DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:1805.07670V2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:1805.07670V2 Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) Incidence hypergraphs: The categorical inconsistency of set-systems and a characterization of quiver exponentials Will Grilliette · Lucas J. Rusnak Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract This paper considers the difficulty in the set-system approach to generalizing graph the- ory. These difficulties arise categorically as the category of set-system hypergraphs is shown not to be cartesian closed and lacks enough projective objects, unlike the category of directed multigraphs (i.e. quivers). The category of incidence hypergraphs is introduced as a “graph-like” remedy for the set-system issues so that hypergraphs may be studied by their locally graphic behavior via homo- morphisms that allow an edge of the domain to be mapped into a subset of an edge in the codomain. Moreover, it is shown that the category of quivers embeds into the category of incidence hypergraphs via a logical functor that is the inverse image of an essential geometric morphism between the topoi. Consequently, the quiver exponential is shown to be simply represented using incidence hypergraph homomorphisms. Keywords Incidence hypergraph · Quiver · Set system · Exponential · Essential geometric functor Mathematics Subject Classification (2010) 05C65 · 05C76 · 68R10 · 18A40 · 18B25 Contents 1 Introduction&Background . .................. 1 1.1 CommaCategoryFramework . ............... 3 2 ClassicalCategoriesofGraphs . .................... 4 2.1 Category of Quivers Q ............................................. 4 2.2 Category of Set-System Hypergraphs H ................................... 6 2.3 Category of Multigraphs M .......................................... 12 arXiv:1805.07670v2 [math.CO] 3 May 2019 3 Category of Incidence Hypergraphs . ..................... 17 3.1 Functor Category Representation . .................... 17 3.2 CommaCategoryRepresentation . .................. 18 3.3 Functorial Relationship to H .......................................... 19 3.4 Functorial Relationship to Q ......................................... 21 4 Conclusion ........................................ .............. 28 1 Introduction & Background We examine the combinatorial and categorical differences of three well studied categories of graph- like objects and discuss the deficiencies in the set-system approach to hypergraph theory, before a Texas State University E-mail: {w g28, Lucas.Rusnak}@txstate.edu 2 Will Grilliette, Lucas J. Rusnak fourth category is introduced as a natural hypergraphic generalization of graph theory. The cate- gories studied are: (1) the category of quivers Q (directed graphs), (2) the category of set-system hypergraphs H, (3) the category of multigraphs M, and (4) the category of incidence hypergraphs R. The categories Q, M, and H are well studied in theoretical computer science [14], [15], [16] and cat- egorical graph theory [4], [5], [9], [12], [13], [27]. However, the difficulties of the set-system approach to hypergraphs are resolved by R, and many graph theoretic results have already been generalized to hypergraphs via “oriented hypergraphs” in [6], [7], [23], [24], [25], [26], [29]. The nature of quiver and graph exponentials is of particular importance regarding Hedetniemi’s conjecture, where in [11] it was shown that the multiplicativity of K is equivalent to either G or KG is K-colorable, for every graph G. The main results provide structure theorems which illustrate; (1) that the difficulty in the set-system hypergraphic approach to generalizations of graph theory are categorical in nature; (2) the idiosyncrasies of set-systems are remedied in the category