1
$\begingroup$

Here is how the definition of adjoint functor reads on page 41 of Leinster's "Basic Category Theory":

enter image description here

I understood this part thanks to Definition of Adjunction in Category Theory. It clarifies that the adjunction is a natural isomorphism between certain functors. However, as Remark 2.1.2 on the book seem to suggest, Leinster is postponing this interpretation to Chapter 4 and transcribing the definition of natural isomorphism for these functors:

enter image description here

Why is he doing so?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Probably he planned to introduce natural transformations only in chapter 4, for some reason.. $\endgroup$
    – Berci
    Commented Jul 24, 2019 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Berci but natural transformations are introduced in chapter 1... $\endgroup$
    – user1868607
    Commented Jul 24, 2019 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ Ahh, indeed? Then I see no reason.. $\endgroup$
    – Berci
    Commented Jul 24, 2019 at 17:14

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Actually the isomorphisms are a little bit more than natural transformations. Suppose the isomorphisms are denoted by $\eta_{A,B}:\mathscr{B}(F(A),B)\to\mathscr{A}(A,G(B))$, then for fixed $A\in\mathscr{A}$, $\eta_{A,-}$ is a transformation $\mathscr{B}(F(A),-)\Rightarrow\mathscr{A}(A,G(-))$, and similarly for fixed $B\in\mathscr{B}$, $\eta_{-,B}$ is a transformation $\mathscr{B}(F(-),B)\Rightarrow\mathscr{A}(-,G(B))$. The "wired" statements are just saying these.

These conditions make $\eta_{-,-}$ a natural transformation between bifunctors.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .