Basic notions of Categorical algebra
Basic notions of Categorical algebra
We have seen that the existence of Cartesian products in a category equips is with a functor of the form
which is directly analogous to the operation of multiplication in an associative algebra or even just in a semigroup (or monoid), just βcategorifiedβ (Example below). This is made precise by the concept of a monoidal category (Def. below).
This relation between category theory and algebra leads to the fields of categorical algebra and of universal algebra.
Here we are mainly interested in monoidal categories as a foundations for enriched category theory, to which we turn below.
Monoidal categories
Definition
(monoidal category)
An_monoidal category_ is a category (Def. ) equipped with
-
a functor (Def. )
out of the product category of with itself (Example ), called the tensor product,
-
an object
called the unit object or tensor unit,
-
a natural isomorphism (Def. )
called the associator,
-
a natural isomorphism
called the left unitor, and a natural isomorphism
called the right unitor,
such that the following two kinds of diagrams commute, for all objects involved:
-
triangle identity:
-
the pentagon identity:
Lemma
(Kelly 64)
Let be a monoidal category, def. . Then the left and right unitors and satisfy the following conditions:
-
;
-
for all objects the following diagrams commutes:
and
For proof see at monoidal category this lemma and this lemma.
Definition
(braided monoidal category)
A braided monoidal category, is a monoidal category (def. ) equipped with a natural isomorphism (Def. )
(1)
called the braiding, such that the following two kinds of diagrams commute for all objects involved (βhexagon identitiesβ):
and
where denotes the components of the associator of .
Definition
(symmetric closed monoidal category)
Given a symmetric monoidal category with tensor product (def. ) it is called a closed monoidal category if for each the functor has a right adjoint, denoted
(2)
hence if there are natural bijections
for all objects .
Since for the case that is the tensor unit of this means that
the object is an enhancement of the ordinary hom-set to an object in . Accordingly, it is also called the internal hom between and .
The adjunction counit (Def. ) in this case is called the evaluation morphism
(3)
Example
(categories of presheaves are cartesian closed)
Let be a category and write for its category of presheaves (Example ).
This is
-
a cartesian monoidal category (Example ), whose Cartesian product is given objectwise in by the Cartesian product in Set:
for , their Cartesian product exists and is given by
-
a cartesian closed category (Def. ), whose internal hom is given for by
Here denotes the Yoneda embedding and is the hom-functor on the category of presheaves.
Proof
The first statement is a special case of the general fact that limits of presheaves are computed objectwise (Example ).
For the second statement, first assume that does exist. Then by the adjunction hom-isomorphism (?) we have for any other presheaf a natural isomorphism of the form
(4)
This holds in particular for a representable presheaf (Example ) and so the Yoneda lemma (Prop. ) implies that if it exists, then must have the claimed form:
Hence it remains to show that this formula does make (4) hold generally.
For this we use the equivalent characterization of adjoint functors from Prop. , in terms of the adjunction counit providing a system of universal arrows (Def. ).
Define a would-be adjunction counit, hence a would-be evaluation morphism (3), by
Then it remains to show that for every morphism of presheaves of the form there is a unique morphism such that
(5)
The commutativity of this diagram means in components at that, that for all and we have
Hence this fixes the component when its first argument is the identity morphism . But let be any morphism and chase through the naturality diagram for :
This shows that is fixed to be given by
at least on those pairs such that is in the image of .
But, finally, is also natural in
which implies that (6) must hold generally. Hence naturality implies that (5) indeed has a unique solution.
The internal hom (Def. ) turns out to share all the abstract properties of the ordinary (external) hom-functor (Def. ), even though this is not completely manifest from its definition. We make this explicit by the following three propositions.
Proposition
(internal hom bifunctor)
For a closed monoidal category (Def. ), there is a unique functor (Def. ) out of the product category (Def. ) of with its opposite category (Def. )
such that for each it coincides with the internal hom (2) as a functor in the second variable, and such that there is a natural isomorphism
which is natural not only in and , but also in .
Proof
We have a natural isomorphism for each fixed , and hence in particular for fixed and fixed by (2). With this the statement follows by Prop. .
