2

I have already proven that $a \times 1 \simeq 1 \times a \simeq a$ given a terminal object $1$ of a cartesian closed category $C$ (CCC). By CCC I mean that $C$ is finitely complete and has exponentiation (accordingly with Goldblatt's Topoi).

If you take the product's universal diagram for $a \times 1$ so that one of the triangular sides is actually the exponential diagram we're after, then you have the following.

Product and Exponential diagram in a CCC Drawn with: https://tikzcd.yichuanshen.de/.

As you can see I've done one direction of the isomorphism in the picture. How do I show that $(\hat{g} \times 1_1) \circ k = 1_{a^1 \times 1}$ though? The confusion comes from not being sure where the product map $\hat{g} \times 1_1$ comes from because if I did then I'd have the two projector arrows $p,q$ and then $\hat{g} \times 1_1 = \langle \hat{g} \circ p, 1_1 \circ q \rangle = $ the product map for object ?

I would like to complete the proof as is, so no appeals to Yoneda's lemma are allowed here.

  • 2
    Related : https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3463019/prove-that-a1-cong-a, https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/148864/exponential-objects-in-a-cartesian-closed-category-a1-cong-a – Arnaud D. Apr 16 '20 at 07:19
  • Wow - Egbert's proof in that answer is really stunning. If OP is allowed to use uniqueness of adjoints, that's definitely the way to go – Chris Grossack Apr 16 '20 at 07:21
  • I'm not seeing how Yoneda applies to this. – Daniel Donnelly Apr 16 '20 at 15:28

1 Answers1

5

Though you said no appeals to Yoneda are allowed, I feel obligated to showcase how much easier the proof is when we allow Yoneda. I'm sure you've seen this, but I will include it all the same:

$$ \text{Hom}(x, a^1) \cong \text{Hom}(x \times 1, a) \cong\text{Hom}(x,a)$$

The first isomorphism follows from the adjunction, the second from the isomorphism you are already aware of ($x \times 1 \cong x$). Since $x$ was arbitary, we can conclude $a^1 \cong a$ by Yoneda.


Now that that's out of my system, we can contrast it with a Yoneda-less proof:

For one direction, we will use the counit $\varepsilon$, which you're calling $\text{ev}$. We can use this to get a map (which you rightfully found):

$$ a^1 \xrightarrow{~\sim~} a^1 \times 1 \xrightarrow{~\varepsilon~} a $$

As is often the case in category theory, if we got half an iso using some construction, we should try to get the other half using the dual of that construction. So let's consult the (much less appreciated) unit $\eta$ of the adjunction. This gives us a map:

$$ a \xrightarrow{~\eta~} (a \times 1)^1 \xrightarrow{~\sim~} a^1 $$

I leave it to you to check that these are mutually inverse, and that the obvious iso from $(a \times 1)^1 \cong a^1$ is actually an iso.

Edit:

To address the question in the comments, let's work with only the following statement of Yoneda:

$$\text{Nat}(\text{Hom}(\cdot,a),F) \cong F(a).$$

Then, in particular, $\text{Nat}(\text{Hom}(\cdot,a),\text{Hom}(\cdot,b)) \cong \text{Hom}(a,b)$. That is, every natural transformation from $\text{Hom}(\cdot,a)$ to $\text{Hom}(\cdot,b)$ is of the form $f \circ -$ for some $f \in \text{Hom}(a,b)$.

Now, if $f \circ -$ and $g \circ -$ witness $\text{Hom}(\cdot,a) \cong \text{Hom}(\cdot, b)$ (here $f \in \text{Hom}(a,b)$ and $g \in \text{Hom}(b,a)$) then we see:

$$ \text{Id}(-) = (f \circ -) \circ (g \circ -) = f \circ g \circ - $$

That is, $f \circ g$ is itself the identity, and $a \cong b$!

So when we show that (for arbitrary $x$) $\text{Hom}(x,a) \cong \text{Hom}(x,a^1)$, we are showing that $\text{Hom}(\cdot, a) \cong \text{Hom}(\cdot, a^1)$ as natural transformations. From the above discussion, this lets us conclude $a \cong a^1$.

This is a very common mode of argument in category theory, and I recommend Chapter 8 of Awodey's "Category Theory" for a good discussion of this and related techniques.


I hope this helps ^_^

  • I'm not sure how Yoneda applies to that as Yoneda is usually about presheaves! The second proof requires more understanding than the Yoneda one, so let's then just focus on the Yoneda one. Thanks! – Daniel Donnelly Apr 16 '20 at 14:45
  • Are you using this: $\text{Hom}(x, a) \simeq \text{Hom}(x, b) \iff a \simeq b$? – Daniel Donnelly Apr 16 '20 at 14:59
  • @EnjoysMath Yes, that's how Yoneda is being used. – jgon Apr 16 '20 at 17:20
  • @jgon One direction is easy namely $f:a \simeq b \implies$ the induced map between the homsets by composing by $f$ on the left is also an isomorphism because the inverse map is composition with $f^{-1}$ instead. However, how do I prove the other direction? Feel free to make an answer. I dislike when proofs skip over crucial details which are really non-trivial to me. Afterall, the consequence is then not of Yoneda but of a corollary of Yoneda. – Daniel Donnelly Apr 16 '20 at 17:43
  • "Yoneda's Lemma" is used to mean any of a few related facts. This is relatively harmless, and quite common (cf. Nakayama's lemma, etc). Here I am using the fact that $a \cong b$ iff for all $x$, $\text{Hom}(x,a) \cong \text{Hom}(x,b)$ – Chris Grossack Apr 16 '20 at 17:56
  • @EnjoysMath - if you want to see a proof of yoneda's lemma, they are very easy to find by googling "yoneda lemma proof". Do you have any complaints with my second proof, which answers the question you asked? – Chris Grossack Apr 16 '20 at 18:51
  • See my first comment. And no, the other direction that $a \simeq b$ when the homsets are isomorphic is not proved for me yet. – Daniel Donnelly Apr 16 '20 at 22:10
  • I'm confused - your first comment says let's focus on the yoneda proof... Surely you don't expect me to prove the hard half of yoneda's lemma in the comments? In your original question, you asked for a yoneda-less proof, which I've provided. What exactly is the issue? – Chris Grossack Apr 16 '20 at 22:19
  • @HallaSurvivor I apologize. The issue is converting $\text{Nat}(\text{Hom}C(\cdot, a), F) \simeq F(a)$ over to isomorphism of objects. I'm guessing you take $F = \text{Forgetful}(\text{Id}{C^{op}})$? But then how can we speak of isomorphism of $C$-objects (not neccessarily sets)? – Daniel Donnelly Apr 17 '20 at 00:56
  • @EnjoysMath - No worries! Thanks for clarifying. I'll add that to my answer – Chris Grossack Apr 17 '20 at 03:43
  • 1
    So if $f \circ -$ and $g \circ -$ are inverse to each other then $f \circ g \circ -$ is identity on the respective $\text{Hom}(\cdot, c)$ object and so $f\circ g \circ - = \text{id}_c \circ (-)$. If $h \circ - = -$ then $h$ is by definition the unique identity arrow. Makes sense ! Thank you. – Daniel Donnelly Apr 17 '20 at 13:48