7
$\begingroup$

Given a Hopf-algebra $H$ (over a commutative ring), it is a classical fact that its category of (left) modules is monoidal, even if $H$ is not commutative. Given two left modules $M$ and $N$, we can form a new left module structure on $M\otimes N$ via the structure map $$H\otimes M\otimes N\overset{\Delta\otimes 1\otimes 1}\to H\otimes H\otimes M\otimes N\overset{1\otimes\tau\otimes 1}\to H\otimes M\otimes H \otimes N\to M\otimes N.$$

When working in a derived setting (let's assume $H$ is an object in a symmetric monoidal quasicategory $\mathscr{C}$), things can be slightly more complicated, and we should probably have $H$ with monoidal structure and comonoidal structure given by some operads like the little $n$-disk operads $\mathbb{E}_n.$ It's basically formal when working in quasicategories to say that $H$ is an $\mathbb{E}_n$-algebra with a compatible $\mathbb{E}_m$-coalgebra structure, making it into an $\mathbb{E}_n/\mathbb{E}_m$-bialgebra in $\mathscr{C}$. We just say that $H$ is an $\mathbb{E}_n$-algebra object in the quasicategory of $\mathbb{E}_m$-coalgebra objects in $\mathscr{C}$.

It's known that, in general, given an $\mathbb{E}_n$-algebra, the category of left modules over it is $\mathbb{E}_{n-1}$-monoidal. This is why, for instance, left modules over a noncommutative ring (i.e. an $\mathbb{E}_1$-algebra) are not monoidal at all. So my question is, to what extent can we perform the above trick in a "derived" way? Obviously it does not suffice to simply write down the structure map, since we need a whole lot of coherent data to write down a module structure now, but is there some other way to do it?

A good example would be, I think, the example of an $n$-fold loop space $X$. Any space, via the diagonal map, is an $\mathbb{E}_\infty$-coalgebra. In fact there's an equivalence of quasicategories $CoAlg_{\mathbb{E}_\infty}(Top)\simeq Top$. So an $n$-fold loop space is definitely an $\mathbb{E}_n$-algebra in $\mathbb{E}_\infty$-coalgebras in $Top$. So, is the category of modules in $Top$ over $X$ somehow "more monoidal than it should be?" In general, how well does this type of thing work?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are precise compatibility conditions for E$_n$-algebra and E$_m$-coalgebra structures worked out somewhere? $\endgroup$ – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Aug 19 '18 at 7:56
  • $\begingroup$ I remember trying this and it was a mess - if you cap an upwards growing tree with an upside-down one, you get more or less arbitrary graph, i.e. something not contractible; how to "disentangle" it was not clear to me $\endgroup$ – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Aug 19 '18 at 8:00
  • $\begingroup$ @მამუკაჯიბლაძე compatibility conditions are NOT worked out anywhere. the best I can do is what I said above, but writing down what that means geometrically or combinatorially seems like an unbelievable mess. $\endgroup$ – Jonathan Beardsley Aug 21 '18 at 4:26
  • $\begingroup$ I see :( The A$_\infty$ case is, I believe, worked out by Saneblidze and Umble... $\endgroup$ – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Aug 21 '18 at 4:41
  • $\begingroup$ @მამუკაჯიბლაძე ah, I wasn't familiar with that, maybe I'll check it out. $\endgroup$ – Jonathan Beardsley Aug 21 '18 at 4:46
5
$\begingroup$

Not quite sure what your exact question is, but the general pattern is as follows: let $Pr$ be the $(\infty,1)$-symmetric monoidal category of presentable categories, cocontinuous functors, natural isos between them and so on. Let $S\in E_\infty-alg(Pr)$ be a presnetable symmetric monoidal category. Then you have a symmetric monoidal functors $$E_1-alg(S)\longrightarrow Pr$$ sending $A$ to $A-mod$ and a morphism $A\rightarrow B$ to the corresponding induction functor $-\otimes_A B$. Likewise you have a symmetric monoidal functor $$E_1-coalg(S)\longrightarrow Pr$$ sending $C$ to $C-comod$ and a morphism $C\rightarrow D$ to corestriction. Therefore you get a functor $$E_1-bialg(S)=E_1-alg(E_1-coalg(S))\longrightarrow E_1-alg(Pr)$$ by applying "comod", hence the category of comodules over a bialgebra is $E_1$, i.e. monoidal. Likewise, modules over a bialgebra should really be regarded as a "comonoidal category", i.e. an $E_1$-coalgebra in $Pr$. It is also monoidal basically because restriction along algebra morphisms is also cocontinuous, i.e. there is also a contravariant functor from $E_1-alg(S)$ to $Pr$, but this is somewhat less natural and leads to some techincal issues (already in the classical/non-derived case).

Now applying Dunn's theorem you get similar statements for the higer versions of bialgebras.

$\endgroup$

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.