In fact the 3-variable adjunction from Prop. even holds internally:
Proof
Let be any object. By applying the natural bijections from Prop. , there are composite natural bijections
Since this holds for all , the fully faithfulness of the Yoneda embedding (Prop. ) says that there is an isomorphism . Moreover, by taking in the above and using the left unitor isomorphisms and we get a commuting diagram
Also the key respect of the hom-functor for limits is inherited by internal hom-functors
Proposition
(internal hom preserves limits)
Let be a symmetric closed monoidal category with internal hom-bifunctor (Prop. ). Then this bifunctor preserves limits in the second variable, and sends colimits in the first variable to limits:
and
Proof
For any object, is a right adjoint by definition, and hence preserves limits by Prop. .
For the other case, let be a diagram in , and let be any object. Then there are isomorphisms
which are natural in , where we used that the ordinary hom-functor preserves limits (Prop. ), and that the left adjoint preserves colimits, since left adjoints preserve colimits (Prop. ).
Hence by the fully faithfulness of the Yoneda embedding, there is an isomorphism
Now that we have seen monoidal categories with various extra properties, we next look at functors which preserve these:
Definition
(monoidal functors)
Let and be two monoidal categories (def. ). A lax monoidal functor between them is
-
a functor (Def. )
-
a morphism
(7)
-
a natural transformation (Def. )
(8)
for all
satisfying the following conditions:
-
(associativity) For all objects the following diagram commutes
where and denote the associators of the monoidal categories;
-
(unitality) For all the following diagrams commutes
and
where , , , denote the left and right unitors of the two monoidal categories, respectively.
If and alll are isomorphisms, then is called a strong monoidal functor.
If moreover and are equipped with the structure of braided monoidal categories (def. ) with braidings and , respectively, then the lax monoidal functor is called a braided monoidal functor if in addition the following diagram commutes for all objects
A homomorphism between two (braided) lax monoidal functors is a monoidal natural transformation, in that it is a natural transformation of the underlying functors
compatible with the product and the unit in that the following diagrams commute for all objects :
and
We write for the resulting category of lax monoidal functors between monoidal categories and , similarly for the category of braided monoidal functors between braided monoidal categories, and for the category of braided monoidal functors between symmetric monoidal categories.
Proposition
For two composable lax monoidal functors (def. ) between monoidal categories, then their composite becomes a lax monoidal functor with structure morphisms
and
Algebras and modules
Definition
Given a monoidal category (Def. ), then a monoid internal to is
-
an object ;
-
a morphism (called the unit)
-
a morphism (called the product);
such that
-
(associativity) the following diagram commutes
where is the associator isomorphism of ;
-
(unitality) the following diagram commutes:
where and are the left and right unitor isomorphisms of .
Moreover, if has the structure of a symmetric monoidal category (def. ) with symmetric braiding , then a monoid as above is called a commutative monoid in if in addition
A homomorphism of monoids is a morphism
in , such that the following two diagrams commute
and
Write for the category of monoids in , and for its full subcategory of commutative monoids.
Example
Given a monoidal category (Def. ), the tensor unit is a monoid in (def. ) with product given by either the left or right unitor
By lemma , these two morphisms coincide and define an associative product with unit the identity .
If is a symmetric monoidal category (def. ), then this monoid is a commutative monoid.
Example
Given a symmetric monoidal category (def. ), and given two commutative monoids (def. ), then the tensor product becomes itself a commutative monoid with unit morphism
(where the first isomorphism is, (lemma )) and with product morphism given by
(where we are notationally suppressing the associators and where denotes the braiding of ).
That this definition indeed satisfies associativity and commutativity follows from the corresponding properties of , and from the hexagon identities for the braiding (def. ) and from symmetry of the braiding.
Similarly one checks that for then the unit maps
and the product map
and the braiding
are monoid homomorphisms, with equipped with the above monoid structure.
Definition
Given a monoidal category (def. ), and given a monoid in (def. ), then a left module object in over is
-
an object ;
-
a morphism (called the action);
such that
-
(unitality) the following diagram commutes:
where is the left unitor isomorphism of .
-
(action property) the following diagram commutes
A homomorphism of left -module objects
is a morphism
in , such that the following diagram commutes:
For the resulting category of modules of left -modules in with -module homomorphisms between them, we write
Example
Given a monoidal category (def. ) with the tensor unit regarded as a monoid in a monoidal category via example , then the left unitor
makes every object into a left module, according to def. , over . The action property holds due to lemma . This gives an equivalence of categories
of with the category of modules over its tensor unit.
