Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a $c$-unital $A_\infty$-category. If $\mathcal{A}$ is a $c$-unital and triangulated $A_\infty$-category, then there is a $c$-unital $A_\infty$- functor $$Tw: fun(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{A})\rightarrow fun(Tw \mathcal{C}, Tw\mathcal{A})\rightarrow fun(Tw \mathcal{C}, \mathcal{A}),$$ See (3.26) in section (3n) of Seidel's book "Fukaya cateogories and Picard-Lefschetz Theory". Here $fun(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{A})$ is the $A_\infty$-category of $c$-unital functors from $\mathcal{C}$ to $\mathcal{A}$, $Tw\mathcal{A}$ means the category of twisted complexes of $\mathcal{A}$ and the latter morphism uses the quasi-equivalence between $Tw\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{A}$.

There is also the restriction functor $$\mathcal{I}^*: fun(Tw \mathcal{C}, \mathcal{A})\rightarrow fun(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{A}).$$ My question is: are the two functors $Tw$ and $\mathcal{I}^*$ in any sense inverse to each other?

My instinct is that if two functors $\mathcal{G}, \mathcal{H}\in fun(Tw\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{A})$ have $\mathcal{I}^*\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{I}^*\mathcal{H}$ in $H^0(fun(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{A}))$, then $\mathcal{G}\cong \mathcal{H}$ in $H^0(fun(Tw\mathcal{C},\mathcal{A}))$. But this seems to be too strong.

For example, take $\mathcal{A}=Ch$, the dg category of cochain complexes, I would expect $$\mathcal{I}^*: mod(Tw\mathcal{C})\rightarrow mod(\mathcal{C})$$ is cohomologically full and faithful. But I only see result like Lemma 3.36 in Seidel's book which says $$\tilde{l}: Tw(\mathcal{C})\rightarrow mod(Tw\mathcal{C})\rightarrow mod(\mathcal{C})$$ is cohomologically full and faithful.

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
Welcome to MO! It is common (if at all possible) to use at least one of the top-level tags that is those that have a two-letter prefix (they correspond to the math categories on arxiv). Thus, I added the tag ct.category-theory. If you should prefer another one you can always change this, using the link edit just below your question. –  quid Jul 19 '13 at 23:58
    
@quid Thanks for adding the tag! –  Xin Jin Aug 1 '13 at 6:02
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

This seems to me to be unproblematic (if messy to prove). Try if this does the job: Proposition 12.15(2) in Bespalov-Lyubashenko-Manzyuk, Pretriangulated A_infty-categories

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you very much for pointing out this reference! –  Xin Jin Aug 1 '13 at 5:58
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.