8
$\begingroup$

Let $F : \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ be an equivalence of categories, i.e., there is a functor $G : \mathcal{D} \to \mathcal{C}$ (called a quasi-inverse of $F$) such that $F \circ G \cong id_\mathcal{D}$ and $G \circ F \cong id_\mathcal{C}$. This means that for all $X$ in $\mathcal{D}$ there is an isomorphism $\alpha_X$ and for all $A$ in $\mathcal{D}$ there is an isomorphism $\beta_A$ such that for all morphisms $X \overset{\gamma}{\to} Y$ in $\mathcal{D}$ and $A \overset{\phi}{\to} B$ in $\mathcal{C}$ we have the following two commutative diagrams:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(G(X))& \overset{F(G(\gamma))}{\longrightarrow}& F(G(Y))\\ \alpha_X \downarrow \sim & &\sim \downarrow \alpha_Y\\ \ \ \ X&\underset{\gamma}{\longrightarrow}& Y \ \ \ \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}G(F(A))& \overset{G(F(\phi))}{\longrightarrow}& G(F(B))\\ \beta_A \downarrow \sim & &\sim \downarrow \beta_B\\ \ \ A&\underset{\phi}{\longrightarrow}& B \ \ \ \end{array}$$

A priori, $\alpha_-$ and $\beta_-$ are not related. At the beginning of page 31 of Ravi Vakil's November 18, 2017 draft of "The Rising Sea - Foundations of Algebraic Geometry", he states en passant that a quasi-inverse is unique up to a unique isomorphism. Now, from the two diagrams above, one infers that if $G'$ is another quasi-inverse of $F$ (with maps $\alpha_-'$ and $\beta_-'$ for the diagrams), then we have an isomorphism of functors between $G$ and $G'$ given by

$$ G(X) \overset{{\beta'}_{G(X)}^{-1}}{\longrightarrow} G'(F(G(X))) \overset{G'(\alpha_X)}{\longrightarrow} G'(X).$$

My question is: why is this unique, i.e., why can there be no other isomorphism of functors between $G$ and $G'$?

I am quite sure that in general functors can be isomorphic in many different ways, so this must have something to do with the above diagrams. To try and understand this, I looked at the easiest case: $G'=G$. Then clearly $id_{G(-)}$ defines an isomorphism of functors, but so does $G(\alpha_-) \circ \beta^{-1}_{G(-)}$ as we have seen above. So in this easier setting an embryo of my question would be:

Does the equality of maps $G(\alpha_X) = \beta_{G(X)}$ hold for all $X$ in $\mathcal{D}$?

I think that I might be missing some very easy argument, like seeing a quasi-inverse as a universal object of some kind, but I really cannot see through it.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think you need to see $G$ as a quasi-inverse to say that it is unique up to unique isomorphism. I.e., the unique isomorphism is one that preserves the structure of being a quasi-inverse to $F$. But I haven't worked it out yet. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Mar 14 '18 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ Dear 57Jimmy, could you give a link to Ravi Vakil's draft? $\endgroup$ – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Mar 14 '18 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ @Pierre-YvesGaillard See math.stanford.edu/~vakil/216blog/index.html $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Mar 14 '18 at 15:56
5
$\begingroup$

It's simply not true: the isomorphism is not unique. Indeed, you could have $G=G'$, in which case the claim is that any functor which is an equivalence has no automorphisms besides the identity. This is obviously false. For instance, the identity functor $1:Ab\to Ab$ has multiplication by $-1$ as a nontrivial automorphism. Or if $A$ is any group considered as a one-object category, any element of the center of $A$ gives an automorphism of the identity functor.

You might demand for the isomorphism to be compatible with the natural transformations $\alpha$ and $\beta$, but then it need not even exist. Indeed, such a compatible isomorphism would preserve whether the $\alpha^{-1}$ and $\beta$ are the unit and counit of an adjunction between the two functors. This is true for some choices of $(G,\alpha,\beta)$ but not others. Again, you can get an easy counterexample using groups as one-object categories. Let $A$ be a group and $F=G=G'$ be the identity functor, let $\alpha$, $\alpha'$, and $\beta$ be the identity, but let $\beta'$ be some nontrivial central element of $A$.

The right way to get a unique isomorphism is to only consider adjoint equivalences, that is equivalences $(F,G,\alpha,\beta)$ for which $\alpha^{-1}$ and $\beta$ are the unit and counit of an adjunction. For any quasi-inverse $G$ of $F$, there exists a choice of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ which do form an adjoint equivalence. Then, between any two such choices of $(G,\alpha,\beta)$ there is a unique isomorphism which is compatible with the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ maps. This is just a corollary of the more general statement that the left adjoint of a functor is unique up to unique isomorphism preserving the adjunction, which is an immediate consequence of Yoneda's lemma when you view the adjunction in terms of Hom-sets. (In terms of your attempted argument, the condition $G(\alpha_-) \circ \beta^{-1}_{G(-)}=id_{G(-)}$ which you want is exactly one of the zigzag equations that the unit and counit of an adjunction are required to satisfy.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But are these automorphisms compatible with the extra structure of "being a quasi-inverse to $F$" (the isos $\alpha$ and $\beta$)? $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Mar 14 '18 at 15:35

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.