2
$\begingroup$

I'm reading and struggling with bits and pieces of the book Mal'cev, Protomodular, Homological, and Semi-Abelian categories by Borceux and Bourn. At the moment I'm having trouble with:

Theorem 1.3.22 Let $\mathsf C$ be a unital category. For all objects $X,Y\in \mathsf C$, the set $\boldsymbol{\mathsf Z}(X,Y)$ of central morphisms acts transitively on $\mathsf C(X,Y)$, where the action is given by addition.

The only bit of the proof (page 38) which seems relevant is the observation that given $z\in \boldsymbol{\mathsf Z}(X,Y),f\in \mathsf C(X,Y)$ the cooperator $\phi_{z,f}$ is the composite $\phi _z\circ (1_X \times f)$. How does this show the action is transitive?

The transitivity of this action seems strange to me in concrete terms - it's saying every two arrows $X\rightrightarrows Y$ have a "difference" which is almost well defined, and I don't see what's going on here unless $\boldsymbol{\mathsf Z}(X,Y)$ is a group... What am I seeing wrong?


Added:

Definition. A unital category is a finitely complete pointed category such that the unit injections $j_i:A_i\to A_1\times A_2$ given by $j_1=(1,0),j_2=(0,1)$ where $0,1$ are the zero and identity arrows are jointly extremally epimorphic.

Example. The unital algebraic varieties are unital categories.

Definition. In a unital category, arrows $A\overset{f}{\to}C\overset{g}{\leftarrow}B$ are said to cooperate if there's a unique arrow $A\times B\to C$ making the obvious diagram with the $j_i$ commute.

Example. Monoid homomorphisms cooperate iff their images commute pointwise, i.e $f(x)g(y)=g(y)f(x)$.

Definition. An arrow is central if it cooperates with the identity on its codomain.

Example. A submonoid is central iff its contained in the center of the monoid.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Could you please add the definitions of the less standard terms? unital category, central morphism, cooperator. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Nov 16 '16 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ @HeinrichD done. $\endgroup$ – Arrow Nov 16 '16 at 15:32
4
$\begingroup$

The action is definitely not transitive. Consider for example the category of groups, which is unital. Here, the statement would be that for two groups $X,Y$ the group $\hom(X,Z(Y))$ (where $Z(Y)$ denotes the center of $Y$) acts transitively on the set $\hom(X,Y)$ via pointwise multiplication. But the orbit of the trivial homomorphism $X \to Y$ is just the set of homomorphisms $X \to Z(Y)$. Also, if $X=\mathbb{Z}$, we simply have the action of $Z(Y)$ on the underlying set of $Y$, whose orbit set can be quite large.

Perhaps the authors meant something different with transitive here, in particular because $\mathsf{Z}(X,Y)$ in general is just a commutative monoid?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ PS: It seems that the theorem is used a couple of times in the book, but only the statement that addition is an action. So it's not so bad if the transitivity fails. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Nov 17 '16 at 10:34

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.