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-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics comma complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck 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 infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory 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 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.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2013

    Created Hopf monoid, as a home for the fact that the category of modules over such inherits a closed monoidal structure.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2013
    • (edited Jul 11th 2013)

    As for bimonoid I have added a pointer to Tannaka duality for monoids/algebras.

    But, hm, isn’t it more precisely rigid monoidal categories with fiber functor that correspond to Hopf monoids?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2013

    Perhaps only if the original category in which module structures live is rigid monoidal (e.g., finite-dimensional vector spaces).

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2013

    Okay, I see. Do we know of a characterization theorem in general then?

    So I think the statement in finite-dim vector space is that rigid tensor categories with fiber functor are precisely, up to equivalence, the categories of modules of Hopf algebras.

    How much of that characterization statement can be lifted to more general base monoidal categories?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2013
    • (edited Jul 11th 2013)

    Guys, there is already a stub Hopf monad as well which I created some time ago.

    Urs: I remember that Tannakian reconstruction already when the ground field is replaced by a commutative associative unital ring is very problematic and it is known only in few cases like the reconstruction theorem of Nori (which uses Noetherianess assumption). Bruguières has studied this and some noncommutative generalizations.

    • A. Bruguières, Théorie tannakienne non commutative, Comm. Algebra 22, 5817–5860, 1994

    Also, there is a generalization of Tannaka theory to bialgebroids/Hopf algebroids which is quite tricky and can be interpreted using monoidal sites:

    Mike: I disagree with attitude “the generalization” in the idea section! Namely it is generally accepted in Hopf algebra community that in an arbitrary monoidal category generalizing Hopf algebras via the commutative diagrams is not quite sensitive and deeper internal properties should be considered. I mean there is no question about the case of bimonoid. But for Hopf it is essential to have (or even to require by definition) good properties of the categories of Hopf modules, e.g. H H H H{}^H_H\mathcal{M}^H\cong {}^H\mathcal{M}, or stronger, the fundamental theorem of Hopf modules, H H{}_H\mathcal{M}^H\cong \mathcal{M}. See

    Various generalizations (hence not the generalization) have been studied by a number of people.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2013

    there is already a stub Hopf monad as well which I created some time ago.

    There is also Hopf monoidal category, for what it’s worth. I have tried to interlink all these Hopfy entries.

    (By the way, the entry on Hopf monads doesn’t try to say what a Hopf monad is, currently…)

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2013
    • (edited Jul 11th 2013)

    I disagree with attitude “the generalization” in the idea section! Namely it is generally accepted in Hopf algebra community that in an arbitrary monoidal category generalizing Hopf algebras via the commutative diagrams is not quite [ sensible ] and deeper internal properties should be considered.

    I think so, too. I think if one looks at all the literature on Hopfy things and their variants, the overarching organizational principle is Tannaka duality. All those conditions on algebras, bialgebra, trialgebra, etc. are justified by the fact that these are characteristic as inducing certain natural structure on their categories of modules.

    (I think the (non-)definition of Hopfish algebra is a good point in case, for instance.)

    So I’d be hesitant to speak of “Hopf monoids” if their categories of modules are not rigid with fiber functor. For that is what conceptually really defines Hopf algebraic structure, I think.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorjim_stasheff
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2013
    @7 one looks at all the literature on Hopfy things and their variants, the overarching organizational principle is Tannaka duality

    an arch too far? that's just one aspect of Hopfy things cf. e.g. structural theorems
    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2013

    By the way, the entry on Hopf monads doesn’t try to say what a Hopf monad is, currently

    The entry is supposed to collect all approaches on compatible comonad and monad with some sort of duality/rigidity/antipode. So, in future, each section should have its own definition. The article by Mesablishvili and Wisbauer in 5 gives quite much of a general picture as it knowledgeable refers to earlier works, including of Lack and Bruguières. The fundamental theorem of Hopf modules is a key principle. The Tannaka may be related (the paper by Szlachányi in 5 is explaining analogy between comparison functor for monadicity and Tannaka for structures in the categories of bimodules; fundamental theorem may be hi-brow viewed as a kind of one-point descent along torsors, which is sort of comonadicity for more points (like Schneider’s theorem)).

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2013

    an arch too far?

    is there another guiding principle?

    The definition of things like “quasitriangular Hopf algebras” is fairly intricate. But the point is: whatever this structure is, it is precisely what makes the category of modules be rigid braided monoidal, which is plain and simple.

    And I’d dare say this is also what counts in applications. Like in all applications of quantum groups to quantum field theories, what counts is that their categories of modules have certain natural properties.

    But of course one can define what one wants. I just think if in a situation of intricate algebraic conditions one throws out the only guiding principle there is, then it is very hard to tell where the journey is going.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2013

    If you want it to say “a generalization” rather than “the generalization”, that’s fine with me. It’s certainly the most obvious generalization, to a category theorist, and it’s a good and useful one.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2013
    • (edited Jul 12th 2013)

    is there another guiding principle?

    Yes: fundamental theorem on Hopf modules (as I stated above with some of the references). It is a pity Tomasz Maszczyk did not publish on the issue, as he has a very deep understanding of that issue.

    If you want it to say “a generalization” rather than “the generalization”

    Exactly.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2013

    is there another guiding principle?

    Yes: fundamental theorem on Hopf modules

    Okay, so for which ambient monoidal categories is this true for Hopf monoids, and for which definition of Hopf monoids?

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJul 12th 2013
    • (edited Jul 12th 2013)

    That is itself one possible definition: the bimonoid is a Hopf monoid iff the fundamental theorem of Hopf modules holds. True for example for the ambient category of modules over a commutative associative unital ring.

  1. added a few references

    diff, v8, current

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)