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

Let us place ourselves in a category $\mathcal C$ with finite coproducts $X\amalg Y$, even cocomplete if necessary. It is well known that the morphism set $\mathcal C(X,Y)$ carries an abelian group structure natural in $Y$ if and only if there are maps

$$\mu\colon X\longrightarrow X\amalg X, \qquad \iota\colon X\longrightarrow X, \qquad \theta\colon X\longrightarrow \varnothing,$$

which satisfy properties dual to the multiplication, the inversion, and the inclusion of the neutral element in a group (here $\varnothing$ is the initial object). These properties are stated in terms of diagrams, which must commute, see below. Such objects are called cogroup objects.

In a certain category, I've found certain cogroup objects $X$, which are in addition cocommutative, and equipped with maps

$$\alpha^*\colon X\longrightarrow X,\qquad\alpha\in k,$$

indexed by the elements of a commutative ring $k$. I suspect they produce a $k$-module structure in $\mathcal C(X,Y)$ natural in $Y$. Are the necessary commutative diagrams written down in a reference? Where have such objects appeared before? That should be equivalent to giving a contravariant functor from f.g. free $k$-modules to $\mathcal C$.

Now, the diagrams for a cogroup object (I don't know why I write them since anyone which has read up to here surely knows them by heart):

$$\begin{array}{ccc} X&\stackrel{\mu}\longrightarrow &X\amalg X\\ {\scriptstyle\mu}\downarrow&&\downarrow \scriptstyle 1\amalg \mu\\ X\amalg X&\stackrel{\mu\amalg 1}\longrightarrow&X\amalg X\amalg X \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc} X&\stackrel{\mu}\longrightarrow&X\amalg X\\ {\scriptstyle\theta}\downarrow&&\downarrow\scriptstyle (1,\iota)\\ \varnothing&\longrightarrow&X \end{array}\qquad\quad\begin{array}{ccc} X&\stackrel{\mu}\longrightarrow&X\amalg X\\ {\scriptstyle\theta}\downarrow&&\downarrow\scriptstyle (\iota,1)\\ \varnothing&\longrightarrow&X \end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{ccc} X&\stackrel{\mu}\longrightarrow&X\amalg X\\ {\scriptstyle 1}\downarrow&&\downarrow\scriptstyle 1\amalg \theta\\ X&=&X\amalg\varnothing \end{array}\qquad\qquad\qquad\begin{array}{ccc} X&\stackrel{\mu}\longrightarrow&X\amalg X\\ {\scriptstyle 1}\downarrow&&\downarrow\scriptstyle \theta\amalg 1\\ X&=&\varnothing\amalg X \end{array}$$

share|improve this question
Cogroup objects are to groups what Co-k-module objects are to k-modules, that would be the answwer for an IQ-test, at least. –  Dietrich Burde Feb 28 '14 at 16:35
Sure, I've thought of that, but if I google such things I just find references to comodules over corings. Do you happen to know any reference for what I'm looking for? –  Fernando Muro Feb 28 '14 at 16:41
Non-mathematical comment: since people seemed keen on tidying LaTeX last time I was on MO, I think \amalg does a better job than \coprod in this context. YMMV, etc –  Yemon Choi Feb 28 '14 at 16:42
The basic example of such an object I've seen before is the walking tangent vector $\operatorname{Spec} k[x]/x^2$ in the category of pointed $k$-schemes. –  Eric Wofsey Feb 28 '14 at 17:47

1 Answer 1

up vote 8 down vote accepted

Just do as you are doing: treat the maps $\alpha^\ast: X \to X$ as unary co-operations and dualize the diagrams you would use for a $k$-module object in a category with finite products.

So for a $k$-module object ($k$ a fixed commutative ring) you would adjoin to the abelian group operations and axioms (for an internal additive group object $X$) a bunch of unary operations on $X$ and equational axioms which would amount to saying that there is a ring homomorphism in the category of sets $(-)^\ast: k \to \hom(X, X)$. Thus we have equations $1^\ast = id_X: X \to X$, $(\alpha + \beta)^\ast = \alpha^\ast + \beta^\ast$, $(\alpha \beta)^\ast = \alpha^\ast \circ \beta^\ast$. The second equation would of course be written more formally as a commutative diagram which says

$$(\alpha + \beta)^\ast = (X \stackrel{\Delta_X}{\to} X \times X \stackrel{\alpha^\ast \times \beta^\ast}{\to} X \times X \stackrel{+_X}{\to} X)$$

Now the only difference is that you're dualizing this, i.e., interpreting the above equations in the category with finite products $\mathcal{C}^{op}$. Thus all you have to do is, given the unary operations $\alpha^\ast: X \to X$, enforce the equations $1^\ast = id_X$, $(\alpha \cdot \beta)^\ast = \beta^\ast \circ \alpha^\ast$, and commutativity of a diagram that says

$$(\alpha + \beta)^\ast = (X \stackrel{\mu}{\to} X \amalg X \stackrel{\alpha^\ast \amalg \beta^\ast}{\to} X \amalg X \stackrel{\nabla}{\to} X)$$

to define a co-($k$-module) object in $\mathcal{C}$.

I don't know of a place where this has been written down explicitly, but I wouldn't think it needs a reference since it's pretty straightforward.

share|improve this answer
Thanks Todd! I hoped this had shown up before, but as you said maybe it's straightforward enough so as not to be forced to give a reference. –  Fernando Muro Feb 28 '14 at 23:19

Your Answer


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.