1
$\begingroup$

I reading Yuri Manin's famous paper on "CORRESPONDENCES, MOTIFS AND MONOIDAL TRANSFORMATIONS" and struggle with his definition for so called pseudo-abelian completion given on page 453 by a reason I would like to explain below. first of all the setting:

Definition 1: An additive category $\mathscr{D}$ is called pseudo-abelian if the following condition holds in it:

(P)For any projector $p \in Hom(X,X)$ (recall projector = idempotent map satisfying $p=p^2$) there exists a kernel $Ker p$, and the canonical isomorphism $Ker(p) \oplus Ker(id_X-p) \cong X$.

Definition 2: Let $\mathscr{D}$ be an additive category. Its pseudo-abelian completion is the category $\tilde{\mathscr{D}}$ defined by the following data:

-Objects $Ob(\tilde{\mathscr{D}})$ are pairs $(X,p)$ with $X \in Ob(\mathscr{D})$ and $p$ projector

-Morphisms are defined by

$$Hom_{\tilde{\mathscr{D}}}((X,p),(Y,q)):= \\ \Big\{\text{group of } f \in Hom_{\mathscr{D}}(X,Y) \text{ with } f \circ p=q \circ f \Big\} \Big / \Big\{\text{ the subgroup of } f \text{ for } \\ \text{ which } f \circ p=q \circ f=0 \Big\}$$

Then it is claimed that the "category" $\tilde{\mathscr{D}}$ is pseudo-abelian.

Problem 1: I'm not satisfied with the definition of morphisms. Essentially what is here done one associate to a category $\mathscr{D}$ a Karoubian hull. See here: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Karoubian+category#properties or here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-abelian_category#Pseudo-abelian_completion for details.

And I think that it not suffice to demand that the morphisms in $\tilde{\mathscr{D}}$ are $f \in Hom_{\mathscr{D}}(X,Y) \text{ with } f \circ p=q \circ f$ modulo certain relation.

I think it's neccessary to require that these morphism have to satisfy $f \circ p=q \circ f= f$ as well.

Why I think so: Let $(X, p)$ an object in this category and the question is what is the identity $id_{(X,p)}$ of it? If we only demand that the morphisms have to satisfy $f \circ p=q \circ f$, then we have a uniqueness problem of the identity:

$id_X$ and $p$ behave both well as identities of $(X,p)$ as one can easily check. And if $p \neq id_X$ that is a problem. I don't also see how the moduled out relations can repair this leck of uniqueness.

But if we require instead the extended relation $f \circ p=q \circ f= f$, we see that $p$ and not $id_X$ is unique identity $id_{(X,p)}$ on $(X,p)$.

Problem 2: What is the reason for taking quotient by $\{\text{ the subgroup of } f \text{ for which } f \circ p=q \circ f=0 \}$? The classical description of Karoubian completion also not require it.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

This is an equivalent way of describing the same thing. To see that, notice that for any $f$ such that $q\circ f=f\circ p$, $$( f\circ p - q\circ f\circ p)\circ p =q\circ( f\circ p - q\circ f\circ p)=0$$ Therefore $[f\circ p]=[q\circ f\circ p]$ in our homomorphism group. Similarly, $[f]=[f\circ p]$ in our homomorphism group. Hence every homomorphism is represented by an element of the form $g=q\circ f\circ p$( and hence $q\circ g=g\circ p=g$).

On the other hand, if two maps $f,g:X\to Y$ are such that $q\circ f= f\circ p=f$, $q\circ g= g\circ p=g$, and represent the same homomorphism, then by definition $q\circ (f-g)=(f-g)\circ p=0$. Since composition is bilinear, this forces $f=g$.

So, the answer to your questions are 1.) this is a different way of describing the same thing, and 2.) to make the problems you described in 1. go away.

$\endgroup$

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.