1
$\begingroup$

I have a stupid question about morphisms of two conilpotent coalgebras $\phi:X\to Y$. Is it a morphism of coaugmented coalgebras such that $\phi(F_n(X))\subseteq F_n(Y)$? Here $F_n$ denotes the coradical filtration. This plays a role in the definition of cofreeness. I am a bit lost with the literature.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

A coaugmented coalgebra $X$ over a field $k$ is a (nonzero) coalgebra endowed with a morphism of coalgebras $k\to X$. The canonical filtration $F$ on a coaugmented coalgebra $X$ is defined by the rule that, for every $n\ge0$, the subspace $F_nX\subset X$ consists of all elements $x$ such that the image of $x$ in $X/k$ is annihilated by the iterated comultiplication map $X/k\to (X/k)^{\otimes n+1}$.

A coaugmented coalgebra $X$ is said to be conilpotent if its canonical filtration is exhaustive, that is, $X=\bigcup_{n\ge0}F_nX$. In this case, the canonical filtration on $X$ coincides with what is called the coradical filtration of a coalgebra $X$. (The latter is defined similarly except that one uses the quotient of $X$ by its maximal cosemisimple subcoalgebra instead of the quotient by the image of the coaugmentation map. For a conilpotent coalgebra, the maximal cosemisimple subcoalgebra coincides with the image of the coaugmentation map.)

Any morphism of coaugmented coalgebras $\phi\colon X\to Y$ preserves the canonical filtrations, i.e., one has $\phi(F_nX)\subset F_nY$ for any morphism of coaugmented coalgebras $\phi$. This follows immediately from the definition of the canonical filtration. Moreover, one can see that the coaugmentation of a conilpotent coalgebra is unique; hence any morphism of conilpotent coalgebras preserves the coaugmenations.

Accordingly, you can define a morphism of conilpotent coalgebras $\phi\colon X\to Y$ as an arbitrary morphism of coalgebras $X\to Y$, or if you prefer, as a morphism of coaugmented coalgebras $X\to Y$. The condition that $\phi(F_nX)\subset F_nY$ then follows automatically.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for this clarification. I guess one could say here as well: $k$ a ring. Thats the situation of importance to me. $\endgroup$
    – HCH
    Feb 21, 2022 at 10:32
  • $\begingroup$ Coalgebras over a commutative ring are much more complicated than coalgebras over a field. I am not sure to what extent the notions of the coradical (otherwise known as the maximal cosemisimple subcoalgebra), the coradical filtration etc. are even applicable in the situation over a ring. There are problems of nonexactness of the tensor product over a ring etc. $\endgroup$ Feb 21, 2022 at 21:24
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. One could assume flatness or fg projective to get going. I simply need it. $\endgroup$
    – HCH
    Feb 22, 2022 at 3:02

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.