Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 beauty bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration 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 lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories 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 science set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory 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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011

    Zoran has created adjoint triple, I have added adjoint quadruple

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011

    This one is nice. We should have more on the duality from the old paper of Eilenberg. I mean the monads having right adjoints and comonads having left adjoints, thsi can be generalized and it is mostly about the dualization of algebraic structures within an adjoint triple.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
    • (edited Apr 12th 2011)

    I have added a remark on how adjoint quadruples induce adjoint triples. Then I expanded the remark on how adjoint triples induce adjoint pairs. Finally I spelled out, for completeness, the proof that for an adjoint triple FF is full and faithful precisely of HH is.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
    • (edited Apr 12th 2011)

    I have also added still more hyperlinks to adjoint triple. I would like to appeal to you and everybody: please add double square brackets around every single technical term, at least on first occurence.

    Because, what do we have a wiki for if, say, the term triangulated functor appears on a page and it is not linked? Which reminds me: the entry (or redirect) triangulated functor is still to be created ;-)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011

    It seems to me there is something missing from the proof of Prop. 1: a priori “being isomorphic to the identity” is a weaker statement than the particular unit or counit map being an isomorphism. Do we need to appeal to A1.1.1 in the Elephant? (and is that fact reproduced anywhere on the nLab yet?)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011

    Also, is there a particular reason to use η\eta for counits at adjoint quadruple? Usually η\eta is a unit.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
    • (edited Apr 13th 2011)

    Do we need to appeal to A1.1.1 in the Elephant? (and is that fact reproduced anywhere on the nLab yet?)

    right, I have added that (and some other basic stuff) to the Properties-section at adjoint functor

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011

    Also, is there a particular reason to use η\eta for counits at adjoint quadruple?

    Not a particular good reason, anyway. I’ll see if I find time to change it.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011

    On the quadruple page you have

    Every adjoint quadruple

    (f !f *f *f !):CD (f_! \dashv f^* \dashv f_* \dashv f^!) : C \to D

    induces an adjoint triple on CC

    (f *f !f *f *f !f *):CC, (f^* f_! \dashv f^* f_* \dashv f^! f_*) : C \to C \,,

    Can we say anything about the situation from DD’s perspective, i.e., the three endofunctors, f !f *,f *f *,f *f !f_! f^*, f_* f^*, f_* f^!?

    And does anything interesting happen if you take the adjoint triple of a quadruple, and then take the adjoint pair of that triple?

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011

    Can we say anything about the situation from DD’s perspective, i.e., the three endofunctors, f !f *,f *f *,f *f !f_! f^*, f_* f^*, f_* f^!?

    These also form an adjoint triple, yes. I have added that to the entry.

    And does anything interesting happen if you take the adjoint triple of a quadruple, and then take the adjoint pair of that triple?

    Good question. I need to think about that. At least I know one example where one has something like an adjoint quadruple and does care about the composite going back-forth-back-forth through the four adjunctions. I once mentioned that here.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)