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?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Probably he planned to introduce natural transformations only in chapter 4, for some reason.. $\endgroup$ – Berci Jul 24 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Berci but natural transformations are introduced in chapter 1... $\endgroup$ – Rodrigo Jul 24 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ Ahh, indeed? Then I see no reason.. $\endgroup$ – Berci Jul 24 at 17:14
0
$\begingroup$

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.

$\endgroup$

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.