of incidence structures; (3) incidence structures are a faithful generalization of quivers via a logical functor; and (4) a characterization of the edges of quiver exponentials as morphisms under the logical inclusion into the category of incidence structures. Moreover, the classical concepts of the incidence matrix and the bipartite representation graph are shown to be related to the adjoints arising via Kan extensions of the natural logical functor between two functor categories. Section 2 recalls the representation of Q as both a presheaf topos as well as a comma category before extending the work from [9] which examines a multi-edge generalization of the canonical set-system hypergraph from [1]. The categories H and M are shown nearly to be topoi, sharing numerous properties with Q, but both H and M fail to be cartesian closed. Moreover, H does not have enough projective objects. Section 3 introduces the category of incidence structures R, which is a presheaf topos whose comma category representation is naturally related to Q. The Kan extensions of the natural functors from Q and R have intrinsic combinatorial meaning producing: complete digraphs, bouquets of loops, disjoint generators, bipartite representations, and incidence matrices. Comparing H and R, it is shown that the “natural” functor from H to R that simply inserts the implied incidence between the vertex and edge is shown to be neither continuous or cocontinuous. Moreover, the incidence- forgetful operation in the reverse direction is not even functorial. Thus, the set-system approach to hypergraph theory does not categorically extend to R in any meaningful way, and a more natural generalization of “hypergraph theory” is to pass from Q to R. Finally, a natural Q to R functor is shown to be a faithful logical functor that is part of an essential, atomic, geometric morphism. The left adjoint of the logical functor is the bipartite equivalent digraph, while the right adjoint provides a characterization of quiver exponentials as incidence morphisms. Specifically, we develop or discuss each of the functors in the diagram in Figure 1 below. Arrows with two barbs represent a functor that has both a left and right adjoints, arrows with a left (resp. right) barb are a left (resp. right) adjoints, dotted arrows have neither, while a wavy arrow is non- functorial. Incidence hypergraphs and a characterization of quiver exponentials 3 1 Set p Eˇ⋆ O E Eˇ E⋆ ⋄ Eˇ −→ −→ −→ E ⋄ E E ⋆ −→ I⋆ Υ ⋆ D Del v6 u5 s3 r2 F l, k+ i) h( Ö Ö ! x8 f& Set o I & R o Υ & Q x M x H y R 8 M X 8 E Y 8 =8 H 8 I⋄ Υ ⋄ U N I −→ −→ −→ V ⋆ V V ⋄ Vˇ ⋄ V ⋆ Vˇ V Vˇ ⋆ - Set n V ⋄ Fig. 1 Functorial diagram for Q, M, H, & R Particular attention is paid to the asymmetry of the edge functor of H, the similarities between Q and R, and the unresolvable comparison between H and R. 1.1 Comma Category Framework This subsection provides general conditions for when the canonical projections of a comma category admit adjoint functors. Specifically, the following construction will be used to show that the vertex functor for set-system hypergraphs will admit both a left and a right adjoint, as seen in Figure 1. F G Definition 1.11 (Adjoints to P and Q) Let A / Co B be functors. 1. If B has a terminal object 1B and G is continuous, then 1C := G (1B) is a terminal object in C. For C ∈ Ob(C), let 1C,C ∈ C (C, 1C) be the unique morphism in C from C to 1C. Define ⋆ P (A) := A, 1F (A),C, 1B for A ∈ Ob(A). ⋆ ⋆ 2. If F has a right adjoint functor F , let θC ∈ C (F F (C), C) be the counit morphism for C ∈ ⋆ ⋆ Ob(C). Define Q (B) := F G(B),θG(B),B for B ∈ Ob(B). ⋄ ⋄ 3. If G has a left adjoint functor G , let ηC ∈ C (C, GG (C)) be the unit morphism for C ∈ Ob(C). ⋄ ⋄ Define P (A) := A, ηF (A), G F (A) for A ∈ Ob(A). 