4
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal{D} \underset{G}{\overset{F}{\leftrightarrows}}\mathcal{C}$ with $F\dashv G$ and $G$ fully faithful. I want to show that this implies that the counit is an isomorphism. I was trying to do this in a similar way as in this answer to a similar question. I ran into some issues. This is what I tried:

$$\mathcal{D}(A,B)\cong \mathcal{C}(GA,GB)\cong\mathcal{D}(FGA,B)$$

(First natural iso from fully faithfulness of $G$ and second natural iso from adjunction). Now by a corollary of the Yoneda Lemma there is a natural isomorphism $i:A\overset{\cong}{\rightarrow}FGA$. I would like to show that this is precisely the component $\epsilon_A$ of the counit of the adjunction. A way to do it would be to find $\eta$ such that $\eta,i$ respect the triangle inequalities. It seems that a good candidate for $\eta_X$ would be the image of the identity under the natural isomorphism $\mathcal{D}(FX,FX)\rightarrow \mathcal{C}(X,GFX)$.

But I failed to check that the triangle identities hold, and I'm afraid I chose the unit or the counit wrongly.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The easiest way to show what you want would be to explicitly describe the natural isomorphism $\mathcal{D}(FA,Y)\cong\mathcal C(A,GY)$ in terms of units and counits. Similarly for the Yoneda lemma. Then the result is immediate. $\endgroup$ – Derek Elkins left SE Apr 7 '18 at 9:30
4
$\begingroup$

Expanding a little bit on Derek Elkins' comment above.$\newcommand{\D}{\mathcal D}$ $\newcommand{\C}{\mathcal C}$

Assume that $$\varphi \colon \D(F(X),A) \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}\C(X,G(A))$$ is the natural isomorphism of the adjunction.

The natural isomorphism you described, namely $$\D(A,B) \stackrel{G}{\longrightarrow}\C(G(A),G(B)) \stackrel{\varphi^{-1}}{\longrightarrow} D(F(G(A)),B)$$ associates to each $f \colon A \to B$ the morphism $\epsilon_B\circ F(G(f)) \colon F(G(A)) \to B$ (this comes from the fact that $\varphi^{-1}(g)= \epsilon \circ F(g)$).

Using naturality of $\epsilon$ it follows that $$\epsilon_B \circ F(G(f))=f\circ\epsilon_A$$ that means the natural isomorphism is given by precomposition $\epsilon_A$, that is it is represented by $\epsilon_A$ via the Yoneda embedding.

Since embeddings reflect isomorphism, and since the Yoneda embedding is an embedding, it follows that $\epsilon_A$ must be an isomorphism.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ i haven't studied representables yet, but i did study the Yoneda embedding. It seems to me that the natural isomorphism is $y_{\epsilon_A}(-)(id_{FGA})$, not simply $y_{\epsilon_A}$ (because $f\circ\epsilon_A = \mathcal{D}(f,\epsilon_A)(id_{FGA})=y_{\epsilon_A}(f)(id_{FGA})$), so it is not immediate to use that $y$ reflects isomorphisms (?).. $\endgroup$ – Soap Apr 8 '18 at 10:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Soap by $y_{\epsilon_A}$ do you mean the natural transformation $\mathcal D(\epsilon_A,-) \colon \mathcal D(A,-) \to \mathcal D(F(G(A)),-)$? In that case I do not understand the extra argument. $\endgroup$ – Giorgio Mossa Apr 8 '18 at 13:47
  • $\begingroup$ Oh yes, I was confused. Now it is clear, thank you. $\endgroup$ – Soap Apr 8 '18 at 14:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Soap no problem, you're welcome ;-) $\endgroup$ – Giorgio Mossa Apr 8 '18 at 14:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Brofessor it follows by a simple Yoneda-like argument: it follows from the fact that $g=1_Y\circ g=\mathcal C[g,G(Y)](1_Y)$ and from the naturality of $\varphi^{-1}$ (here $Y \in \mathcal C$ and $g \in \mathcal C[X,Y]$). $\endgroup$ – Giorgio Mossa Oct 24 '20 at 19:25

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.