Let $R$ be a ring, and $M$ an $R$-module. The tensor product $(M \otimes_R -)$ is a covariant functor from $R$-Mod to Ab (abelian groups).

Suppose that $F$ is a functor from $R$-Mod to Ab, which given an R-module $N$, associates a map $\phi_F^N$ along with $F(N)$, such that for all $N$, the pair $(F(N),\phi_F^N)$ also satisfies the universal property of the tensor product.

This means that $F(N)$ and $(M \otimes_R N)$ are isomorphic by a unique isomorphism.

What I’m wondering is if these isomorphisms are necessarily natural in $N$ (are the functors $(M \otimes_R -)$ and $F$ naturally isomorphic)?

I would guess not, and if so, is there a alternative category or alternative universal property that I can use and show if $F$ satisfies it, then I can conclude that these 2 functors are naturally isomorphic? Maybe a category of pairs $(A, \phi)$ of abelian groups and maps $\phi$ and some universal property in this category?

Please let me know if anything is not clear, and I am fairly new to all this so sorry if this is obvious!

Thanks in advance :)


This is not literally true as stated. For instance, suppose $F(N)=M\otimes N$ and $\phi^N_F:M\times N\to F(N)=M\otimes N$ is the usual balanced map for all $N$ except for one particular module $N_0$, and for $N_0$ it is instead the negative of the usual balanced map (which will still satisfy the same universal property). Then the isomorphism $M\otimes N\to F(N)$ obtained from $\phi^N_F$ will be the identity map for all $N$ except $N_0$, but for $N_0$ it will be the negative of the identity map. Assuming $M\otimes N_0$ is not $2$-torsion (so the negative identity is different from the identity), then these isomorphisms will not form a natural transformation (in particular, if $N_1$ is any module that is isomorphic but not equal to $N_0$, then the isomorphisms will not be natural with respect to any isomorphism $N_1\to N_0$).

In that particular example, $F$ happens to be naturally isomorphic to $M\otimes -$, just not via the isomorphisms given by $\phi^N_F$. I suspect you can also find an example where $F$ is not even naturally isomorphic to $M\otimes -$ at all, but I don't know such an example off the top of my head. For an almost-example, if you consider the functor $\mathbb{Z}/(2)\otimes -$ on the category of finite $\mathbb{Z}$-modules (rather than all $\mathbb{Z}$-modules), then it is objectwise isomorphic to the functor $F(N)=\operatorname{Tor}(\mathbb{Z}/(2),N)$, but not naturally isomorphic.

However, it is true if you make the additional assumption that the maps $\phi_F^N$ are natural in $N$ (that is, they form a natural transformation between the functors $M\times -$ and $U\circ F$ from $R\mathtt{-Mod}$ to $\mathtt{Set}$ where $U$ is the forgetful functor from $\mathtt{Ab}$ to $\mathtt{Set}$). You can find a high-level explanation for this in user54748's answer; here's a more hands-on verification. Let $\alpha_N:M\otimes N\to F(N)$ be the isomorphism induced by $\phi^F_N$, and suppose $f:N\to N'$ is a homomorphism. We wish to show that $$F(f)\circ\alpha_N=\alpha_{N'}\circ (M\otimes f).$$ To prove these homomorphisms $M\otimes N\to F(N')$ are equal, we can show they are equal on elements of the form $m\otimes n$. Note that by definition, $\alpha_N(m\otimes n)=\phi^N_F(m,n)$ for all $m\in M$ and $n\in N$. So, $$(F(f)\circ\alpha_N)(m\otimes n)=F(f)(\phi^N_F(m,n))$$ and $$\alpha_{N'}\circ (M\otimes f)(m\otimes n)=\phi^{N'}_F(m,f(n)).$$ But $$F(f)(\phi^N_F(m,n))=\phi^{N'}_F(m,f(n))$$ is exactly what it means for $\phi_F$ to be natural with respect to $f$, and so they are indeed equal.

| cite | improve this answer | |

This answer (as pointed out by Eric Wofsey in the comments) only works if we assume that $φ$ is natural in $N$, ie. that $φ ∘ (\mathrm{id} × f) = Ff ∘ φ$ for every $f : N → N'$. In that case the action of $F$ on morphisms coincides with what you get by the construction described below.