4. If A has an initial object 0A and F is cocontinuous, then 0C := F (0A) is an initial object in C. For C ∈ Ob(C), let 0C,C ∈ C (0C, C) be the unique morphism in C from 0C to C. Define ⋄ Q (B) := 0A, 0G(B),C,B for B ∈ Ob(B). F G Proposition 1.12 (Adjoint characterizations for P and Q) Let A / Co B be func- tors. φ 1. Assume that B has a terminal object and that G is continuous. If P (A′,f ′,B′) / A ∈ A, φˆ there is a unique homomorphism (A′,f ′,B′) / P ⋆(A) ∈ (F ↓ G) such that P φˆ = φ. ϕ 2. Assume that F has a right adjoint functor. If Q(A′,f ′,B′) / B ∈ B, there is a unique ϕˆ homomorphism (A′,f ′,B′) / Q⋆(B) ∈ (F ↓ G) such that Q (ˆϕ)= ϕ. ψ 3. Assume that G has a left adjoint functor. If A / P (A′,f ′,B′) ∈ A, there is a unique homo- ψˆ morphism P ⋄(A) / (A′,f ′,B′) ∈ (F ↓ G) such that P ψˆ = ψ. 4 Will Grilliette, Lucas J. Rusnak χ 4. Assume that A has an initial object and that F is cocontinuous. If B / Q(A′,f ′,B′) ∈ B, χˆ there is a unique homomorphism Q⋄(B) / (A′,f ′,B′) ∈ (F ↓ G) such that Q (ˆχ)= χ. ′ Proof 1. Let φˆ := (φ, 1B′,B), where 1B′,B is the unique map from B to 1B. ⋆ ′ ζ ⋆ 2. By the universal property of F , there is a unique A / F G(B) ∈ A such that θG(B)◦F (ζ)= G(ϕ) ◦ f ′. Letϕ ˆ := (ζ, ϕ). The proof of part (3) (resp. part (4)) is dual to part (2) (resp. part (1)). ⊓⊔ 2 Classical Categories of Graphs 2.1 Category of Quivers Q 2.1.1 Functor Category Representation Let E be the finite category drawn below. s ( 1 6 0 t −→ −→ V E Defining Q := SetE, let Set o Q / Set be the evaluation functors at 0 and 1, re- −→ −→ spectively. An object Q of Q consists of two sets, V (Q) and E (Q), and a pair of functions −→ −→ σQ, τQ : E (Q) → V (Q). This object is precisely a “directed graph,” “oriented graph,” or “quiver” as described in [5], [18], [22], [28]. Constructed as a functor category into Set, a category of presheaves, Q inherits a deep and rich internal structure from its parent category: completeness and cocom- pleteness [3, Corollary I.2.15.4], a subobject classifier [19, Lemma A1.6.6], exponential objects [19, Proposition A1.5.5], a finite set of projective generators [3, Example I.4.5.17.b], injective partial morphism representers [19, Proposition A2.4.7], regularity [3, Corollary III.5.9.2], to name a few.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1. Directed Graphs Or Quivers What Is Category Theory? • Graph Theory on Steroids • Comic Book Mathematics • Abstract Nonsense • the Secret Dictionary
    1. Directed graphs or quivers What is category theory? • Graph theory on steroids • Comic book mathematics • Abstract nonsense • The secret dictionary Sets and classes: For S = fX j X2 = Xg, have S 2 S , S2 = S Directed graph or quiver: C = (C0;C1;@0 : C1 ! C0;@1 : C1 ! C0) Class C0 of objects, vertices, points, . Class C1 of morphisms, (directed) edges, arrows, . For x; y 2 C0, write C(x; y) := ff 2 C1 j @0f = x; @1f = yg f 2C1 tail, domain / @0f / @1f o head, codomain op Opposite or dual graph of C = (C0;C1;@0;@1) is C = (C0;C1;@1;@0) Graph homomorphism F : D ! C has object part F0 : D0 ! C0 and morphism part F1 : D1 ! C1 with @i ◦ F1(f) = F0 ◦ @i(f) for i = 0; 1. Graph isomorphism has bijective object and morphism parts. Poset (X; ≤): set X with reflexive, antisymmetric, transitive order ≤ Hasse diagram of poset (X; ≤): x ! y if y covers x, i.e., x 6= y and [x; y] = fx; yg, so x ≤ z ≤ y ) z = x or z = y. Hasse diagram of (N; ≤) is 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / ::: Hasse diagram of (f1; 2; 3; 6g; j ) is 3 / 6 O O 1 / 2 1 2 2. Categories Category: Quiver C = (C0;C1;@0 : C1 ! C0;@1 : C1 ! C0) with: • composition: 8 x; y; z 2 C0 ; C(x; y) × C(y; z) ! C(x; z); (f; g) 7! g ◦ f • satisfying associativity: 8 x; y; z; t 2 C0 ; 8 (f; g; h) 2 C(x; y) × C(y; z) × C(z; t) ; h ◦ (g ◦ f) = (h ◦ g) ◦ f y iS qq <SSSS g qq << SSS f qqq