7
$\begingroup$

I'm trying to understand what a Monoid is from category theory perspective, but I'm a bit confused with notation used to describe it. Here is Wikipedia:

In category theory, a monoid (or monoid object) $(M, \mu, \eta)$ in a monoidal category $(\mathcal{C}, \otimes, I)$ is an object $M$ together with two morphisms

  • $\mu: M \otimes M \to M$ called multiplication,
  • $\eta: I \to M$ called unit, [...]

My confusion is about morphism notation. Why is the binary operation $\otimes$ a part of the morphism notation? My understanding of morphism is that it's a kind of function that can map one type to another (domain to codomain) like $M \to M$... Why is the operation $\otimes$ a part of the domain in the definition?

The second confusion is about $I$. Why $I$ is a domain... there is no $I$ object in a Monoid at all. It's just the neutral element of object $M$.

I understand that a Monoid is a category with one object, identity morphism and binary operation defined on this object, but the notation makes me think that I don't understand something.

Is $M \otimes M$ somehow related to cartesian product, so the domain of the morphism is defined as $M \times M$ ?

$\endgroup$
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ You should focus on understanding what a monoidal category is first, that seems to be your main problem. $\endgroup$ – Captain Lama May 18 at 15:56
11
$\begingroup$

An ordinary monoid is a set $M$ equipped with a map $\mu\colon M\times M\to M$ and an element $e\in M$ such that certain axioms are satisfied.

Now the goal of the definition you quoted (monoid object in a monoidal category) is to generalize the notion of ordinary monoid to the most general categorical context possible.

The first step is to observe that in a general category it doesn't make any sense to talk about an "element" of an object. So let's replace the element $e\in M$ with a map $e\colon 1\to M$, where $1 = \{*\}$ is a set with a single element. The point is that (in the category of sets) specifying a map $1\to M$ is exactly the same as specifying an element of $M$: given an element $e\in M$, we can define a map $1\to M$ by $*\mapsto e$, and given a map $e\colon 1\to M$, we can define an element of $M$ by $e(*)$.

Ok, now we want to generalize away from the category of sets and talk about monoids living in other categories. So let $\mathcal{C}$ be a category. A monoid in $\mathcal{C}$ should be an object $M$ in $\mathcal{C}$ together with maps $\mu$ and $e$ satisfying certain axioms. To make sense of the maps $\mu$ and $e$, we need:

  • A specified way of putting two copies of $M$ together to make the domain of $\mu$, analogous to $M\times M$ in the case of sets. Let's denote this by $M\otimes M$.
  • A special object to be the domain of $e$, analogous to $1$ in the case of sets. Let's denote this by $I$.

The operation $\otimes$ on objects and the special object $I$ are the basic data of a monoidal category.

If $\mathcal{C}$ has finite products, you're welcome to define $\otimes$ to be the product $\times$ and $I$ to be the terminal object $1$. This is called the Cartesian monoidal structure. But the point is that we don't need $M\otimes M$ to be the product and $I$ to be the terminal object in order to make sense of the definition of monoid.

We do need to assume a little bit more about $\otimes$ and $I$ in order to make sense of the monoid axioms. In particular, we need $\otimes$ to be associative (up to isomorphism), $$M\otimes(M\otimes M) \cong (M\otimes M)\otimes M,$$ and we need $I$ to act as an identity for $\otimes$ up to isomorphism, i.e. $$M\cong I\otimes M\cong M\otimes I.$$ Making all of this appropriately functorial and natural leads directly to the full definition of monoidal category.

$\endgroup$

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.