Example
The archetypical case in which all these abstract concepts reduce to the basic familiar ones is the symmetric monoidal category Ab of abelian groups from example .
-
A monoid in (def. ) is equivalently a ring.
-
A commutative monoid in in (def. ) is equivalently a commutative ring .
-
An -module object in (def. ) is equivalently an -module;
-
The tensor product of -module objects (def. ) is the standard tensor product of modules.
-
The category of module objects (def. ) is the standard category of modules .
Proposition
In the situation of def. , the monoid canonically becomes a left module over itself by setting . More generally, for any object, then naturally becomes a left -module by setting:
The -modules of this form are called free modules.
The free functor constructing free -modules is left adjoint to the forgetful functor which sends a module to the underlying object .
Proof
A homomorphism out of a free -module is a morphism in of the form
fitting into the diagram (where we are notationally suppressing the associator)
Consider the composite
i.e. the restriction of to the unit βinβ . By definition, this fits into a commuting square of the form (where we are now notationally suppressing the associator and the unitor)
Pasting this square onto the top of the previous one yields
where now the left vertical composite is the identity, by the unit law in . This shows that is uniquely determined by via the relation
This natural bijection between and establishes the adjunction.
Definition
Given a closed symmetric monoidal category (def. , def. ), given a commutative monoid in (def. ), and given and two left -module objects (def.), then
-
the tensor product of modules is, if it exists, the coequalizer
and if preserves these coequalizers, then this is equipped with the left -action induced from the left -action on
-
the function module is, if it exists, the equalizer
equipped with the left -action that is induced by the left -action on via
(e.g. Hovey-Shipley-Smith 00, lemma 2.2.2 and lemma 2.2.8)
Proposition
Given a closed symmetric monoidal category (def. , def. ), and given a commutative monoid in (def. ). If all coequalizers exist in , then the tensor product of modules from def. makes the category of modules into a symmetric monoidal category, with tensor unit the object itself, regarded as an -module via prop. .
If moreover all equalizers exist, then this is a closed monoidal category (def. ) with internal hom given by the function modules of def. .
(e.g. Hovey-Shipley-Smith 00, lemma 2.2.2, lemma 2.2.8)
Proof sketch
The associators and braiding for are induced directly from those of and the universal property of coequalizers. That is the tensor unit for follows with the same kind of argument that we give in the proof of example below.
Example
For a monoid (def. ) in a symmetric monoidal category (def. ), the tensor product of modules (def. ) of two free modules (def. ) and always exists and is the free module over the tensor product in of the two generators:
Hence if has all coequalizers, so that the category of modules is a monoidal category (prop. ) then the free module functor (def. ) is a strong monoidal functor (def. )
Proof
It is sufficient to show that the diagram
is a coequalizer diagram (we are notationally suppressing the associators), hence that , hence that the claim holds for and .
To that end, we check the universal property of the coequalizer:
First observe that indeed coequalizes with , since this is just the associativity clause in def. . So for any other morphism with this property, we need to show that there is a unique morphism which makes this diagram commute:
We claim that
where the first morphism is the inverse of the right unitor of .
First to see that this does make the required triangle commute, consider the following pasting composite of commuting diagrams
Here the the top square is the naturality of the right unitor, the middle square commutes by the functoriality of the tensor product and the definition of the product category (Example ), while the commutativity of the bottom square is the assumption that coequalizes with .
Here the right vertical composite is , while, by unitality of , the left vertical composite is the identity on , Hence the diagram says that , which we needed to show.
It remains to see that is the unique morphism with this property for given . For that let be any other morphism with . Then consider the commuting diagram
where the top left triangle is the unitality condition and the two isomorphisms are the right unitor and its inverse. The commutativity of this diagram says that .
Definition
Given a monoidal category of modules as in prop. , then a monoid in (def. ) is called an -algebra.
Proposition
Given a monoidal category of modules in a monoidal category as in prop. , and an -algebra (def. ), then there is an equivalence of categories
between the category of commutative monoids in and the coslice category of commutative monoids in under , hence between commutative -algebras in and commutative monoids in that are equipped with a homomorphism of monoids .
(e.g. EKMM 97, VII lemma 1.3)
Proof
In one direction, consider a -algebra with unit and product . There is the underlying product
By considering a diagram of such coequalizer diagrams with middle vertical morphism , one find that this is a unit for and that is a commutative monoid in .
