point functor $G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set} \to \mathbf{Set}$. The left adjoint of that functor is the functor $\mathbf{Set} \to G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set}$ which gives each set a trivial $G$-action. Denote $X$ with a trivial $G$-action by $X_{triv}$. We have $\operatorname{Hom}_{G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set}}(X,Y_{triv}) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{Set}}(X/G,Y)$, so the functor which sends each $G$-set to the orbit space $X/G$ is left adjoint to the functor which gives each set a trivial $G$-action, so we can reconstruct the functor $X \mapsto X/G$ from the category $G\textrm{-}\mathbf{Set}$. Not sure if that's helpful.

Maybe it's even possible that $G$ and $H$ don't have to be isomorphic? I'm looking either for a counterexample or a proof.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe the objects with a free $G$-action ($X^G = \emptyset$) have $G$ as sufficiently close to an initial object to identify the object of $G$ with left multiplication? And then, the forgetful functor is represented by $G$? $\endgroup$ Feb 22 '18 at 21:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not a full answer - but the center of $G$ is isomorphic to the automorphism group of the functor $\operatorname{id}_{G-\mathbf{Set}}$. $\endgroup$ Feb 22 '18 at 21:51
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe this old post can help... math.stackexchange.com/questions/1375309/… Beppe. $\endgroup$ Apr 20 '18 at 12:51
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe this old post can help... math.stackexchange.com/questions/1375309/… $\endgroup$ Apr 20 '18 at 12:52
22
$\begingroup$

The empty $G$-set is the initial object.

The coproduct of $G$-sets is the disjoint union.

Call a $G$-set “indecomposable” if it is not the coproduct of two non-empty $G$-sets, so an indecomposable $G$-set is just a transitive one.

An epimorphism of $G$-sets is just a surjective map of $G$-sets.

Up to isomorphism, there is a unique transitive $G$-set with an epimorphism to every other transitive $G$-set, namely the regular $G$-set, whose automorphism group is $G$.

So $G$ can be recovered from the category of $G$-sets.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Or, to follow up on my comment above - $G$ with left multiplication should be the unique (up to isomorphism) object $X$ with $X^G$ initial but $X$ not initial, and which is not decomposable into a coproduct of two such objects. $\endgroup$ Feb 22 '18 at 22:13
  • $\begingroup$ For a bit more detail, this blog post has a great write up of what Jeremy Rickard described: qchu.wordpress.com/2013/04/01/… $\endgroup$
    – desiigner
    Oct 8 '19 at 14:47
5
$\begingroup$

You can also invoke the following theorem :

Two categories have equivalent categories of presheaves if and only if they have equivalent Cauchy completion.

Then remark that a group (seen as a category with one object) is Cauchy complete : its only idempotent is the neutral, which is obviously spit.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ More specifically and more concretely, in the case of groups, this recovers $G$ as the full subcategory consisting of the only irreducible projective object. $\endgroup$
    – Idéophage
    Feb 26 at 17:52
1
$\begingroup$

I think you already know this, but for the sake of completeness let me show how to prove the claim using your categorical approach.

For any category $\mathcal C$ equivalent to the category of left $G$-sets for some group $G$ we can reconstruct the forgetful functor up to noncanonical natural isomorphism:

The forgetful functor $F : G\text{-}\mathbf{Set} \to \mathbf{Set}$ is naturally isomorphic to $\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathbf{Set}}(\{*\}, F(-))$. It has a left adjoint given by the free $G$-set, that is the disjoint union $Fr(X) := \coprod_{x \in X} G$, where $G$ denotes the regular $G$-set. This shows, that $F \cong \mathrm{Hom}_{G\text{-}\mathbf{Set}}(G, -)$.

As Rickard explained the regular $G$-set is up to non-unique isomorphism characterized as the object, that admits an epimorphism to every connected nonempty $G$-set. Now take such an object $X$. The functor $\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathcal C}(X,-) : \mathcal C \to \mathbf{Set}$ is after composition with the equivalence $\mathcal C \simeq G\text{-}\mathbf{Set}$ naturally isomorphic to the forgetful functor.

Yoneda gives a canonical isomorphism $$ \mathrm{End}(F) \cong \mathrm{Hom}_{G\text{-}\mathbf{Set}}(G,G) \cong G $$ So altogether we have a non-canonical isomorphism $\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathcal C}(X,-)) \cong G$.

$\endgroup$

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.