Suppose we have an adjoint triple $F \dashv G \dashv H$ with the following (co)units: $$\eta : I \to GF, \ \epsilon \colon FG \to I, \ \bar{\eta} : I \to HG, \ \bar{\epsilon} \colon GH \to I.$$ Consider the diagram

$$\newcommand{\ra}[1]{\kern-1.5ex\xrightarrow{\ \ #1\ \ }\phantom{}\kern-1.5ex} \newcommand{\ras}[1]{\kern-1.5ex\xrightarrow{\ \ \smash{#1}\ \ }\phantom{}\kern-1.5ex} \newcommand{\da}[1]{\bigg\downarrow\raise.5ex\rlap{\scriptstyle#1}} \begin{array}{c} FGH & \ra{F \bar{\epsilon}} & F \\ \da{\epsilon H} & & \da{\bar{\eta} F} \\ H & \ras{H \eta} & HGF \end{array}$$

Question: Is this diagram commutative?

If necessary, we can assume that $G$ is fully faithfull, which implies that $\bar{\eta}$ and $\epsilon$ are isomorphisms.

I belive it might be possible to construct cube-diagram from triagle identities and naturality conditions on (co)units, such that uper base of that cube is our considered diagram, but I haven't been able to do that.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ When $G$ is fully faithful, it is $\epsilon$ and $\bar{\eta}$ that are natural isomorphisms. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jan 10 '14 at 15:46

First, a counterexample when $G$ is not fully faithful: take $G$ to be the diagonal functor $\Delta : \mathbf{Set} \to \mathbf{Set}$; then its left adjoint is disjoint union and its right adjoint is cartesian product, and the two canonical maps $(X \times Y) \amalg (X \times Y) \to (X \amalg Y) \times (X \amalg Y)$ are different in general.

On the other hand, it is true when $G$ is fully faithful. In fact, it is enough to assume that $G \bar{\eta}$ is a natural isomorphism. Then, $(G \bar{\eta})^{-1} = \bar{\epsilon} G$, so $G \bar{\eta} \bullet \bar{\epsilon} G = \mathrm{id}_{G H G}$, and: \begin{align} H \eta \bullet \epsilon H & = \epsilon H G F \bullet F G H \eta \\ & = \epsilon H G F \bullet (F G \bar{\eta} F \bullet F \bar{\epsilon} G F) \bullet F G H \eta \\ & = (\bar{\eta} F \bullet \epsilon F) \bullet (F \eta \bullet F \bar{\epsilon}) \\ & = \bar{\eta} F \bullet F \bar{\epsilon} \end{align}

  • $\begingroup$ The first and third = come from the interchange law, right? $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Jan 10 '14 at 16:57
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, or more simply, by naturality. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jan 10 '14 at 17:35

If $R \to S$ is a ring homomorphism, we have an adjoint triple $$- \otimes_R S \dashv U \dashv \hom_R(U(S),-),$$ where $U : \mathsf{Mod}(S) \to \mathsf{Mod}(R)$ is the forgetful functor. Your diagram evaluated at some $M \in \mathsf{Mod}(R)$ looks as follows (I will omit $U$ from the notation): $$\begin{array}{cc} \hom_R(S,M) \otimes_R S & \rightarrow & M \otimes_R S \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ \hom_R(S,M) & \rightarrow & \hom_R(S,M \otimes_R S)\end{array}$$ It maps $f \otimes s$ to $f(1) \otimes s \in M \otimes_R S$, which is mapped to $t \mapsto f(1) \otimes s t$ in $\hom_R(S,M \otimes_R S)$. In the other direction, it maps $f \otimes s$ to $t \mapsto f(st)$ in $\hom_R(S,M)$, which is then mapped to $t \mapsto f(st) \otimes 1$ in $\hom_R(S,M \otimes_R S)$. From this we see that the diagram isn't commutative in general.

Moreover, it is commutative for all $M$ iff $s \otimes 1 = 1 \otimes s$ for all $s \in S$, which is equivalent to $R \to S$ being an epimorphism, which is equivalent to the fully faithfulness of $U$. After seeing Zhen Lin's answer, this is no surprise.


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.