MHB The Contravariant Functor Hom_R( _ , X)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contravariant
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the contravariant functor Hom_R(_, X) as presented in Paul E. Bland's book "Rings and Their Modules." The functor assigns each R-module M to the abelian group Hom_R(M, X) and each morphism f in Mod_R to a morphism f^* in Ab, defined as f^*(h) = hf, where h is in Hom_R(N, X). A key point of confusion is clarifying that f^* maps from Hom_R(N, X) to Hom_R(M, X), not directly between the modules M and X. To establish that f^* is a morphism in Ab, it must be shown that it preserves the structure of abelian groups. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the notation and the properties of the mappings involved.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules".

I am trying to understand Section 3.1 on categories and need help in understanding the contravariant functor $$\text{Hom}_R(\_, X)$$ as described in Bland, Example 13 in Ch. 3: Categories (page 76).

Example 13 in Ch. 3 reads as follows:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3635Now, in the functor $$\text{Hom}_R(\_, X) \ : \ Mod_R \longrightarrow Ab$$, $$X$$ is a fixed $$R$$-module.

The functor $$\text{Hom}_R(\_, X)$$ assigns each object $$M$$ in the category $$\text{Mod}_R$$ to an object $$\text{Hom}_R (M,X) $$ in Ab.

(Note that we know that $$\text{Hom}_R(A,B) $$ where $$A$$ and $$B$$ are $$R$$-modules is an abelian group!)
Now $$\text{Hom}_R(\_, X)$$ must also assign each morphism $$f$$ in $$\text{Mod}_R$$ to a morphism $$f^*$$ in Ab. So Bland defines the following assignment of $$f$$ to $$f^*$$:$$\text{Hom}_R(\_, X) (f) = \text{Hom}_R(f, X) = f^* $$

where $$f^* \ : \ \text{Hom}_R(N, X) \longrightarrow \text{Hom}_R(M, X)$$

is given by $$f^*(h) = hf$$... ... BUT ... ... what exactly is $$h$$ ... clearly I need to understand the nature of h to understand $$f^*$$ ... ... can someone please help me with this matter?
Just to show my own thinking and thus specifically why I have a problem ... see the following ...It seems that ... ... $$f \ : \ \text{Mod}_R \longrightarrow \text{Mod}_R \ \ \text{ where } \ \ f \ : \ M \longrightarrow N$$.Now we need $$f$$ to map to $$f^*$$ where $$f^* \ : \ \text{Ab} \longrightarrow \text{Ab} $$ ... ... So an $$f^*$$ defined by

$$f^* \ : \ \text{Hom}_R(N, X) \longrightarrow \text{Hom}_R(M, X)$$

will do ... ... since $$\text{Hom}_R(N, X)$$ and $$\text{Hom}_R(M, X)$$ are abelian groups.Now since $$f^*$$ is defined as $$f(h) = hf$$ we must have $$h \in \text{Hom}_R(N, X)$$ and so $$h$$ is of the form $$h \ : \ N \longrightarrow X$$.


So we have

$$f \ : \ M \longrightarrow N$$ and $$h \ : \ N \longrightarrow X$$

so then ...

$$f^* = hf \ : \ M \longrightarrow X
$$... ... BUT ... problem ... ... $$f^*$$ should be a mapping between $$\text{Hom}_R(N, X)$$ and $$\text{Hom}_R(M, X)$$ ... ... and not a mapping between two $$R$$-modules, $$M$$ and $$X$$.

Can someone please clarify this for me?

Further, can someone criticize my analysis/thinking above?

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
***NOTE***

I think it may be helpful for MHB members reading this post to be able to see Bland's definition of a functor.

Bland's definition of a functor, therefore, is provided below:View attachment 3636
View attachment 3637
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

I think the issue you're having lies in the notation $f^*$. Note that $f^*$ maps an object $h \in \text{Hom}_R(N,X)$ to the object $hf \in \text{Hom}_R(M, X)$ (think of pre-composition). So the assignment $f^* : h \to hf$ is a function from $\text{Hom}_R(N,X)$ to $\text{Hom}_R(M,X)$. To show that $f^*$ is a morphism in Ab, you need to verify that $f^*$ is a homomorphism of abelian groups. The Hom-sets involved are abelian groups under (pointwise) addition of functions, so you need to show that $f^*(h + h') = f^*(h) + f^*(h')$ for all $h, h' \in \text{Hom}_R(N,X)$.
 
Euge said:
Hi Peter,

I think the issue you're having lies in the notation $f^*$. Note that $f^*$ maps an object $h \in \text{Hom}_R(N,X)$ to the object $hf \in \text{Hom}_R(M, X)$ (think of pre-composition). So the assignment $f^* : h \to hf$ is a function from $\text{Hom}_R(N,X)$ to $\text{Hom}_R(M,X)$. To show that $f^*$ is a morphism in Ab, you need to verify that $f^*$ is a homomorphism of abelian groups. The Hom-sets involved are abelian groups under (pointwise) addition of functions, so you need to show that $f^*(h + h') = f^*(h) + f^*(h')$ for all $h, h' \in \text{Hom}_R(N,X)$.
Thanks so much for that help Euge ...

I am still reflecting on what you have said ... but I was quite perplexed and now things are becoming clearer ...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K