2
$\begingroup$

1.Context
Let $(C, \otimes, I, a, l,r)$ be a monoidal category. Here $r$ denotes the right unitor. Suppose $S: C^{op} \xrightarrow{\sim} C$ is an equivalence of categories with inverse $S’$. Assume that there are bijections $\phi_{X,Y,Z}: \operatorname{Hom}_C(X \otimes Y,SZ) \xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Hom}_C(X, S(Y \otimes Z))$ natural in $X,Y,Z$. This makes $C$ a star-autonomous category. Note that we do not assume that $S$ is a monoidal equivalence. For simplicity suppose that the associator $a$ is the identity and that $S$ and $S'$ are strict inverses.

Define the functor $⅋: C \times C \rightarrow C$ as the composite $C \times C \xrightarrow{\tau}C \times C \xrightarrow{(S',S')} C^{op} \times C^{op}= (C \times C)^{op}\xrightarrow{\otimes^{op}} C^{op}\xrightarrow{S} C$. Here $\tau$ denotes the functor that switches components, while $\otimes^{op}$ is the opposite functor of the monoidal product $\otimes$.

2.Question
Does the equality $$\phi_{A ⅋ B,I,S'B \otimes S'A}(r_{A ⅋ B})=\operatorname{id_A} ⅋ \: \phi_{B,I,S'B}(r_B)$$ hold for any two objects $A,B \in C$?

In the monoidal category of finite dimensional vector spaces over a field with usual duality functor (and the choice of $\phi$ arising from the standard choice of coevaluation and evaluation for the rigid structure) the equality holds. This essentially follows from my answer here together with the fact that the left unitor is natural. For any other choice of $\phi$ that arises from a change of coevaluation/evaluation the equality remains true. More precisely, we can scale each coevaluation $\text{coev}_X:k \rightarrow X^* \otimes X$ by a non-zero scalar $\lambda_X$. This scales any $\phi_{-,X,-}$ by $\lambda_X$. Then the equality still holds since both sides of the equation are scaled by $\lambda_I$.

I tried other examples (in particular non-rigid ones) – to no avail. What is a good place to look for counterexamples to the equality? In particular, I realized that I don't know what the natural transformation $\phi_{X,Y,Z}: \operatorname{Hom}_C(X \otimes Y,SZ) \xrightarrow{\sim} \operatorname{Hom}_C(X, S(Y \otimes Z))$ looks like for many non-rigid, non-posetal star-autonomous categories (e.g. the category of sup-lattices, of coherence spaces, of phase spaces). Often I can show that the natural transformation exists, but getting my hands dirty proved rather difficult. Any help in that respect would be appreciated.

$\endgroup$
11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't have an answer to the question as posed, but I think this is the wrong definition of $\ast$-autonomous category, essentially because of the counterexamples you mentioned in your answer to your other question. (I have been meaning to fix the nLab page ever since I realized this, but never gotten around to it.) The existence of such a $\phi$ is sufficient to give $C$ the property of being $\ast$-autonomous, as I believe was noted already in Barr's original paper, but it alone isn't a correct specification of the structure of $\ast$-autonomy. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 18, 2022 at 0:01
  • $\begingroup$ To get a correct structure, you can either restrict $\phi$ to the case when $X$ is the unit, as in Definition C of Barr's paper on the non-symmetric case, or keep the general $\phi$ but impose a "pentagon" axiom relating it to the associator. I don't know of a published reference that does the latter for $\ast$-autonomous categories, but it appears in the more general context of Frobenius pseudomonoids in this paper by Mellies (Definition 9). $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 18, 2022 at 0:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ By "a correct structure" I meant "a correct definition of $\ast$-autonomous structure". The point is exactly that the isomorphism is not unique, i.e. a given monoidal category can admit many different $\ast$-autonomous structures. (Although, your examples of different such isomorphisms for finite-dimensional vector spaces I would not regard as an example of this variety, since the nontrivial cases do not satisfy the pentagon axiom, so I would not call them $\ast$-autonomous structures.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 18, 2022 at 16:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I believe that given an "incoherent" $\phi$ (not satisfying the pentagon) it is always possible to find a different $\phi$ that is coherent. In fact I think that this is what happens if you start from an "incoherent $\ast$-autonomous structure", make it into a linearly distributive category with negation, and then come back to a $\ast$-autonomous structure. (So I believe the HL claim that "these constructions are mutually inverse" is not true as stated, that you don't get back to the same $\phi$ if you started with an incoherent one.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 18, 2022 at 16:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have some notes for an incomplete paper I was writing a while ago on a question close to this one that I'd be happy to share if you send me an email. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 18, 2022 at 16:40

0

You must log in to answer this question.