15
$\begingroup$

It is well known that, for square matrix $x$ and $y$, we have $\operatorname{tr}(xy)=\operatorname{tr}(yx)$. Here of course the trace of a matrix is just the sum of the elements of the diagonal.

The notion of trace has a lot of generalization. As I know, the most general definition is the following: let $(\mathcal C, \otimes, 1, ^\vee)$ be a rigid symmetric monoidal category, $X$ an object of $\mathcal C$ and $f$ an endomorphism of $X$. Then $\operatorname{tr}(f) \in \operatorname{End}(1)$ is defined by the following composition $$ 1 \longrightarrow X^\vee \otimes X \stackrel{\operatorname{id}_{X^\vee} \otimes f}{\longrightarrow} X^\vee \otimes X \longrightarrow X \otimes X^\vee \longrightarrow 1 $$ So my questions is: it is true, in this generality, that $\operatorname{tr}(f\circ g)=\operatorname{tr}(g \circ f)$, for $f$ and $g$ in $\operatorname{End}(X)$?

Ricky

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Have you tried drawing the appropriate string diagrams? $\endgroup$ Jul 6, 2011 at 21:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Why specify "square" matrices in particular? The occasion for use of this identity with which I am most familiar depends crucially on the matrices not being square. $\endgroup$ Jul 6, 2011 at 21:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To Qiaochu: I'm completely new to string diagram, so it is possible that my question becomes trivial in that language. I just don't know. To Micheal: what is the trace of a non square matrix? I've always seen the trace of an endomorphism! $\endgroup$
    – Ricky
    Jul 6, 2011 at 22:12
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If $X$ is $m \times n$ and $Y$ is $n \times m$, then $\mathrm{Tr}(XY) = \mathrm{Tr}(YX)$. $\endgroup$ Jul 6, 2011 at 22:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It is also true for Ribbon categories, which are in general not symmetric, but just "braided", see eg. Kassel - Quantum Groups. $\endgroup$ Jul 7, 2011 at 3:30

1 Answer 1

17
$\begingroup$

Yes. The string diagram chase can be found on page 8 of Ponto and Shulman - Traces in symmetric monoidal categories.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This is a great paper, but I think the chase given obscures the underlying topological idea a little: you take two wires, feed them into each other, then rotate everything by $180^{\circ}$. I'm not completely sure what structure is necessary to make that particular argument valid, though. $\endgroup$ Jul 7, 2011 at 4:38
  • $\begingroup$ I think they could have done it that way, by first introducing movie moves which express extranaturality, e.g., one which gives an equation where $g \otimes 1_{x^\ast}$ followed by the counit $x \otimes x^\ast \to I$ equals $1_y \otimes g^\ast$ followed by the counit $y \otimes y^\ast \to I$; here I'm using $g: y \to x$ and $g^\ast: x^\ast \to y^\ast$ denotes the mate of $g$. This interprets the move where you slide the bead labeled $g$ through the bottom critical point, after which $g^\ast$ pops up on the other side. There's probably a lemma or two that needs to be proven first. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Jul 7, 2011 at 10:13
  • $\begingroup$ Your link has rotted, but I think referred to Ponto and Shulman - Traces in symmetric monoidal categories. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    May 5, 2022 at 14:09
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice Thanks! I edited it in. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    May 6, 2022 at 14:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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