GALOIS CORRESPONDENCE FOR AUGMENTED MONADS JOHAN FELIPE GARC´IA VARGAS Abstract. We establish a Galois connection between sub-monads of an augmented monad and sub-functors of the forgetful functor from its Eilenberg-Moore category. This connection is given in terms of invariants and stabilizers defined through universal prop- erties. An explicit procedure for the computation of invariants is given assuming the existence of suitable right adjoints. Addition- ally, in the context of monoidal closed categories, a characterization of stabilizers is made in terms of Tannakian reconstruction. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Preliminars 3 3. Invariants and stabilizers for augmented monads 9 4. Computing invariants via right adjoints 11 5. Computing stabilizers in monoidal closed categories 14 References 18 1. Introduction The structural approach to Galois theory, as develop by Emil Artin and taught in most algebra textbooks, place as fundamental theorem arXiv:2106.04132v1 [math.CT] 8 Jun 2021 the correspondence, given by invariants and stabilizers, between sub- groups of symmetries and intermediate structures. In [4, Expos´eV], Grothendieck reframed Galois theory as an equiv- alence between a category of interest and the category of actions of a group. Since the actions of a group G form the Eilenberg-Moore cate- gory for the monad G × ?, Grothendieck’s formulation is a monadicity result. This article proposes a path for recovering the Galois correspon- dence from a monadicity result. 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. 18C15, 18E50, 18M05, 18D15, 16T05. Key words and phrases. Augmented monads; Grothendieck’s Galois Theory; Galois connection; Hopf monads; Tannaka duality . 1 2 JOHAN FELIPE GARC´IA VARGAS Our main hypothesis is that the monad possess an augmentation. Where, an augmentation is a monad homomorphism to the identity of the base category. This hypothesis is strong, because in the case of Hopf monads it implies that the monad is ⊗-representable, as shown in [2, Section 5]. Morally, having an augmentation distinguish groups from groupoids. More precisely, the monad induced by a groupoid has an augmentation only when every morphism in the groupoid is an endomorphism. How- ever, this makes sense, because there is no clear meaning for invariants of a groupoid action when it moves elements from a set to another. Before presenting the details, let me exhibit the intuition behind them. Imagine the monad T as an algebraic gadget useful for “captur- ing the symmetries” of some kind of structure defined over a category C . With this in mind, we regard the forgetful functor U as the “universal T -structure”. A Galois correspondence will emerge from comparing the action of a part of the symmetries, parametrized by a monad homomor- phism h : S ⇒ T , over a part of the of the structure, parametrized by a natural transformation α : V ⇒ U, against a trivial action induced by an augmentation of the monad. The next example illustrates the notions that we aim to generalize and might be considered a trailer for the paper: Example 1.1. Let G be a group. Consider the augmented monad G × ? in Sets, where the augmentation is the projection to the second com- ponent. The Eilenberg-Moore category Sets G is the category of G-sets and equivariant maps. φ For any group homomorphism H −→ G the H-invariants define a subfunctor of the forgetful U : Sets G → Sets, mapping an action r (X,G × X −→ X) to the set inclusion Inv Hφ(X,r)= {x ∈ X : φ(h)x = x for all h ∈ H} ⊆ X. We will dissect this construction in the following way: r e X The action G × X −→ X and the augmentation G × X −−→× X (the e stands for erase, or for the constant function to the group identity) parametrize for every x ∈ X functions from G to X, mapping g 7→ (r(g, x)= gx) and g 7→ (e(g)x = x), respectively. [φ,X] φ Denoting by [G,X] −−−→ [H,X] the function precomposing by H −→ p q r [φ,X] G, we can present Inv H(X,r) as the equalizer of X [G,X][H,X]. pe⊗Xq This presentation of invariants is generalized in Lemma 4.1. GALOIS CORRESPONDENCE FOR AUGMENTED MONADS 3 On the other hand, for every natural transformation α : V ⇒ U the stabilizer of Vα is the subgroup of G defined by G Stab Vα = {g ∈ G : gαM (v)= αM (v) for every M ∈ Sets and every v ∈ V M}. Inspired by Tannakian reconstruction, we can also dissect