MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $F_0 : C \to D$ be a functor. If it exists, let $G_0 : D \to C$ be its left adjoint. If it exists, let $F_1 : C \to D$ be its left adjoint. And so forth. In situations where the infinite sequence $(F_0, G_0, F_1, G_1, ...)$ exists, when is it periodic? Aperiodic? (Feel free to replace all "lefts" by "rights," of course.)

share|cite|improve this question
I've wondered about this myself, and vaguely recall being told by a not entirely reliable source that there's some sort of "almost periodicity" that happens, though I wouldn't bet too heavily on it being true. Anyone with actual knowledge instead of half remembered hearsay? – Charles Siegel Dec 27 '09 at 4:24
up vote 6 down vote accepted considers sequences of adjoint functors just like you describe.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks! Unfortunately, I won't be able to read this article until I get back to MIT. – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 27 '09 at 4:49
ssh , w3m , scp file to your local machine... – Reid Barton Dec 27 '09 at 5:04
It's even easier to use EZproxy: go to… and add the bookmarklet to your browser toolbar now. (Harvard has it too but I don't know the URL offhand.) – Steven Sivek Dec 27 '09 at 5:36

In general, all the functors might be nonisomorphic. The way I know how to prove this is to consider the free monoidal (not symmetric) category with left and right duals on a single object x0, and show that there are no maps between the xi for distinct i, and so the functors xi ⊗ – (which form such a chain) are definitely distinct.

I believe there are some natural situations however where the sequence is 4-periodic. One that I think is true is when you are in a 3-category and all your unit and counit 2-morphisms themselves have adjoints. This must be true and the root reason is that taking the double left adjoint corresponds to the generator of $\pi_1(O(2)) = \mathbb{Z}$ but twice that generator is killed in $\pi_1(O(3)) = \mathbb{Z}/2$. But so far I haven't managed to turn this into a direct proof using the axioms of a 3-category with adjoints.

share|cite|improve this answer
4-periodicity would be very interesting, since it is precisely the behavior that the Fourier transform enjoys. Hmm. – Qiaochu Yuan Dec 27 '09 at 5:15

A simple example where there are adjoint strings of arbitrary length is given by the simplex category, or rather the simplex 2-category, the sub-2-category of Cat whose objects are finite ordinals (so the 1-cells or functors are order-preserving maps, and the 2-cells or transformations are instances of the order relation f ≤ g). Notice that the functor 0: [1] --> [2] = {0, 1} is left adjoint to the unique functor !: [2] --> [1] which is left adjoint to the functor 1: [1] --> [2] = {0, 1}.

Using this and the monoidal structure, you can generate adjoint strings of arbitrary length which zig-zag between the cofaces i_k: [n] --> [n+1] and codegeneracies p_k: [n+1] --> [n]. Specifically, if i_0 < i_1 < ... < i_n name the n+1 injections [n] --> [n+1] and p_1 < ... < p_n name the n surjections [n+1] --> [n], then there is an adjoint string of the form

$i_0 \dashv p_1 \dashv i_1 \dashv \ldots \dashv p_n \dashv i_n$

and clearly there is no periodicity here.

share|cite|improve this answer
I just noticed a couple weeks ago that the simplex category is actually a 2-category. Have you seen it used anywhere as such? – Reid Barton Jan 1 '10 at 3:18
Yes. You probably know that as a monoidal category, the simplex category is characterized by the universal property that it is initial among strict monoidal categories equipped with a monoid object. This is the key observation underlying the bar construction, among other things. The simplex 2-category has a similar 2-universal property, where we consider instead monoidal 2-categories equipped with a "KZ" monad, where the multiplication m: M@M --> M is left adjoint to the unit u@M: M --> M@M. Examples include cocompletion monads. Try googling this with Anders Kock (the K in KZ) as a key word. – Todd Trimble Jan 1 '10 at 3:59
Thanks, this looks very helpful. – Reid Barton Jan 1 '10 at 16:16

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.