5
$\begingroup$

The standard definition of a (left) simplicial module $V$ over some simplicial algebra $A$ is the map of simplicial vector spaces $A\otimes V\to V$ that gives the usual modules component-wise. Here $\otimes$ denotes the component-wise tensor product of simplicial vector spaces (it gives to the category $sVect$ of simplicial vector spaces a symmetric monoidal structure).

But there is a natural structure of simplicial algebra on $sHom(V,V)$ (the internal $Hom$ induced by the product $\otimes$). So we can also define structure of a simplicial module over $A$ on $V$ by fixing a morphism of simplicial algebras $A\to sHom(V,V)$.

I think we can do it in more generality, for any symmetric monoidal category $C$ with internal $Hom$. If we have a monoid $A$ in $C$ and some object $V\in C$, then we can define the structure of $A$-module on $V$ in two different ways: via $A\otimes V\to V$ and $A\to \underline{Hom}(V,V)$, where $\underline{Hom}$ is the internal $Hom$.

The question is: are these two definitions equivalent for any symmetric monoidal category with internal $\underline{Hom}$? If not, is it true for simplicial vector spaces?

Thank you very much!

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If your $\otimes$ and $\underline{\mathrm{Hom}}$ are related by the standard adjunction, then there is a canonical bijection between morphisms $A \otimes V \to V$ and morphisms $A \to \underline{\mathrm{Hom}}(V, V)$. So it just amounts to checking that the axioms for one version translate to the axioms for the other version. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Oct 31 '13 at 21:41
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I know that. But this is far from being obvious (to me) that the axioms actually match up. Maybe I am just being stupid, and there is easy to see. I tried to write it down, but I didn't get anywhere. So I thought maybe there is some more high-powered way to say that everything works. $\endgroup$ – Sasha Patotski Oct 31 '13 at 21:47
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'd say this is better for math.stackexchange $\endgroup$ – Fernando Muro Oct 31 '13 at 21:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Sasha, you may find useful first to check it for abelian groups, where objects are sets and morphisms are maps, and then to rephrase everything in a categorical language $\endgroup$ – Fernando Muro Oct 31 '13 at 21:56
9
$\begingroup$

I will write $[B, C]$ instead of $\underline{\mathrm{Hom}}(B, C)$. Recall the tensor–hom adjunction: $$\mathrm{Hom}(A \otimes B, C) \cong \mathrm{Hom}(A, [B, C])$$ Thus there is a canonical bijection between morphisms $\alpha : A \otimes V \to V$ and $\tilde{\alpha} : A \to [V, V]$. Let us show that $\alpha$ is an $A$-action on $V$ if and only if $\tilde{\alpha}$ is a monoid homomorphism. For simplicity I will work in a strict monoidal category.

  • The unit axiom for $\alpha$ says, $\alpha \circ (e \otimes \mathrm{id}_V) = \mathrm{id}_V$; and the the unit axiom for $\tilde{\alpha}$ says, $\tilde{\alpha} \circ e = \eta_V$, where $\eta_V : I \to [V, V]$ is the right adjoint transpose of $\mathrm{id}_V : V \to V$. The naturality of the tensor–hom adjunction in the first variable implies that these two conditions are equivalent.
  • The compatibility axiom for $\alpha$ says, $\alpha \circ (m \otimes \mathrm{id}_V) = \alpha \circ (\mathrm{id}_A \otimes \alpha)$; and the compatibility axiom for $\tilde{\alpha}$ says, $\tilde{\alpha} \circ m = \mu_V \circ (\tilde{\alpha} \otimes \tilde{\alpha})$, where $\mu_V : [V, V] \otimes [V, V] \to [V, V]$ is the right adjoint transpose of the composite $$[V, V] \otimes [V, V] \otimes V \xrightarrow{\mathrm{id}_{[V, V]} \otimes \epsilon_{V,V}} [V, V] \otimes V \xrightarrow{\epsilon_{V,V}} V$$ where $\epsilon_{B,C} : [B, C] \otimes B \to C$ is the left adjoint transpose of $\mathrm{id} : [B, C] \to [B, C]$. Now, naturality in the first variable implies the right adjoint transpose of $\alpha \circ (m \otimes \mathrm{id}_V)$ is $\tilde{\alpha} \circ m$, and naturality in the first variable implies the left adjoint transpose of $\mu_V \circ (\tilde{\alpha} \otimes \tilde{\alpha})$ is the following composite, $$A \otimes A \otimes V \xrightarrow{\tilde{\alpha} \otimes \tilde{\alpha} \otimes \mathrm{id}_V} [V, V] \otimes [V, V] \otimes V \xrightarrow{\mathrm{id}_{[V, V]} \otimes \epsilon_{V,V}} [V, V] \otimes V \xrightarrow{\epsilon_{V,V}} V$$ but $\alpha = \epsilon_{V,V} \circ (\tilde{\alpha} \otimes \mathrm{id}_V)$, so the above reduces to $\alpha \circ (\mathrm{id}_A \otimes \alpha)$.

Thus the claim is proved.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There must be a cleaner diagrammatic language to phrase such proofs in. I know there's a nice diagrammatic language when we can write $[B, C] \cong B^{\ast} \otimes C$ but I don't know about in general. I ran into this issue while trying to find a diagrammatic language for cartesian closed categories awhile ago. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Oct 31 '13 at 22:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There are various extensions of the string diagram calculus to handle biclosed monoidal categories, or at least that's what I hear. For cartesian closed categories one could use simply typed $\lambda$-calculus though. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Oct 31 '13 at 23:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And in the general closed monoidal case one can use linear type theory. $\endgroup$ – Mike Shulman Nov 1 '13 at 4:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Of course this correspondence is well-known. Does someone know a reference in the literature? $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Nov 2 '13 at 20:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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