h◦g < SSSS qq << SSS qq g◦f < SSS xqq << SS z Vo VV < x VVVV << VVVV < VVVV << h VVVV < h◦(g◦f)=(h◦g)◦f VVVV < VVV+ t • identities: 8 x; y; z 2 C0 ; 9 1y 2 C(y; y) : 8 f 2 C(x; y) ; 1y ◦ f = f and 8 g 2 C(y; z) ; g ◦ 1y = g f y o x MM MM 1y g MM MMM f MMM M& zo g y Example: N0 = fxg ; N1 = N ; 1x = 0 ; 8 m; n 2 N ; n◦m = m+n ; | one object, lots of arrows [monoid of natural numbers under addition] 4 x / x Equation: 3 + 5 = 4 + 4 Commuting diagram: 3 4 x / x 5 ( 1 if m ≤ n; Example: N1 = N ; 8 m; n 2 N ; jN(m; n)j = 0 otherwise | lots of objects, lots of arrows [poset (N; ≤) as a category] These two examples are small categories: have a set of morphisms.
    [Show full text]
  • An Exercise on Source and Sink Mutations of Acyclic Quivers∗
    An exercise on source and sink mutations of acyclic quivers∗ Darij Grinberg November 27, 2018 In this note, we will use the following notations (which come from Lampe’s notes [Lampe, §2.1.1]): • A quiver means a tuple Q = (Q0, Q1, s, t), where Q0 and Q1 are two finite sets and where s and t are two maps from Q1 to Q0. We call the elements of Q0 the vertices of the quiver Q, and we call the elements of Q1 the arrows of the quiver Q. For every e 2 Q1, we call s (e) the starting point of e (and we say that e starts at s (e)), and we call t (e) the terminal point of e (and we say that e ends at t (e)). Furthermore, if e 2 Q1, then we say that e is an arrow from s (e) to t (e). So the notion of a quiver is one of many different versions of the notion of a finite directed graph. (Notice that it is a version which allows multiple arrows, and which distinguishes between them – i.e., the quiver stores not just the information of how many arrows there are from a vertex to another, but it actually has them all as distinguishable objects in Q1. Lampe himself seems to later tacitly switch to a different notion of quivers, where edges from a given to vertex to another are indistinguishable and only exist as a number. This does not matter for the next exercise, which works just as well with either notion of a quiver; but I just wanted to have it mentioned.) • The underlying undirected graph of a quiver Q = (Q0, Q1, s, t) is defined as the undirected multigraph with vertex set Q0 and edge multiset ffs (e) , t (e)g j e 2 Q1gmultiset .
    [Show full text]
  • Notes and Solutions to Exercises for Mac Lane's Categories for The
    Stefan Dawydiak Version 0.3 July 2, 2020 Notes and Exercises from Categories for the Working Mathematician Contents 0 Preface 2 1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations 2 1.1 Functors . .2 1.2 Natural Transformations . .4 1.3 Monics, Epis, and Zeros . .5 2 Constructions on Categories 6 2.1 Products of Categories . .6 2.2 Functor categories . .6 2.2.1 The Interchange Law . .8 2.3 The Category of All Categories . .8 2.4 Comma Categories . 11 2.5 Graphs and Free Categories . 12 2.6 Quotient Categories . 13 3 Universals and Limits 13 3.1 Universal Arrows . 13 3.2 The Yoneda Lemma . 14 3.2.1 Proof of the Yoneda Lemma . 14 3.3 Coproducts and Colimits . 16 3.4 Products and Limits . 18 3.4.1 The p-adic integers . 20 3.5 Categories with Finite Products . 21 3.6 Groups in Categories . 22 4 Adjoints 23 4.1 Adjunctions . 23 4.2 Examples of Adjoints . 24 4.3 Reflective Subcategories . 28 4.4 Equivalence of Categories . 30 4.5 Adjoints for Preorders . 32 4.5.1 Examples of Galois Connections . 32 4.6 Cartesian Closed Categories . 33 5 Limits 33 5.1 Creation of Limits . 33 5.2 Limits by Products and Equalizers . 34 5.3 Preservation of Limits . 35 5.4 Adjoints on Limits . 35 5.5 Freyd's adjoint functor theorem . 36 1 6 Chapter 6 38 7 Chapter 7 38 8 Abelian Categories 38 8.1 Additive Categories . 38 8.2 Abelian Categories . 38 8.3 Diagram Lemmas . 39 9 Special Limits 41 9.1 Interchange of Limits .
