Processing math: 100%
Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2021

    Created with the following content:

    Idea

    Definition

    A module M over a commutative ring R is dualizable if it is a dualizable object in the symmetric monoidal category of R-modules equipped with the tensor product over R.

    Since this [symmetric monoidal category is a closed monoidal category, the dual object to M is necessarily HomR(M,R).

    Furthermore, the abstract evaluation map

    HomR(M,R)RMR

    must coincide with the map induced by the bilinear map

    HomR(M,R)×RMR

    that sends (f,m) to f(m).

    Characterization

    \begin{theorem} An R-module is dualizable if and only if it is a finitely generated projective module. \end{theorem}

    \begin{proof} First, dualizable objects are closed under retracts and finite direct sums. Any finitely generated projective module is a retract of Rn for some n0, so to show that finitely generated projective modules are dualizable, it suffices to observe that R is dualizable as an R-module.

    Conversely, we show that dualizable objects are finitely generated projective modules. Unfolding the definition of a dualizable object, an R-module M is dualizable if the coevaluation map

    coev:RMHomR(M,R)

    and the evaluation map

    ev:HomR(M,R)MR

    satisfy the triangle identities:

    (idMev)(coevidM)=idM,
    (evidHom(M,R))(idHom(M,R)coev)=idHom(M,R).

    The coevaluation map sends 1R to a finite sum

    iImifi.

    The triangle identities now read

    iImifi(p)=p,pM
    iIr(mi)fi=r,rHomR(M,R).

    The first identity implies that mi (iI) generate M as an R-module, i.e., M is finitely generated.

    Consider the map a:RIM that sends (ri)iI to iImiri. Consider also the map b:MRI that sends pM to (fi(p))iIRI. The first triangle identity now reads ba=idM. Thus, M is a retract of RI, i.e., M is a projective module. \end{proof}

    Related concepts

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2021

    Added this:

    Geometric interpretation

    See also Serre–Swan theorem and smooth Serre–Swan theorem.

    \begin{theorem} (Serre, 1955.) The category of dualizable modules over a commutative ring R is equivalent to the category of algebraic vector bundles (defined as locally free sheaves over the structure sheaf of rings) over the Zariski spectrum of R. \end{theorem}

    \begin{theorem} (Swan, 1962.) Given a compact Hausdorff space X, the category of dualizable modules over the real algebra of continuous maps XR is equivalent to the category of finite-dimensional continuous vector bundles over X. \end{theorem}

    \begin{theorem} (See, e.g., Nestruev 2003, 11.33.) Given a smooth manifold X, the category of dualizable modules over the real algebra of smooth maps XR is equivalent to the category of finite-dimensional smooth vector bundles over X. \end{theorem}

    v1, current

  1. How constructive is the equivalence between dualizable and finitely generated projective? It feels a lot like choosing a basis. In particular the step where we get a specific sum imifi seems like we’re getting something for nothing.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2021

    Re #3: Looks constructive to me.

    Concerning the specific sum: the tensor product of M and N over A (also constructively, I presume) is the quotient of the free vector space on M⨯N by the vector space generated by the elements (m+m’,n)-(m,n)-(m’,n), (am,n)-a(m,n), and the symmetric versions.

    So we get a finite sum of m_i⊗f_i because it is a representative of an equivalence class in the quotient.