3
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\dmod}{\text{-}\mathrm{mod}}$ Let $A$ be a finite-dimensional $k$-algebra, $A\dmod$ be a category of finite-dimensional A-modules and $\mathrm{U}_A:A\dmod \to \textbf{Vect}_k$ be a forgetful functor. We can reconstruct $A$ as $\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{U}_A)$ by using Tannaka reconstruction thorem.

Question : Does the claim hold even if the assumption of "finite-dimensional" is excluded?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Yes, of course. You still have a natural homomorphism $A\rightarrow END(U_A)$. Since ${}_AA$ is a free $A$-module, an endomorphism $x\in END(U_A)$ is determined by its value $x_A$ on ${}_AA$. This proves that the natural homomorphism is an isomorphism: $$x_A \in End (A_{End_{{}_AA}})= End (A_{{A}})=A.$$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Is $\mathrm{End}(U_A)$ a set? If F and G are functors, I think $\mathrm{Nat}(F,G)$ is not a set in general. $\endgroup$
    – yohei ohta
    Nov 26 at 0:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is a set because your category is "presentable". It has a generator ${}_AA$, a value on which determines a natural endomorphism. $\endgroup$
    – Bugs Bunny
    Nov 26 at 8:25
  • $\begingroup$ Thx! I would like to ask another related question. I think Tannaka reconstruction theorem holds for an arbitary complete closed monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$. Let A be a monoid in $\mathcal{C}$ ,$A\text{-}\mathrm{Mod}$ be a category of left A-modules in $\mathcal{C}$ and $U_A:A\text{-}\mathrm{Mod} \to \mathcal{C}$ be a forgetful functor. Is $\mathrm{Nat}(U_A,U_A)$ a object of $\mathcal{C}$? $\endgroup$
    – yohei ohta
    Nov 26 at 9:55
  • $\begingroup$ No, it is not. Take ${\mathcal C}$ to be vector space. Then $Nat(U_A,U_A)$ is typically not a vector space. $\endgroup$
    – Bugs Bunny
    Nov 29 at 8:01

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.