From: selinger@mathstat.dal.ca (Peter Selinger)
To: categories@mta.ca
Subject: Re: Equalisers and coequalisers in categories with a \dag-involution
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:08:06 -0400 (AST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E1HIQ26-00026M-AN@mailserv.mta.ca> (raw)
Jamie Vicary wrote:
>
> Of course, in the light of
> http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math.CT/0604542 ,
> perhaps we only need require that our dagger-category has products and
> equalizers in order for it to have 'finite bilimits'! In remark 2.6 of
> [2] cited in your email below, you write that if a dagger-category has
> products then it must of course have coproducts, but it need not have
> biproducts. Presumably, math.CT/0604542 proves you wrong here?
You are referring to the paper "Finite Products are Biproducts in a
Compact Closed Category" by Robin Houston.
It does not prove me wrong. Robin's construction only applies to
compact closed categories. In general, a dagger category doesn't need
to be compact closed.
Actually, there is a counterexample to support my remark 2.6. It is
due to Robin Houston and myself (any typos or mistakes are mine).
(1) There exists a category C with finite products and coproducts,
with a zero object, and such that for all A,B, A+B is isomorphic
to AxB (not naturally), but for some A,B, the canonical map f:A+B
-> AxB is not an isomorphism.
Proof: Let C be the category of sets of cardinality 0 or aleph_0,
with partial functions as the morphisms. Then the empty set is
initial and terminal. We have AxB = A \union (A*B) \union B, where
"x" denotes categorical product, and "*" denotes cartesian product
of sets. Further A+B = A \union B. By inspecting cardinalities, we
find that AxB and A+B have equal cardinality, for all A, B, and
hence they are (not naturally) isomorphic. However, the canonical
map f:A+B -> AxB satisfying p_i.f.q_j = \delta_{ij} maps
everything to the first and third components of AxB = A \union
(A*B) \union B, hence is not onto when A,B are non-empty.
(2) Corollary: C does not have biproducts.
(3) Corollary: There exists a category C with finite products and
coproducts, and such that A+B = AxB for all A,B, but which does
not have biproducts.
Proof: choose a skeleton of the category in (1).
(4) There exists a dagger category with finite products, but which
does not have biproducts.
Proof: Take C as in (3), and consider D = C x C^op. Then D has
products and coproducts as inherited componentwise from C and
C^op. Also, it satisfies X+Y = XxY. Further, D has no biproducts,
or else the forgetful functor to C would preserve them.
Now consider D', the full subcategory of D consisting of objects
of the form (A,A). This has products and coproducts, and they are
not biproducts. Further, D' is a dagger category with (f,g)^{\dag}
= (g,f).
Another related remark is that even *if* a dagger category has
biproducts, then they need not be dagger-biproducts. Here is a
counterexample. Consider the category of matrices with rational
entries. Objects are arities, and composition is standard matrix
multiplication, but define the following non-standard dagger: if A is
an mxn-matrix, then let A^\dag = A^{transpose} * 3^(n-m). This is
indeed an involutive, identity-on-objects functor. As a category, it
is equivalent to finite-dimensional Q-vector spaces, so it has
biproducts, and it is also compact closed. However, there are no
isometries e : Q -> Q^2 (and hence, no dagger-biproducts). If such an
isometry existed, say with matrix (a, b)^{transpose}, then we would
have e^\dag.e = (a^2 + b^2)/3 = 1. However, the equation a^2 + b^2 = 3
has no solution in the rational numbers. (In Z/9Z, any sum of two
squares that is divisible by 3 is also divisible by 9; therefore the
same holds in the integers. The claim about the rational numbers
follows by taking a sufficiently large square common denominator).
I do not know whether Robin Houston's construction, when applied to a
dagger compact closed category, yields dagger-biproducts. Note that
the previous counterexample is not dagger-compact closed (dagger does
not preserve tensor). It therefore doesn't answer this last question.
Best, -- Peter
next reply other threads:[~2007-02-16 21:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-02-16 21:08 Peter Selinger [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-02-17 17:39 Jamie Vicary
2007-02-16 10:14 Jamie Vicary
2007-02-16 6:39 Peter Selinger
2007-02-14 22:13 Jamie Vicary
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=E1HIQ26-00026M-AN@mailserv.mta.ca \
--to=selinger@mathstat.dal.ca \
--cc=categories@mta.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).