3
$\begingroup$

Suppose we have

$$Hom(x_0, y) \simeq Hom(x_1, y)\ \forall y \in \mathcal{C}$$

Does it follow that $x_0 \simeq x_1$ in $\mathcal{C}$?

Now suppose that $F, G: \mathcal{C} \rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ are two functors such that $Fx \simeq Gx\ \forall x\in \mathcal{C}$. Does it follow that any natural transformation $\epsilon: F \Rightarrow G$ is a natural isomorphism?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your question already has an excellent answer, but it may be worth pointing out that if you require $\operatorname{Hom}(x_0, y) \simeq \operatorname{Hom}(x_1, y)$ to be natural in $y$, then you can conclude that $x_0$ and $x_1$ are isomorphic. $\endgroup$ – Mark Kamsma May 28 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ @MarkKamsma thank you for pointing this out, this is might just be what I am after here... Could you please explain what naturality means in this context? $\endgroup$ – gen May 28 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ Given an arrow $f: y \to y'$ we can consider $\operatorname{Hom}(x_0, f): \operatorname{Hom}(x_0, y) \to \operatorname{Hom}(x_0, y')$ by composing with $f$, and similarly with $x_1$. Then saying that the bijection is natural in $y$ means that for every $f: y \to y'$ the relevant square commutes. This is a bit hard to draw in a comment, but it means that $\operatorname{Hom}(x_0, y) \simeq \operatorname{Hom}(x_1, y) \to \operatorname{Hom}(x_1, y')$ is the same as $\operatorname{Hom}(x_0, y) \to \operatorname{Hom}(x_0, y') \simeq \operatorname{Hom}(x_1, y')$ (draw this yourself). $\endgroup$ – Mark Kamsma May 28 at 15:13
  • $\begingroup$ @gen What Mark said in his first comment is the subject of this question. I should perhaps add for completeness that this is why I said that $F$ and $G$ are not isomorphic if $x_0$ and $x_1$ are not. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. May 28 at 15:45
4
$\begingroup$

The answer is no for both questions.

For the first one, define a category $\mathcal{C}$ with two objects $x_0,x_1$, the set of morphisms $x\to y$ is $\{0,1,\dots\}$ if $x=y$ and $\{1,2,\dots\}$ otherwise, and composition is just addition of natural numbers. Then for all $y$ there is a bijection between $\operatorname{Hom}(x_0,y)$ and $\operatorname{Hom}(x_1,y)$ (since both are infinite and countable), but there is no isomorphism $x_0\to x_1$.

For the second question, take any counterexample to the first one, and take $\mathcal{D}=\mathbf{Set}$ and $F,G$ the functors represented by $x_0$ and $x_1$ respectively. Then there exist morphisms $x_0\to x_1$ and $x_1\to x_0$, and thus natural transformations $G\Rightarrow F$ and $F\Rightarrow G$, but $F$ and $G$ are not isomorphic since $x_0$ and $x_1$ aren't. Note that even if $F$ and $G$ were isomorphic, there could still be natural transformations between them that are not isomorphisms.

You can also find plenty of counterexamples to your second question in this MO thread.

$\endgroup$

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.