DOCSLIB.ORG

4 Equivalent Categories

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
4 Equivalent Categories 4 Equivalent Categories. Suppose that R and S are two rings. We want to determine what it would mean for them to have the same representation theories — or for these theories to be equivalent in some meaningful way. What we want should be pretty clear — the two rings have equivalent representation theories when their module (= representation) categories RMod and SMod are “the same”. But that just trades one problem for another — what does it mean for two categories “to be the same”? This is a bit dicey. We’d probably like to say that they are the same if they are isomorphic. But that’s too strong. For example, the category of all nite sets, an enormous sucker, has exactly the same categorical structure as the category of all nite subsets of N, but there is no possible way to build a bijective function between these two categories. As we shall see, natural transformations will come to the rescue, and we will be able to determine an appropriate notion of equivalent categories and hence of equivalent representation theories for rings. Let C and D be two (additive) categories. A covariant (additive) functor F : C→Dis an equivalence in case there exists a covariant (additive) functor G : D→Csuch that GF and FG are naturally isomorphic, respectively, to the identity functors 1C and 1D. If such an equivalence exists, then we say that the categories are equivalent. This relation is symmetric. Indeed, the two categories are equivalent i there exist (additive) covariant functors F : C→D and G : D→C and natural isomorphisms : GF → 1C and : FG → 1D. This means that assigns to each object C in C an isomorphism C : GF (C) → C in C and assigns to each object D in D an isomorphism D : FG(D) → D in D such that for all C-morphisms f : C → C0, and all D-morphisms g : D → D0, the diagrams GF (-f) 0 FG(-g) 0 GF (C) GF (C ) FG(D) FG(D ) 0 0 C C D D ? ? ? ? f - 0 g - 0 C C D D commute. When this happens, we call F and G inverse equivalences for C and D. When such inverse equivalences exist, it means that all “categorical” information available in one of the categories carries over unchanged to the other. In other words, using only categorical machinery we have no way to distinguish equivalent categories. So now let’s see how to characterize category equivalences. 31 32 Section 4 A covariant functor F : C→Dis faithful in case it is one-to-one on the class of morphisms of C. 0 0 0 The functor F is full in case for each pair C, C in C the map F : MorC(C, C ) → MorD(F (C),F(C )) is surjective. Finally, the functor F is dense in case for each object D in D there is an object C in C with F (C) = D. It turns out that these three properties characterize category equivalences. 4.1. Theorem. Let C and D be (additive) categories and let F : C→Dbe a covariant (additive) functor. Then F is an equivalence i F is full, faithful, and dense. Proof. (=⇒) Suppose that F is an equivalence and that G, , and are as above. Then the 0 0 map f 7→ GF (f) is a bijection (isomorphism) from MorC(C, C )ontoMorC(GF (C),GF(C )). Thus, 0 0 the map f 7→ F (f) is injective (monic) from MorC(C, C )toMorD(F (C),F(C ), and the map G : 0 0 F (f) 7→ GF (f) from MorD(F (C),F(C )) to MorC(GF (C),GF(C )) is surjective. Using the natural isomorphism gives that f 7→ F (f) is surjective (epic). Thus, F is full and faithful. That it is dense is trivial. (⇐=) This time suppose that F is full, faithful, and dense. We must build a functor G : D→C and natural isomorphisms ϕ :1D → FG and :1C → GF . Since F is dense, for each object D in D we can choose an object C in C and an isomorphism ϕD : D → F (C). Set G(D)=C. Then ϕD is an isomorphism D → FG(D). Now for each morphism g : D → D0 in D, since F is full and faithful, there is a unique morphism f : C = G(D) → C0 = G(D0) for which the diagram g - 0 D D 0 ϕD ϕD ? ? F (f-) 0 FG(D) FG(D ) commutes. Set G(g)=f. By uniqueness it is clear that for each D we have G(1D)=1G(D) and that for every pair of morphisms g and g0 in D,ifg g0 is dened, then G(g g0)=G(g) G(g0). Thus, G : D→Cis a covariant functor, and ϕ :1D → FG is a natural isomorphism. In the additive case, 0 0 0 0 if g, g ∈ MorD(D, D ), then since F (G(g)+G(g )) = FG(g)+FG(g ), uniqueness again gives that G(g + g0)=G(g)+G(g0), so that G is additive. Finally, we claim that there is a natural isomorphism :1C → GF . Let C be an object of C. Then there is an isomorphism ϕF (C) : F (C) → FGF(C). But F is full and faithful, so there is a unique morphism C : C → GF (C) with F (C )=ϕF (C). Since ϕF (C) is an isomorphism, there exists a morphism g : FGF(C) → F (C) with gϕF (C) =1F (C) and ϕF (C)g =1FGF(C). Again, since F is full and faithful there is a unique morphism h : GF (C) → C with F (h)=g. Thus, F (hC )=1F (C) = F (1C ) and F (C h)=1FGF(C) = F (1GF (C). Since F is faithful, this means that Non-Commutative Rings Section 4 33 hC =1C and C h =1GF (C) so that C : C → GF (C) is an isomorphism. We nish by showing that it is natural. Let f : C → C0 be a morphism and consider the diagram f - 0 C C C C0 ? ? GF (-f) 0 GF (C) GF (C ) Hit it with F and it commutes. But F is faithful, so the diagram itself commutes. Although an equivalence of two categories need not be an isomorphism, under which virtually eveything of mathematical interest is preserved, it does preserve the really important categorical stu. For example, 4.2. Corollary. Let F : C→Dbe a categorical equivalence. Then a morphism f : C → C0 in C is a monomorphism, epimorphism, or isomorphism, respectively, i F (f):F (C) → F (C0) is a monomorphism, epimorphism, or isomorphism in D.IfC, D, and F are additive, then for each pair C, C0 of objects in C, 0 0 F : MorC(C, C ) → MorD(F (C),F(C )) is a group isomorphism, and for each object C in C F : MorC(C, C) → MorD(F (C),F(C)) is a ring isomorphism. Proof. Suppose that f : C → C0 is a monomorphism. Let g, g0 : D → F (C) be morphisms in D with F (f)g = F (f)g0. Since F is dense, there is some C00 and some isomorphism g00 : F (C00) → D. So gg0 and g0g00 are morphisms F (C00) → F (C). Since F is full, there exist morphisms h, h0 in C with F (h)=gg00 and F (h0)=g0g00.SoF (fh)=F (f)F (h)=F (f)gg00 = F (f)g0g00 = F (f)F (h0)=F (fh0). But F is faithful, so fh = fh0 and since f is monic, h = h0.Sogg00 = g0g00. But g00 is an isomorphism, so g = g0. Thus, F (f) is monic. We’ll leave the rest of this to the reader. We want to apply this to the representation theory of rings. Two rings R and S are (Morita) equivalent in case the additive categories RMod and SMod are equivalent. Not at all surprisingly, if F : RMod → SMod is an additive equivalence, then F is an exact functor. 4.3. Theorem. If R and S are equivalent rings with F : RMod → SMod an additive equivalence, then F is exact. f g Proof. Let 0 → M 0 → M → M 00 → 0 be exact over R. Then by Corollary 4.2, F (f) is monic 34 Section 4 and F (g) is epic. Also, F (g) F (f)=F (g f)=F (0) = 0, and thus, Im F (f) Ker F (g). So, it will suce to show that Ker F (g) Im F (f). Let K = Ker F (g). Since F is dense, there is an H in RMod with F (H) = K. Since F is also full and faithful, there exist R-homomorphisms for which the diagram 0 ? - 0 f- g- 00 - 0 M M M 0 h = = ? ? ? - - g- 00 - 0 HMM 0 commutes and has exact rows and columns. Thus, h is an isomorphism, so that F (h):F (M 0) → K is an isomorphism, so that Ker F (g)=ImF (f). A property of modules is said to be a Morita invariant if it is preserved by additive equivalences. Our next result is the key to identifying a whole lot of important Morita invariants. 4.4. Theorem. If R and S are equivalent rings with F : RMod → SMod an additive equivalence, then for each module RM the lattice of submodules of RM and the lattice of submodules of SF (M) are isomorphic. Proof. Let RM be a left R-module. For each N M, let N : N,→ M be the inclusion monomorphism, and let (N)=ImF (N ) F (M). We claim that the map : N 7→ (N) from the submodule lattice of M to that of F (M) is a lattice isomorphism.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Derived Functors for Hom and Tensor Product: the Wrong Way to Do It
    Derived Functors for Hom and Tensor Product: The Wrong Way to do It UROP+ Final Paper, Summer 2018 Kevin Beuchot Mentor: Gurbir Dhillon Problem Proposed by: Gurbir Dhillon August 31, 2018 Abstract In this paper we study the properties of the wrong derived functors LHom and R ⊗. We will prove identities that relate these functors to the classical Ext and Tor. R With these results we will also prove that the functors LHom and ⊗ form an adjoint pair. Finally we will give some explicit examples of these functors using spectral sequences that relate them to Ext and Tor, and also show some vanishing theorems over some rings. 1 1 Introduction In this paper we will discuss derived functors. Derived functors have been used in homo- logical algebra as a tool to understand the lack of exactness of some important functors; two important examples are the derived functors of the functors Hom and Tensor Prod- uct (⊗). Their well known derived functors, whose cohomology groups are Ext and Tor, are their right and left derived functors respectively. In this paper we will work in the category R-mod of a commutative ring R (although most results are also true for non-commutative rings). In this category there are differ- ent ways to think of these derived functors. We will mainly focus in two interpretations. First, there is a way to concretely construct the groups that make a derived functor as a (co)homology. To do this we need to work in a category that has enough injectives or projectives, R-mod has both.
    [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]
  • Derived Functors and Homological Dimension (Pdf)
    DERIVED FUNCTORS AND HOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION George Torres Math 221 Abstract. This paper overviews the basic notions of abelian categories, exact functors, and chain complexes. It will use these concepts to define derived functors, prove their existence, and demon- strate their relationship to homological dimension. I affirm my awareness of the standards of the Harvard College Honor Code. Date: December 15, 2015. 1 2 DERIVED FUNCTORS AND HOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION 1. Abelian Categories and Homology The concept of an abelian category will be necessary for discussing ideas on homological algebra. Loosely speaking, an abelian cagetory is a type of category that behaves like modules (R-mod) or abelian groups (Ab). We must first define a few types of morphisms that such a category must have. Definition 1.1. A morphism f : X ! Y in a category C is a zero morphism if: • for any A 2 C and any g; h : A ! X, fg = fh • for any B 2 C and any g; h : Y ! B, gf = hf We denote a zero morphism as 0XY (or sometimes just 0 if the context is sufficient). Definition 1.2. A morphism f : X ! Y is a monomorphism if it is left cancellative. That is, for all g; h : Z ! X, we have fg = fh ) g = h. An epimorphism is a morphism if it is right cancellative. The zero morphism is a generalization of the zero map on rings, or the identity homomorphism on groups. Monomorphisms and epimorphisms are generalizations of injective and surjective homomorphisms (though these definitions don't always coincide). It can be shown that a morphism is an isomorphism iff it is epic and monic.
    [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]
  • Derived Functors of /-Adic Completion and Local Homology
    JOURNAL OF ALGEBRA 149, 438453 (1992) Derived Functors of /-adic Completion and Local Homology J. P. C. GREENLEES AND J. P. MAY Department q/ Mathematics, Unil;ersi/y of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637 Communicated by Richard G. Swan Received June 1. 1990 In recent topological work [2], we were forced to consider the left derived functors of the I-adic completion functor, where I is a finitely generated ideal in a commutative ring A. While our concern in [2] was with a particular class of rings, namely the Burnside rings A(G) of compact Lie groups G, much of the foundational work we needed was not restricted to this special case. The essential point is that the modules we consider in [2] need not be finitely generated and, unless G is finite, say, the ring ,4(G) is not Noetherian. There seems to be remarkably little information in the literature about the behavior of I-adic completion in this generality. We presume that interesting non-Noetherian commutative rings and interesting non-finitely generated modules arise in subjects other than topology. We have therefore chosen to present our algebraic work separately, in the hope that it may be of value to mathematicians working in other fields. One consequence of our study, explained in Section 1, is that I-adic com- pletion is exact on a much larger class of modules than might be expected from the key role played by the Artin-Rees lemma and that the deviations from exactness can be computed in terms of torsion products. However, the most interesting consequence, discussed in Section 2, is that the left derived functors of I-adic completion usually can be computed in terms of certain local homology groups, which are defined in a fashion dual to the definition of the classical local cohomology groups of Grothendieck.
