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).

nLab > Latest Changes: additive category

Bottom of Page

1 to 19 of 19

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2012

    touched the formatting at additive category

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2016

    I have added in the detailed proof of the proposition (here) that in an Ab-enriched category all finite (co-)products are biproducts.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2016

    For completeness, further below in the Properties-section (starting here) I have spelled out the way semiadditive structure induces enrichment in commutative monoids, and that this induced enrichment coincides with the original enrichement if we started with an additive category.

    These statements are scattered over other entries already, of course, but for readability if may be good to have them here in one place.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2016

    I have expanded just a little more the (elementary) proof that in an Ab-enriched category finite products are biproducts (here). Maybe somewhat pedantically, but just to be completely clear.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2016

    Note that subtraction is not needed: the result holds for CMonCMon-enriched categories. In fact, having biproducts implies CMonCMon-enrichment.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2016
    • (edited Jun 7th 2016)

    Yes, that’s discussed at biproduct. But since I am editing the entry on additive categories, I am talking there about Ab-enrichment.

    [actually it’s also discussed further below in the entry on additive categories]

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2016

    I have also made more explicit the (elementary) proofs of this prop. and this prop.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthornaughie
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2019

    In the proof of the proposition that finite products coincide with finite coproducts in a Ab-enriched category, the zero-ary case holds if the category has both an initial object and a terminal object. But, the existence of a terminal object (assuming the existence of an initial object) is not so clear to me.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2019

    Well, if 00 is initial, then for any object AA the zero morphism z:A→0z: A \to 0 is available and, by initiality, is left inverse to the unique map !:0→A!: 0 \to A which is also the zero element in hom(0,A)\hom(0, A). So !! is monic; given any f:A→0f: A \to 0, the composites !f! f and !z! z must both be the zero element in hom(A,A)\hom(A, A) since composition preserves zero morphisms (by enrichment). Then f=zf = z by monicity, so there is exactly one map z:A→0z: A \to 0.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2019

    However, the proof as currently given on the page shows less than the proposition claims. The proposition claims that “any terminal object is also an initial object”, but the proof given on the page (in contrast to the one Todd just gave) only shows (as naughie said) that if an additive category has both an initial and terminal object then they are isomorphic. Similarly, the proposition claims that any finite product is also a coproduct, but the proof given for binary products assumes the existence of a zero object.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2019

    Strengthened the argument that in CMonCMon-enriched categories, terminal objects are initial and conversely.

    diff, v34, current

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 24th 2019

    Thanks. I guess I wasn’t looking hard enough in the other case – the proof for binary products uses only zero morphisms, not zero objects. So I think it’s all good now.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthornaughie
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2019

    Thanks, but I found a simpler proof: if AA is an initial object, then id A=0\mathrm{id}_A = 0 because it is the only morphism A→AA \to A. So, for any morphism f:B→Af: B \to A, we have f=id Af=0f=0f = \mathrm{id}_A f = 0 f = 0; hence AA should be terminal.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2019

    Congratulations, naughie. I’ll be glad to edit that in later.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 30th 2019

    Implemented naughie’s improvement.

    diff, v36, current

  16. It is remarked in the statement of Proposition 2.1 that the result extends to CMon-enriched categories. In fact, it is possible to trivially modify the extant proof so that it too encompasses the case of the CMon-enriched categories; this edit does precisely that.

    Anonymous

    diff, v38, current

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v40, current

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 5th 2023
    • (edited Aug 5th 2023)

    Following discussion in another thread (here) I have added pointer to:

    • William Lawvere, Introduction to Linear Categories and Applications, course lecture notes (1992) [pdf]

    Maybe this should go with some commentary. But I admit that I didn’t actually take the time yet to read through this article.

    diff, v42, current

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeJan 1st 2024

    Added a reference connecting preadditive categories to multicategories.

    diff, v45, current

1 to 19 of 19

  1.