From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/4125 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: selinger@mathstat.dal.ca (Peter Selinger) Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: On defining *-autonomous categories Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:29:17 -0400 (AST) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019733 11815 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:42:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:42:13 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca (Categories list) Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Mon Dec 17 21:17:18 2007 -0400 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:17:18 -0400 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1J4QxK-0006kQ-5C for categories-list@mta.ca; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:09:10 -0400 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 19 Original-Lines: 118 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:4125 Archived-At: Dear Mike, first, the definition that you "never noticed before" appears as Definition C in your paper "Non-symmetric *-autonomous categories" (Theoretical Computer Science, 139 (1995), 115-130). Okay, there are minor differences, e.g., in that paper you considered the non-symmetric case and you didn't require * to be an involution. The definition precisely as stated in your email (and not in your paper) is problematic: one obtains two canonical isomorphisms A -> A**, and they do not in general coincide. Namely, the first such morphisms is the isomorphism invol : A -> A** that comes from the requirement "contravariant involution". The second one is lift : A -> A** and comes from the monoidal closed structure. It is given explicitly by the following string of equivalences: = Hom(X, A) = Hom(A*, X*) = Hom(I, (A* @ X)*) ax = Hom(I, (X @ A*)*) sym = Hom(X, A**) ax To see that they do not, in general, coincide, consider a *-autonomous category C in which there exists a non-trivial natural isomorphism eta_A : A -> A from the identity functor to itself (for example, finite dimensional vector spaces where eta is multiplication by -1). Consider the usual functor (-)* and the usual isomophism Hom(A @ B,C*) = Hom(A,(B @ C)*). Let invol : A -> A** be the usual involution, and let invol' = invol o eta: A -> A -> A**. Then invol' defines another structure of "contravariant involution" on the functor (-)*, different from lift. Therefore, in general, for this definition to be useable, one needs another coherence condition stating that invol = lift. Or else, one can just drop the a priori requirement that * is involutive, and just let it follow from the other structure (as you did in the above-cited paper). This seems a good moment to mention that another definition of *-autonomous category, which occasionally appears in the literature, suffers from a similar affliction. Some authors define a *-autonomous category to be a symmetric monoidal category C together with a functor (-)* : C^op -> C and a natural isomorphism Hom(A @ B, C) = Hom(A, (B @ C*)*). Although this definition does not a priori assume * to be involutive, it still yields two canonical maps C -> C** that do not in general coincide, and therefore, it is missing a coherence condition. The two competing maps f_1 and f_2 are given as follows: (A, A) == (A x I, A) == (A, (I x A*)*) (ax) == (A, A**). (A*, A*) == (A*, (A x I**)*) (##) == (A* x A, I*) (ax) == (A x A*, I*) == (A, (A* x I**)*) (ax) == (A, A**) (##) Here, (ax) is the axiom, and (##) denotes an application of the isomorphism I = I**, which can be obtained by letting A=B=C in (ax). To see that they don't in general coincide, consider the same counterexample as above, and modify the isomorphism (ax) by multiplication with the scalar -1. Since it is used an odd number of times in the definition of f_1, but an even number of times in the definition of f_2, it follows that f_1 != f_2. On the other hand, none of the above matters in some sense, due to a theorem proved last year by Robin Houston (it was previously unknown at least to me): Theorem. Let C be a symmetric monoidal category, and let D be an object. If there *exists* a natural isomorphism f : A -> (A -o D) -o D, then the *canonical* natural transformation g : A -> (A -o D) -o D (coming from the symmetric monoidal structure) is an isomorphism (although it may in general be different from f). Therefore, in the definition of *-autonomous category, the mere existence of an isomorphism (not necessarily satisfying coherence conditions) already implies the existence of a (possibly different) isomorphism satisfying all the coherence conditions. In this sense, both the Hom(A @ B,C*) = Hom(A,(B @ C)*) definition and the Hom(A @ B,C*) = Hom(A,(B @ C)*) definition are correct: they certainly imply that the underlying category is *-autonomous - although not necessarily with the given structure! -- Peter Michael Barr wrote: > > I got a note from a student named Benjamin Jackson saying that someone had > told him that to define a *-autonomous category, you need only a symmetric > monoidal category and a contravariant involution * such that Hom(A @ B,C*) > = Hom(A,(B @ C)*). Here "=" means natural equivalence and @ is the tensor > product. Not only is this apparently true but that equivalence is needed > only for A = I, the tensor unit. Of course, what is going on is that all > the coherence is built-in to the structure of a symmetric monoidal > category. > > First define A --o B = (A @ B*)*. Then the isomorphism above implies that > Hom(A,B) = Hom(I @ A,B) = Hom(I,(A @ B*)*) = Hom(I,A --o B) > Next we see that > (A @ B) --o C = (A @ B @ C*)* = A --o (B @ C*)* = A --o (B --o C) > and, applying Hom(I,-), that > Hom(A @ B,C) = Hom(A,B --o C) > Also we have that > A --o I* = (A @ I)* = A* and A --o B = (A @ B*)* = (B* @ A)* = B* --o A* > which gives the structure of a *-autonomous category with dualizing > object I*. > > The trouble with this is that generally speaking it is the --o which is > obvious and the tensor is derived from it. The coherences involving > internal hom alone are much less well-known, although they are included > in the original Eilenberg-Kelly paper in the La Jolla Proceedings. > Still I am surprised that I never noticed this before.