Then consider the two conditions on the unit . First of all this is an -module homomorphism, which means that
commutes. Moreover it satisfies the unit property
By forgetting the tensor product over , the latter gives
where the top vertical morphisms on the left the canonical coequalizers, which identifies the vertical composites on the right as shown. Hence this may be pasted to the square above, to yield a commuting square
This shows that the unit is a homomorphism of monoids .
Now for the converse direction, assume that and are two commutative monoids in with a monoid homomorphism. Then inherits a left -module structure by
By commutativity and associativity it follows that coequalizes the two induced morphisms . Hence the universal property of the coequalizer gives a factorization through some . This shows that is a commutative -algebra.
Finally one checks that these two constructions are inverses to each other, up to isomorphism.
Definition
(lax monoidal functor)
Let and be two monoidal categories (def. ). A lax monoidal functor between them is
-
a functor
-
a morphism
-
a natural transformation
for all
satisfying the following conditions:
-
(associativity) For all objects the following diagram commutes
where and denote the associators of the monoidal categories;
-
(unitality) For all the following diagrams commutes
and
where , , , denote the left and right unitors of the two monoidal categories, respectively.
If and alll are isomorphisms, then is called a strong monoidal functor.
If moreover and are equipped with the structure of braided monoidal categories (def. ) with braidings and , respectively, then the lax monoidal functor is called a braided monoidal functor if in addition the following diagram commutes for all objects
A homomorphism between two (braided) lax monoidal functors is a monoidal natural transformation, in that it is a natural transformation of the underlying functors
compatible with the product and the unit in that the following diagrams commute for all objects :
and
We write for the resulting category of lax monoidal functors between monoidal categories and , similarly for the category of braided monoidal functors between braided monoidal categories, and for the category of braided monoidal functors between symmetric monoidal categories.
Proposition
For two composable lax monoidal functors (def. ) between monoidal categories, then their composite becomes a lax monoidal functor with structure morphisms
and
Proposition
(lax monoidal functors preserve monoids)
Let and be two monoidal categories (def. ) and let be a lax monoidal functor (def. ) between them.
Then for a monoid in (def. ), its image becomes a monoid by setting
(where the first morphism is the structure morphism of ) and setting
(where again the first morphism is the corresponding structure morphism of ).
This construction extends to a functor
from the category of monoids of (def. ) to that of .
Moreover, if and are symmetric monoidal categories (def. ) and is a braided monoidal functor (def. ) and is a commutative monoid (def. ) then so is , and this construction extends to a functor between categories of commutative monoids:
Proof
This follows immediately from combining the associativity and unitality (and symmetry) constraints of with those of .
Enriched categories
The plain definition of categories in Def. is phrased in terms of sets. Via Example this assigns a special role to the category Set of all sets, as the βbaseβ on top, or the βcosmosβ inside which category theory takes place. For instance, the fact that hom-sets in a plain category are indeed sets, is what makes the hom-functor (Example ) take values in Set, and this, in turn, governs the form of the all-important Yoneda lemma (Prop. ) and Yoneda embedding (Prop. ) as statements about presheaves of sets (Example ).
At the same time, category theory witnesses the utility of abstracting away from concrete choices to their abstract properties that are actually used in constructions. This makes it natural to ask if one could replace the category Set by some other category which could similarly serve as a βcosmosβ inside which category theory may be developed.
Indeed, such -enriched category theory (see Example below for the terminology) exists, beginning with the concept of -enriched categories (Def. below) and from there directly paralleling, hence generalizing, plain category theory, as long as one assumes the βcosmosβ category to share a minimum of abstract properties with Set (Def. below).
This turns out to be most useful. In fact, the perspective of enriched categories is helpful already when Set, in which case it reproduces plain category theory (Example below), for instance in that it puts the (co)limits of the special form of (co)ends (Def. below) to the forefront (discussed below).
Example
underlying set of an object in a cosmos
Let be a cosmos (Def. ), with its tensor unit (Def. ). Then the hom-functor (Def. ) out of
admits the structure of a lax monoidal functor (Def. ) to Set, with the latter regarded with its cartesian monoidal structure from Example .
Given , we call
also the underlying set of .
Proof
Take the monoidal transformations (eqβMonoidalComponentsOfMonoidalFunctor) to be
and take the unit transformation (7)
to pick .