    [Show full text]
  • Coreflective Subcategories
    transactions of the american mathematical society Volume 157, June 1971 COREFLECTIVE SUBCATEGORIES BY HORST HERRLICH AND GEORGE E. STRECKER Abstract. General morphism factorization criteria are used to investigate categorical reflections and coreflections, and in particular epi-reflections and mono- coreflections. It is shown that for most categories with "reasonable" smallness and completeness conditions, each coreflection can be "split" into the composition of two mono-coreflections and that under these conditions mono-coreflective subcategories can be characterized as those which are closed under the formation of coproducts and extremal quotient objects. The relationship of reflectivity to closure under limits is investigated as well as coreflections in categories which have "enough" constant morphisms. 1. Introduction. The concept of reflections in categories (and likewise the dual notion—coreflections) serves the purpose of unifying various fundamental con- structions in mathematics, via "universal" properties that each possesses. His- torically, the concept seems to have its roots in the fundamental construction of E. Cech [4] whereby (using the fact that the class of compact spaces is productive and closed-hereditary) each completely regular F2 space is densely embedded in a compact F2 space with a universal extension property. In [3, Appendice III; Sur les applications universelles] Bourbaki has shown the essential underlying similarity that the Cech-Stone compactification has with other mathematical extensions, such as the completion of uniform spaces and the embedding of integral domains in their fields of fractions. In doing so, he essentially defined the notion of reflections in categories. It was not until 1964, when Freyd [5] published the first book dealing exclusively with the theory of categories, that sufficient categorical machinery and insight were developed to allow for a very simple formulation of the concept of reflections and for a basic investigation of reflections as entities themselvesi1).
    [Show full text]
  • Higher-Dimensional Instantons on Cones Over Sasaki-Einstein Spaces and Coulomb Branches for 3-Dimensional N = 4 Gauge Theories
    Two aspects of gauge theories higher-dimensional instantons on cones over Sasaki-Einstein spaces and Coulomb branches for 3-dimensional N = 4 gauge theories Von der Fakultät für Mathematik und Physik der Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover zur Erlangung des Grades Doktor der Naturwissenschaften – Dr. rer. nat. – genehmigte Dissertation von Dipl.-Phys. Marcus Sperling, geboren am 11. 10. 1987 in Wismar 2016 Eingereicht am 23.05.2016 Referent: Prof. Olaf Lechtenfeld Korreferent: Prof. Roger Bielawski Korreferent: Prof. Amihay Hanany Tag der Promotion: 19.07.2016 ii Abstract Solitons and instantons are crucial in modern field theory, which includes high energy physics and string theory, but also condensed matter physics and optics. This thesis is concerned with two appearances of solitonic objects: higher-dimensional instantons arising as supersymme- try condition in heterotic (flux-)compactifications, and monopole operators that describe the Coulomb branch of gauge theories in 2+1 dimensions with 8 supercharges. In PartI we analyse the generalised instanton equations on conical extensions of Sasaki- Einstein manifolds. Due to a certain equivariant ansatz, the instanton equations are reduced to a set of coupled, non-linear, ordinary first order differential equations for matrix-valued functions. For the metric Calabi-Yau cone, the instanton equations are the Hermitian Yang-Mills equations and we exploit their geometric structure to gain insights in the structure of the matrix equations. The presented analysis relies strongly on methods used in the context of Nahm equations. For non-Kähler conical extensions, focusing on the string theoretically interesting 6-dimensional case, we first of all construct the relevant SU(3)-structures on the conical extensions and subsequently derive the corresponding matrix equations.
