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
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

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