Example
(underlying set of internal hom is hom-set)*
For a cosmos (Def. ), let be two objects. Then the underlying set (Def. ) of their internal hom (Def. ) is the hom-set (Def. ):
This identification is the adjunction isomorphism (?) for the internal hom adjunction (2) followed composed with a unitor (Def. ).
Definition
(enriched category)
For a cosmos (Def. ), a -enriched category is:
-
a class , called the class of objects;
-
for each , an object
called the -object of morphisms between and ;
-
for each a morphism in
out of the tensor product of hom-objects, called the composition operation;
-
for each a morphism , called the identity morphism on
such that the composition is associative and unital.
If the class happens to be a set (hence a small set instead of a proper class) then we say the -enriched category is small, as in Def. .
Example
(underlying category of an enriched category)
Let be a -enriched category (Def. ).
Using the lax monoidal structure (Def. ) on the hom functor (Example )
out of the tensor unit this induces a Set-enriched category with hence an ordinary category (Example ), with
-
;
-
.
It is in this sense that is a plain category equipped with extra structure, and hence an βenriched categoryβ.
The archetypical example is itself:
Example
( as a -enriched category)
Evert cosmos (Def. ) canonically obtains the structure of a -enriched category, def. :
the hom-objects are the internal homs
and with composition
given by the adjunct under the (Cartesian product internal hom)-adjunction of the evaluation morphisms
The usual construction on categories, such as that of opposite categories (Def. ) and product categories (Def. ) have evident enriched analogs
Definition
(enriched opposite category and product category)
For a cosmos, let be -enriched categories (Def. ).
-
The opposite enriched category is the enriched category with the same objects as , with hom-objects
and with composition given by braiding (1) followed by the composition in :
-
the enriched product category is the enriched category whose objects are pairs of objects with and , whose hom-spaces are the tensor product of the separate hom objects
and whose composition operation is the braiding (1) followed by the tensor product of the separate composition operations:
Definition
(enriched functor)
For a cosmos (Def. ), let and be two -enriched categories (Def. ).
A -enriched functor from to
is
-
a function
of objects;
-
for each a morphism in
between hom-objects
such that this preserves composition and identity morphisms in the evident sense.
Example
(enriched hom-functor)
For a cosmos (Def. ), let be a -enriched category (Def. ). Then there is a -enriched functor out of the enriched product category of with its enriched opposite category (Def. )
to , regarded as a -enriched category (Example ), which sends a pair of objects to the hom-object , and which acts on morphisms by composition in the evident way.
Example
(enriched presheaves)
For a cosmos (Def. ), let be a -enriched category (Def. ). Then a -enriched functor (Def. )
to the archetypical -enriched category from Example is:
-
an object for each object ;
-
a morphism in of the form
for all pairs of objects
(this is the adjunct of under the adjunction (2) on )
such that composition is respected, in the evident sense.
For every object , there is an enriched representable functor, denoted
(where on the right we have the enriched hom-functor from Example )
which sends objects to
and whose action on morphisms is, under the above identification, just the composition operation in .
More generally, the following situation will be of interest:
Example
(enriched functor on enriched product category with opposite category)
An -enriched functor (Def. ) into (Example ) out of an enriched product category (Def. )
(an βenriched bifunctorβ) has component morphisms of the form
By functoriality and under passing to adjuncts (Def. ) under (2) this is equivalent to two commuting actions
and
In the special case of a functor out of the enriched product category of some -enriched category with its enriched opposite category (def. )
then this takes the form of a βpullback actionβ in the first variable
and a βpushforward actionβ in the second variable
Example
(functor category of enriched functors)
For a cosmos (Def. ) let , be two -enriched categories (Def. ). Then there is a category (Def. ) of enriched functors (Def. ), to be denoted
whose objects are the enriched functors and whose morphisms are the enriched natural transformations between these (Def. ).
In the case that Set, via Def. , with -enriched categories identified with plain categories via Example , this coincides with the functor category from Example .
Notice that, at this point, is a plain category, not itself a -enriched category, unless Set. But it may be enhanced to one, this is Def. below.
There is now the following evident generalization of the concept of adjoint functors (Def. ) from plain category theory to enriched category theory:
Definition
(enriched equivalence of categories)
For a cosmos (Def. ), let , be two -enriched categories (Def. ). Then an equivalence of enriched categories
is a pair of -enriched functors back and forth, as shown (Def. ), together with -enriched natural isomorphisms (Def. ) between their composition and the identity functors: