Not signed in

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

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

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

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexZoran has created [[adjoint triple]], I have added [[adjoint quadruple]]

   Zoran has created adjoint triple, I have added adjoint quadruple

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItexThis 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.

   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.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • (edited Apr 12th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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 $F$ is full and faithful precisely of $H$ is.

   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 $F$ is full and faithful precisely of $H$ is.

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 12th 2011
   • (edited Apr 12th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI 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 ;-)

   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 ;-)

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIt 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?)

   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?)

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexAlso, is there a particular reason to use $\eta$ for *counits* at [[adjoint quadruple]]? Usually $\eta$ is a unit.

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

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • (edited Apr 13th 2011)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> 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 <a href="http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/adjoint+functor#Properties">Properties-section</a> at [[adjoint functor]]

   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

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItex> Also, is there a particular reason to use $\eta$ for counits at adjoint quadruple? Not a particular _good_ reason, anyway. I'll see if I find time to change it.

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

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

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorDavid_Corfield
   • CommentTimeApr 13th 2011
   • PermaLink
   Author: David_Corfield
   Format: MarkdownItexOn the quadruple page you have >Every adjoint quadruple >$$ (f_! \dashv f^* \dashv f_* \dashv f^!) : C \to D $$ >induces an adjoint triple on $C$ >$$ (f^* f_! \dashv f^* f_* \dashv f^! f_*) : C \to C \,, $$ Can we say anything about the situation from $D$'s perspective, i.e., the three endofunctors, $f_! f^*, f_* f^*, f_* f^!$? And does anything interesting happen if you take the adjoint triple of a quadruple, and then take the adjoint pair of that triple?

   On the quadruple page you have

   Every adjoint quadruple

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

   induces an adjoint triple on $C$

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

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

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

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItex> Can we say anything about the situation from $D$'s perspective, i.e., the three endofunctors, $f_! f^*, f_* f^*, f_* f^!$? 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 <a href="http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/03/rational_homotopy_theory_in_an.html#c032122">here</a>.

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

    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.