    [Show full text]
  • SHEAVES of MODULES 01AC Contents 1. Introduction 1 2
    SHEAVES OF MODULES 01AC Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Pathology 2 3. The abelian category of sheaves of modules 2 4. Sections of sheaves of modules 4 5. Supports of modules and sections 6 6. Closed immersions and abelian sheaves 6 7. A canonical exact sequence 7 8. Modules locally generated by sections 8 9. Modules of finite type 9 10. Quasi-coherent modules 10 11. Modules of finite presentation 13 12. Coherent modules 15 13. Closed immersions of ringed spaces 18 14. Locally free sheaves 20 15. Bilinear maps 21 16. Tensor product 22 17. Flat modules 24 18. Duals 26 19. Constructible sheaves of sets 27 20. Flat morphisms of ringed spaces 29 21. Symmetric and exterior powers 29 22. Internal Hom 31 23. Koszul complexes 33 24. Invertible modules 33 25. Rank and determinant 36 26. Localizing sheaves of rings 38 27. Modules of differentials 39 28. Finite order differential operators 43 29. The de Rham complex 46 30. The naive cotangent complex 47 31. Other chapters 50 References 52 1. Introduction 01AD This is a chapter of the Stacks Project, version 77243390, compiled on Sep 28, 2021. 1 SHEAVES OF MODULES 2 In this chapter we work out basic notions of sheaves of modules. This in particular includes the case of abelian sheaves, since these may be viewed as sheaves of Z- modules. Basic references are [Ser55], [DG67] and [AGV71]. We work out what happens for sheaves of modules on ringed topoi in another chap- ter (see Modules on Sites, Section 1), although there we will mostly just duplicate the discussion from this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1005.0156V3
    FOUR PROBLEMS REGARDING REPRESENTABLE FUNCTORS G. MILITARU C Abstract. Let R, S be two rings, C an R-coring and RM the category of left C- C C comodules. The category Rep (RM, SM) of all representable functors RM→ S M is C shown to be equivalent to the opposite of the category RMS . For U an (S, R)-bimodule C we give necessary and sufficient conditions for the induction functor U ⊗R − : RM→ SM to be: a representable functor, an equivalence of categories, a separable or a Frobenius functor. The latter results generalize and unify the classical theorems of Morita for categories of modules over rings and the more recent theorems obtained by Brezinski, Caenepeel et al. for categories of comodules over corings. Introduction Let C be a category and V a variety of algebras in the sense of universal algebras. A functor F : C →V is called representable [1] if γ ◦ F : C → Set is representable in the classical sense, where γ : V → Set is the forgetful functor. Four general problems concerning representable functors have been identified: Problem A: Describe the category Rep (C, V) of all representable functors F : C→V. Problem B: Give a necessary and sufficient condition for a given functor F : C→V to be representable (possibly predefining the object of representability). Problem C: When is a composition of two representable functors a representable functor? Problem D: Give a necessary and sufficient condition for a representable functor F : C → V and for its left adjoint to be separable or Frobenius. The pioneer of studying problem A was Kan [10] who described all representable functors from semigroups to semigroups.
    [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]
  • Math 395: Category Theory Northwestern University, Lecture Notes
    Math 395: Category Theory Northwestern University, Lecture Notes Written by Santiago Can˜ez These are lecture notes for an undergraduate seminar covering Category Theory, taught by the author at Northwestern University. The book we roughly follow is “Category Theory in Context” by Emily Riehl. These notes outline the specific approach we’re taking in terms the order in which topics are presented and what from the book we actually emphasize. We also include things we look at in class which aren’t in the book, but otherwise various standard definitions and examples are left to the book. Watch out for typos! Comments and suggestions are welcome. Contents Introduction to Categories 1 Special Morphisms, Products 3 Coproducts, Opposite Categories 7 Functors, Fullness and Faithfulness 9 Coproduct Examples, Concreteness 12 Natural Isomorphisms, Representability 14 More Representable Examples 17 Equivalences between Categories 19 Yoneda Lemma, Functors as Objects 21 Equalizers and Coequalizers 25 Some Functor Properties, An Equivalence Example 28 Segal’s Category, Coequalizer Examples 29 Limits and Colimits 29 More on Limits/Colimits 29 More Limit/Colimit Examples 30 Continuous Functors, Adjoints 30 Limits as Equalizers, Sheaves 30 Fun with Squares, Pullback Examples 30 More Adjoint Examples 30 Stone-Cech 30 Group and Monoid Objects 30 Monads 30 Algebras 30 Ultrafilters 30 Introduction to Categories Category theory provides a framework through which we can relate a construction/fact in one area of mathematics to a construction/fact in another. The goal is an ultimate form of abstraction, where we can truly single out what about a given problem is specific to that problem, and what is a reflection of a more general phenomenom which appears elsewhere.
    [Show full text]