4
$\begingroup$

So I've been thinking about the definition of categories as just arrows with a defined composition (i.e. without objects). I understand this is silly, but it's fun and I have a question about it: functors are easy to define in this setting; they're just maps that preserve the composition. But how does one discuss natural transformations in this setting, since we don't have objects around to "index" them by? I suppose we could index by identity arrows, but this feels wrong somehow, and I'm sure one of you smart people has a better answer.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

A natural transformation of functors $\mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{D}$ is the same thing as a functor $\mathbb{2} \times \mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{D}$, where $\mathbb{2} = \{ 0 \to 1 \}$. The domain of the natural transformation is the restriction to $\{ 0 \} \times \mathbb{C}$, and the codomain is the restriction to $\{ 1 \} \times \mathbb{D}$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ How does composition of natural transformations work when viewed this way? $\endgroup$
    – Shay
    Aug 1 '14 at 20:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Use the category $\mathbb{3} = \{ 0 \to 1 \to 2 \}$. (Exercise.) $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Aug 1 '14 at 20:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Oh my goodness, why did I never realize that a natural transformation looks like a... for lack of a better term, pre-homotopy? facepalm $\endgroup$ Aug 1 '14 at 20:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I like to think that is because the definition of homotopy is wrong! But unfortunately exponential objects in $\mathbf{Top}$ are a bit complicated to describe (assuming they even exist). $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Aug 1 '14 at 20:31
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ See also mathoverflow.net/questions/64365/… $\endgroup$ Aug 1 '14 at 20:59
2
$\begingroup$

Identity arrows are it. For an identity $x$ and functors $F,G$, the component of a natural transformation $\sigma:F\to G$ at $x$ is going to be a morphism for which $F(x)$ and $G(x)$ are left and right identities, respectively.

Keep in mind in the normal definition of a category, there's a bijection between objects and their identities; indexing with either one gives you essentially the same natural transformation even before we consider tossing out the objects.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ That is correct, but it is just an immediate reformulation (using the equivalence between the two definitions of a category). $\endgroup$ Aug 1 '14 at 21:01
  • $\begingroup$ True enough, and that was how I hoped it would be read. The way that the original poster thinks "feels wrong" works in a perfectly adequate and straightforward way. $\endgroup$ Aug 1 '14 at 21:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (Naturally, Zhen Lin's answer is much more interesting.) $\endgroup$ Aug 1 '14 at 21:31

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.