6
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be an additive category. Namely

  1. $A$ has a zero object,
  2. $A$ has finite products and coproducts, and
  3. Every Hom-set is an Abelian group such that composition of morphisms is bilinear.

Question: Is the zero morphism always the additive unit?

Since $A$ has a zero object, say $0$, for any two objects $c$ and $d$, there uniquely exists a morphism $c \to d$ called the zero morphism which can be decomposed as $c \to 0 \to d$.

For typical examples (e.g. (Ab), ($R$-Mod), (Chain complexes in $R$-Mod)), the zero map gives the additive unit of each Hom-set. But the axioms of additive categories do not seem to say that the zero maps give the additive units of Hom-sets.

Is it possible to show that the zero morphism is the additive unit of each Hom-set? Or are there any additive categories such that the zero morphism is not the additive unit of some Hom-set? How about abelian categories?

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

There is only one map $g : 0 \to d$. Therefore there is only one possibility for $g + g$. Thus,

$$gf + gf = (g+g)f = gf $$

for any map $f$ composable with $g$.

Strictly speaking, composition should be defined as abelian group homomorphisms $\hom(B,C) \otimes \hom(A,B) \to \hom(A,C)$ (with additional properties), so the image of $\hom(0,d) \otimes \hom(c,0) \to \hom(c,d)$ is automatically the zero map.

But as in group theory, some of the requirements of being a homomorphism follow automatically from others, and one often sees this 'simplified' definition instead.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ As you mentioned that the map of of composition should also should be a group homomorphism. But in the definition of pre-additive category one does not assume that the composition map is homomorphism of abelian groups. $\endgroup$ – Babai May 16 '16 at 21:47

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.