    [Show full text]
  • Quiver Indices and Abelianization from Jeffrey-Kirwan Residues Arxiv
    Prepared for submission to JHEP arXiv:1907.01354v2 Quiver indices and Abelianization from Jeffrey-Kirwan residues Guillaume Beaujard,1 Swapnamay Mondal,2 Boris Pioline1 1 Laboratoire de Physique Th´eoriqueet Hautes Energies (LPTHE), UMR 7589 CNRS-Sorbonne Universit´e,Campus Pierre et Marie Curie, 4 place Jussieu, F-75005 Paris, France 2 International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Shivakote, Hesaraghatta, Bangalore 560089, India e-mail: fpioline,[email protected], [email protected] Abstract: In quiver quantum mechanics with 4 supercharges, supersymmetric ground states are known to be in one-to-one correspondence with Dolbeault cohomology classes on the moduli space of stable quiver representations. Using supersymmetric localization, the refined Witten index can be expressed as a residue integral with a specific contour prescription, originally due to Jeffrey and Kirwan, depending on the stability parameters. On the other hand, the physical picture of quiver quantum mechanics describing interactions of BPS black holes predicts that the refined Witten index of a non-Abelian quiver can be expressed as a sum of indices for Abelian quivers, weighted by `single-centered invariants'. In the case of quivers without oriented loops, we show that this decomposition naturally arises from the residue formula, as a consequence of applying the Cauchy-Bose identity to the vector multiplet contributions. For quivers with loops, the same procedure produces a natural decomposition of the single-centered invariants, which remains to be elucidated. In the process, we clarify some under-appreciated aspects of the localization formula. Part of the results reported herein have been obtained by implementing the Jeffrey-Kirwan residue formula in a public arXiv:1907.01354v2 [hep-th] 15 Oct 2019 Mathematica code.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Introduction
    Pré-Publicações do Departamento de Matemática Universidade de Coimbra Preprint Number 14–18 A CRITERION FOR REFLECTIVENESS OF NORMAL EXTENSIONS WITH AN APPLICATION TO MONOIDS ANDREA MONTOLI, DIANA RODELO AND TIM VAN DER LINDEN Dedicated to Manuela Sobral on the occasion of her seventieth birthday Abstract: We prove that the so-called special homogeneous surjections are reflec- tive amongst surjective homomorphisms of monoids. To do so, we use the recent result that these special homogeneous surjections are the normal (= central) extensi- ons with respect to the admissible Galois structure ΓMon determined by the Grothen- dieck group adjunction together with the classes of surjective homomorphisms. It is well known that such a reflection exists when the left adjoint functor of an admissible Galois structure preserves all pullbacks of fibrations along split epimorphic fibrati- ons, a property which we show to fail for ΓMon. We give a new sufficient condition for the normal extensions in an admissible Galois structure to be reflective, and we then show that this condition is indeed fulfilled by ΓMon. Keywords: categorical Galois theory; admissible Galois structure; central, nor- mal, trivial extension; Grothendieck group; group completion; homogeneous split epimorphism, special homogeneous surjection of monoids. AMS Subject Classification (2010): 20M32, 20M50, 11R32, 19C09, 18F30. 1. Introduction The original aim of our present work was to answer the following question: Is the category of special homogeneous surjections of monoids [3, 4] a reflective subcategory of the category of surjective monoid homomorphisms? Since we recently showed [17] that these special homogeneous surjections are the normal extensions in an admissible Galois structure [10, 11], we were at first convinced that this would be an immediate consequence of some known abstract Galois- theoretical result such as the ones in [13, 12].