the construc- tion of stabilizers. Notice that each g ∈ G gives a natural endomor- phism of U obtained by acting, explicitly ρ(g): U ⇒ U is defined by ρ(g)M (x) = rM (g, x) = gx for every G-set M = (X,rM ) and every x ∈ X. The augmentation similarly defines a natural endomorphism of U for each g ∈ G, ǫ(g): U ⇒ U defined by ǫ(g)M (x) = e(g)x = x for every G-set M = (X,rM ) and every x ∈ X, which is clearly the identity of U. Nat(α,U) Denoting by End(U) −−−−−→ Nat(V, U) the function precomposing ρ Nat(α,V ) by α : V ⇒ U, we can present Stab Vα as the equalizer of G End(U) Nat(V, U). ǫ This presentation of stabilizers is generalized in Lemma 5.10. The well known Galois connection between invariants and stabilizers is generalized in Corollary 3.7. The structure of the document is straightforward. Section 2 con- tains three preliminars one about lifting functors to Eilenberg-Moore categories, one about monoidal closed categories and Hopf monads and one about Galois connections. Section 3 introduces invariants and sta- bilizers as universal representants for the fix relation. Section 4 is about computing invariants and Section 5 about computing stabilizers in monoidal closed categories. 2. Preliminars Notation 2.1. We write compositions from right to left. Given natural transformations α : F ⇒ F ′ and γ : F ′ ⇒ F ′′, where F, F ′, F ′′ : C → D, we denote their vertical composition by γ · α : F ⇒ F ′′. If additionally given β : G ⇒ G′, with G,G′ : D → E, we denote the horizontal composition by β⋆α : GF ⇒ G′F ′. We will abbreviate identities of functors (and of objects) as idG = G. We will also omit the ⋆ when whiskering. For instance, β⋆α =(G′α) · (βF )=(βF ′) · (Gα). 2.1. Monadic lifting to Eilenberg-Moore categories. It is well known, see [5, Chapter VI] for instance, that every adjunction yields a monad and that the Eilenberg-Moore construction allow to decompose a monad into an adjunction in a “universal” way. Where by universal, we mean that every other adjunction, yielding the same monad, is included in it. It is less well known, that the lift of functors to Eilenberg- Moore categories can be understood in terms of natural transformations 4 JOHAN FELIPE GARC´IA VARGAS of the base categories. We will make a quick review of this and refer the reader to [1, Chapter 2] for the details. We denote monads by (T,µ,η) and adjunctions by (η, L ⊣ R,ε) as displayed in the next figure: T T µ L η T ⊣ C C RL C D ε LR η R IdC (a) Monad. (b) Adjunction. Figure 1. Structure of monads and adjunctions. Definition 2.2. Let (T,µ,η) be a monad over a category C . The Eilenberg-Moore category of T , denoted C T , has T -actions as objects and T -morphisms as morphisms. rM (a) A T -action is a pair M =(X,TX −→ X), where X is in C and r satisfies: associativity rM µX = rTrM , and unity, rM ηX = X. f (b) A T -morphism M −→ N, between T -actions M = (X,r) and f N =(Y,r′), is a morphism X −→ Y satisfying fr = r′T f. (c) The forgetful functor U T : C T → C , defined by f f U T ((X,r) −→ (Y,r′))=(X −→ Y ), has a left adjoint F T : C → C T . This functor is known as the free functor and it is defined by T µX T f Tf F X =(TX,TTX −−→ TX) and F (X −→ Y )=(TX,µX) −→ (TY,µY ). Notice that T = U T F T , hence the unit of the adjunction T T η : IdC ⇒ U F is equal to the unit of the monad η : IdC ⇒ T . T T Moreover, the evaluation ε : F U ⇒ IdC T is given by εM = r r (TX,µX ) −→ (X,r), for any T -action M =(X,TX −→ X). (d) Suppose that there is another adjunction (η, L ⊣ R,υ) with R : D → C such that T = RL and µ = RυL. The comparison functor K : D → C T is defined by RυA KA =(RA, RLRA −−→ RA), GALOIS CORRESPONDENCE FOR AUGMENTED MONADS 5 for every object A in D. It is easy to verify that KA is a T -action and obviously U T K = R. (e) A functor R : D → C is called monadic if it has a left adjoint , L ⊣ R, and the comparison functor is an equivalence from D to the Eilenberg-Moore category C T of the induced monad T = RL. Definition 2.3. Let (T,µ,η) and (T ′,µ′, η′) be monads over C and C ′, respectively. Given a functor G : C → C ′, we say that: ′ ′ • A lift of G is a functor G : C T → C ′T such that U T G = GU T . • A lifting data for G is a natural transformation γ : T ′G ⇒ GT such that γ · (µ′G)=(Gµ) · (γT ) · (T ′γ), and γ · (η′G)= Gη. • When C = C ′, an homomorphism of monads h : T ′ ⇒ T is a lifting data for IdC .