Yes, this is an important technical fact in category theory. Given a functor $G : \mathscr D → \mathscr C$, if there is "locally" an object $FC ∈ \mathscr D$ and a universal morphism $η_C : C → GFC$ (ie. for every $f : C → GD$ there exists a unique $g : FC → D$ such that $Gg ∘ η = f$) for every $C ∈ \mathscr C$, then $F$ can be pieced together into a functor defined uniquely up to a unique isomorphism, and $F$ is left adjoint to $G$.

To see how this applies in your case, notice first that the universal bilinear map $φ_N : M × N → FN$ can be replaced by the universal linear map $ψ_N : N → \mathrm{Hom}_R(M, FN)$, $ψn := φ(-, n)$, so that we can take $\mathscr C = \mathrm{Mod}_R$, $\mathscr D = \mathrm{Mod}_R$, and $G = \mathrm{Hom}_R(M, -)$.

Here's the quick proof overview of the fact in the first paragraph. First choose a universal morphism $η_C : C → GFC$ for every $C$. Now, for every $f : C → C'$ in $\mathscr C$ there is a unique morphism $g : FC → FC'$ such that $Ug ∘ η = η ∘ f$, and we can set $g = Ff$. Uniqueness will guarantee that $F$ constructed in this way is a functor, and $η : \mathrm{Id} ⇒ GF$ a natural transformation. Now given another choice $η'_C : C → GF'C$ of universal morphisms there will be a unique isomorphism $α_C : FC → FC'$ such that $αη = η'$, and this lets you prove that $α$ is natural. (Notice that $α∘Ff∘η = F'f∘α∘η$ = $η'$, so we have to have $α ∘ Ff = F'F∘α$ too.)

Technically, since you're already assuming your $F$ is a functor, you only need the last part of the proof, but the more general perspective is useful.

Edit: The answer assumes that $F$ is a functor $\mathrm{Mod}_R → \mathrm{Mod}_R$, since that's what you need to express the usual universal property of tensor product over a commutative $R$ (that $R$-bilinear maps $M × N → P$ correspond to $R$-linear maps $M ⊗_R N → P$), if you really want to consider $M ⊗_R N$ in $\mathrm{Ab}$, then you get a different universal property (that $R$-balanced maps $M × N → A$ correspond to additive maps $M ⊗_R N → A$), but it is again unique by the same argument (you can take $\mathrm{Hom}(M, -)$ for $G : \mathrm{Ab} → \mathrm{Mod}_R$, because $\mathrm{Hom}(M, A)$ has a canonical $R$-module structure).

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ How does this apply to the question, though? What if the functor $F$ in the question happens to agree with your canonically constructed functor on objects, but does something totally different on morphisms? $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Aug 8 '19 at 2:45
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For a really simple example, consider a group $G$ with an outer automorphism $F$, and consider $G$ as a 1-object category. We can consider $F$ as a functor from this category to itself, and it is objectwise isomorphic to the identity (so for each object $N$, $F(N)$ has the same universal property as $Id(N)$). But $F$ is not naturally isomorphic to the identity. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Aug 8 '19 at 2:47
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey: thank you, I've edited the (non)answer, and I can delete it if it would be more appropriate. I overlooked that the action of $F$ on morphisms doesn't have to "respect" $φ$. $\endgroup$ – user54748 Aug 8 '19 at 3:35
  • $\begingroup$ I mean, I suspect what you wrote is what OP is looking for--they seem to be mainly looking for the correct conditions they need to get a natural isomorphism, rather than wanting the literal answer to their initial question. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Aug 8 '19 at 3:38

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.