    [Show full text]
  • Monomorphism - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Monomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomorphism Monomorphism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In the context of abstract algebra or universal algebra, a monomorphism is an injective homomorphism. A monomorphism from X to Y is often denoted with the notation . In the more general setting of category theory, a monomorphism (also called a monic morphism or a mono) is a left-cancellative morphism, that is, an arrow f : X → Y such that, for all morphisms g1, g2 : Z → X, Monomorphisms are a categorical generalization of injective functions (also called "one-to-one functions"); in some categories the notions coincide, but monomorphisms are more general, as in the examples below. The categorical dual of a monomorphism is an epimorphism, i.e. a monomorphism in a category C is an epimorphism in the dual category Cop. Every section is a monomorphism, and every retraction is an epimorphism. Contents 1 Relation to invertibility 2 Examples 3 Properties 4 Related concepts 5 Terminology 6 See also 7 References Relation to invertibility Left invertible morphisms are necessarily monic: if l is a left inverse for f (meaning l is a morphism and ), then f is monic, as A left invertible morphism is called a split mono. However, a monomorphism need not be left-invertible. For example, in the category Group of all groups and group morphisms among them, if H is a subgroup of G then the inclusion f : H → G is always a monomorphism; but f has a left inverse in the category if and only if H has a normal complement in G.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifying Categories the Jordan-Hölder and Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorems for Abelian Categories
    U.U.D.M. Project Report 2018:5 Classifying Categories The Jordan-Hölder and Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorems for Abelian Categories Daniel Ahlsén Examensarbete i matematik, 30 hp Handledare: Volodymyr Mazorchuk Examinator: Denis Gaidashev Juni 2018 Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Classifying Categories The Jordan-Holder¨ and Krull-Schmidt-Remak theorems for abelian categories Daniel Ahlsen´ Uppsala University June 2018 Abstract The Jordan-Holder¨ and Krull-Schmidt-Remak theorems classify finite groups, either as direct sums of indecomposables or by composition series. This thesis defines abelian categories and extends the aforementioned theorems to this context. 1 Contents 1 Introduction3 2 Preliminaries5 2.1 Basic Category Theory . .5 2.2 Subobjects and Quotients . .9 3 Abelian Categories 13 3.1 Additive Categories . 13 3.2 Abelian Categories . 20 4 Structure Theory of Abelian Categories 32 4.1 Exact Sequences . 32 4.2 The Subobject Lattice . 41 5 Classification Theorems 54 5.1 The Jordan-Holder¨ Theorem . 54 5.2 The Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorem . 60 2 1 Introduction Category theory was developed by Eilenberg and Mac Lane in the 1942-1945, as a part of their research into algebraic topology. One of their aims was to give an axiomatic account of relationships between collections of mathematical structures. This led to the definition of categories, functors and natural transformations, the concepts that unify all category theory, Categories soon found use in module theory, group theory and many other disciplines. Nowadays, categories are used in most of mathematics, and has even been proposed as an alternative to axiomatic set theory as a foundation of mathematics.[Law66] Due to their general nature, little can be said of an arbitrary category.
