On the Wikipedia page Hom functor it is pointed out that the two hom functors are `related in a natural manner'. That is, the square

$$ \require{AMScd} \begin{CD} Hom(A, B) @>{Hom(A, g)}>> Hom(A, B') \\ @V{Hom(f, B)}VV @VV{Hom(f, B')}V \\ Hom(A', B) @>>Hom(A', g)> Hom(A', B') \end{CD} $$

commutes for all morphisms $f : A' \rightarrow A$ and $g : B \rightarrow B'$.

Does this also hold for the internal hom of a closed symmetric monoidal category? I think it should, and I've been trying to show it using the adjunction $$ Hom(A \otimes B, C) \cong Hom(A, C^B) $$ that is natural in all three variables. Note that with $-^B$ and $C^-$, I denote the co- and contravariant internal hom functors, respectively.

So far my attempts have been unsuccesful. Can anyone point me in the right direction?


If I understand correctly, what you want to know is whether the square $$\begin{CD}B^{A}@>{g^{A}}>> B'^{A} \\@V{B^f}VV @VV{B'^f}V \\ B^{A'} @>>{g^{A'}}> B'^{A'} \end{CD}$$ commutes in $\mathcal{C}$ for all $f:A'\to A$ and $g:B\to B'$. To prove this, it is enough, by the Yoneda lemma, to prove that both sides induce the same natural transformation between the associated presheaves; in other words, it is enough to prove that the following commutative square of sets is commutative for all $C$ $$\begin{CD}Hom(C,B^{A})@>{Hom(C,g^{A})}>> Hom(C,B'^{A}) \\@V{Hom(C,B^f)}VV @VV{Hom(C,B'^f)}V \\ Hom(C,B^{A'}) @>>{Hom(C,g^{A'})}> Hom(C,B'^{A'}). \end{CD}$$ But since the isomorphism $Hom(C \otimes A, B) \cong Hom(C, B^A)$ is natural in $A$ and $B$, this square is isomorphic to the square $$\begin{CD}Hom(C\otimes A,B)@>{Hom(C\otimes A,g)}>> Hom(C\otimes A,B') \\@V{Hom(C\otimes f,B)}VV @VV{Hom(C\otimes f,B')}V \\ Hom(C\otimes A',B) @>>{Hom(C\otimes A',g)}> Hom(C\otimes A',B'), \end{CD}$$ and this one commutes since it is a particular case of your first one.

  • $\begingroup$ Just to be sure: you mean: 'But since the isomorphism $Hom(A \otimes B, C) \cong Hom(A, C^B)$ isomorphic in $B$ and $C$', right? $\endgroup$ – Arnoud Nijon Apr 9 '18 at 16:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ArnoudNijon Yes for the isomorphism and no for the diagram below... I initially wanted to write the tensor-exponential ajunction as you did, but it was a bit awkward to switch the variables, so now I've changed it so that at least my answer is coherent. Thanks for pointing out the issue, I hope I haven't complicated this too much! $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Apr 9 '18 at 17:35

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.