MHB The Contravariant Functor Hom_R( _ , X)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contravariant
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 asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top