    [Show full text]
  • Representable Epimorphisms of Monoids Compositio Mathematica, Tome 29, No 3 (1974), P
    COMPOSITIO MATHEMATICA MATTHEW GOULD Representable epimorphisms of monoids Compositio Mathematica, tome 29, no 3 (1974), p. 213-222 <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=CM_1974__29_3_213_0> © Foundation Compositio Mathematica, 1974, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la revue « Compositio Mathematica » (http: //http://www.compositio.nl/) implique l’accord avec les conditions géné- rales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam.org/conditions). Toute utilisation commerciale ou impression systématique est constitutive d’une infrac- tion pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ COMPOSITIO MATHEMATICA, Vol. 29, Fasc. 3, 1974, pag. 213-222 Noordhoff International Publishing Printed in the Netherlands REPRESENTABLE EPIMORPHISMS OF MONOIDS1 Matthew Gould Introduction Given a universal algebra 8l, its endomorphism monoid E(u) induces a monoid E*(8l) of mappings of the subalgebra lattice S(çX) into itself. Specifically, for 03B1 ~ E(u) define 03B1*: S(u) ~ S(u) by setting X (1* = {x03B1|x ~ X} for all X E S(u). (Note that 03B1* is determined by its action on the singleton-generated subalgebras.) The monoid of closure endo- morphisms (cf. [1], [3], [4]) is then defined as E*(u) = {03B1*|a ~ E(u)}. Clearly E*(8l) is an epimorphic image of E(u) under the map 03B1 ~ 03B1*; this epimorphism shall be denoted 03B5(u), or simply e when there is no risk of confusion. Given an epimorphism of monoids, 03A6 : M ~ MW, let us say that W is representable if there exist an algebra 91 and isomorphisms (J : M - E(W) and r : M03A8 ~ E*(u) such that 03A803C4 = 03C303B5.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2012.08669V1 [Math.CT] 15 Dec 2020 2 Preface
    Sheaf Theory Through Examples (Abridged Version) Daniel Rosiak December 12, 2020 arXiv:2012.08669v1 [math.CT] 15 Dec 2020 2 Preface After circulating an earlier version of this work among colleagues back in 2018, with the initial aim of providing a gentle and example-heavy introduction to sheaves aimed at a less specialized audience than is typical, I was encouraged by the feedback of readers, many of whom found the manuscript (or portions thereof) helpful; this encouragement led me to continue to make various additions and modifications over the years. The project is now under contract with the MIT Press, which would publish it as an open access book in 2021 or early 2022. In the meantime, a number of readers have encouraged me to make available at least a portion of the book through arXiv. The present version represents a little more than two-thirds of what the professionally edited and published book would contain: the fifth chapter and a concluding chapter are missing from this version. The fifth chapter is dedicated to toposes, a number of more involved applications of sheaves (including to the \n- queens problem" in chess, Schreier graphs for self-similar groups, cellular automata, and more), and discussion of constructions and examples from cohesive toposes. Feedback or comments on the present work can be directed to the author's personal email, and would of course be appreciated. 3 4 Contents Introduction 7 0.1 An Invitation . .7 0.2 A First Pass at the Idea of a Sheaf . 11 0.3 Outline of Contents . 20 1 Categorical Fundamentals for Sheaves 23 1.1 Categorical Preliminaries .
    [Show full text]
  • Homological Algebra in Characteristic One Arxiv:1703.02325V1
    Homological algebra in characteristic one Alain Connes, Caterina Consani∗ Abstract This article develops several main results for a general theory of homological algebra in categories such as the category of sheaves of idempotent modules over a topos. In the analogy with the development of homological algebra for abelian categories the present paper should be viewed as the analogue of the development of homological algebra for abelian groups. Our selected prototype, the category Bmod of modules over the Boolean semifield B := f0, 1g is the replacement for the category of abelian groups. We show that the semi-additive category Bmod fulfills analogues of the axioms AB1 and AB2 for abelian categories. By introducing a precise comonad on Bmod we obtain the conceptually related Kleisli and Eilenberg-Moore categories. The latter category Bmods is simply Bmod in the topos of sets endowed with an involution and as such it shares with Bmod most of its abstract categorical properties. The three main results of the paper are the following. First, when endowed with the natural ideal of null morphisms, the category Bmods is a semi-exact, homological category in the sense of M. Grandis. Second, there is a far reaching analogy between Bmods and the category of operators in Hilbert space, and in particular results relating null kernel and injectivity for morphisms. The third fundamental result is that, even for finite objects of Bmods the resulting homological algebra is non-trivial and gives rise to a computable Ext functor. We determine explicitly this functor in the case provided by the diagonal morphism of the Boolean semiring into its square.
    [Show full text]