Universal morphism to forgetful functor Ring->Ab

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter grief
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universal
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of universal morphisms in category theory, specifically focusing on the universal morphism to the forgetful functor from the category of rings to the category of abelian groups. Participants explore the implications of this morphism for a given abelian group and the construction of a ring structure on it.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant poses a problem regarding the universal morphism to the forgetful functor Ring->Ab, expressing uncertainty about the solution.
  • Another participant suggests a construction involving tensor products of the abelian group M to define a ring structure, introducing the notation \(\mathcal{T}(M)\) and its multiplication.
  • A participant expresses difficulty in understanding the universality aspect, particularly in defining the morphisms required to make the diagram commute.
  • Another reply challenges a specific algebraic manipulation presented by a participant, suggesting an alternative approach using bilinear maps and the universal property of tensor products.
  • One participant indicates that the problem can be approached by considering the left adjoint to the forgetful functor, noting that every abelian group can be expressed as a colimit of copies of \(\mathbb{Z}\) and hints at computing \(\mathcal{T}(\mathbb{Z})\) to facilitate the solution.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct approach to defining the morphisms and the algebraic manipulations involved. There is no consensus on the best method to establish the universal morphism, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for careful consideration of morphisms and the properties of tensor products, indicating that assumptions about bilinearity and commutativity may require further clarification. The discussion also reflects a dependency on the definitions of the structures involved.

grief
Messages
73
Reaction score
1
I'm reading a book on category theory and I'm stuck on this problem:

For a given abelian group, what is the universal morphism to the forgetful functor Ring->Ab taking each ring to its underlying additive group?

I think if the functor was Ring -> Monoid taking each ring to the underlying multiplicative monoid, the answer would have been the integral monoid ring. But as it is, I have no idea how to solve it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take an abelian group M, we wish to put a ring structure on it.
Obviously, M is a \mathbb{Z}-module. Put \mathcal{T}^0(M)=\mathbb{Z} and

\mathcal{T}^k=M\otimes_\mathbb{Z}...\otimes_\mathbb{Z} M~\text{(k factors)}.

Now we put \mathcal{T}(M)=\oplus_{k\geq 0}{\mathcal{T}^k(M)}. This is a ring with multiplication given by

(m_1\otimes...\otimes m_i)(m^\prime_1\otimes...\otimes m^\prime_j)=(m_1\otimes...\otimes m_i\otimes m^\prime_1\otimes...\otimes m^\prime_j)

I'll leave the universal property to you...
 
Thanks for the reply!

Though I'm still having trouble with the universality part.

I need to decide two things: the morphism of abelian groups from M to \mathcal{T}(M), and, given a morphism f of abelian groups from M to a ring R, a morphism of rings from \mathcal{T}(M) to R making the standard diagram commute.

For the former morphism, I thought of injection into the \mathcal{T}^1 coordinate of \mathcal{T}(M). This seems like the natural choice.

Now I'm not sure about the morphism from \mathcal{T}(M) to R. In order to make the diagram commute, we must take an m in the \mathcal{T}^1 coordinate to f(m). But in order to make this a ring homomorphism, that means we must take m1m2 (in the \mathcal{T}^2 coordinate) to f(m1)f(m2). But this seems to not be additive-- m1m2+m3m4=(m1+m3)(m2+m4) will be taken to f(m1+m3)f(m2+m4), which does not equal f(m1)f(m2)+f(m3)f(m4).

Is there a better choice of morphism I'm not thinking about, or did I misunderstand your construction?
 
You wrote m_1m_2+m_3m_4=(m_1+m_3)(m_2+m_4). I don't really see that...

What you do is constructe the following map M\times M\rightarrow R:(m_1,m_2,...,m_n)\rightarrow m_1m_2...m_n, this is a bilinear map. From the universal property of the tensor product, we get a map \mathcal{T}^n(M)\rightarrow R.
Taking all those maps together yields a map \mathcal{T}(M)\rightarrow R. And this is the map you want...
 
It turns out this is a fairly direct calculation. :smile:


You're looking for the left adjoint to the forgetful functor. Simply because it's a left adjoint, it must preserve colimits.

Furthermore, every abelian group is the colimit of copies of Z.

So we only need to figure out T(Z) and then compute colimits.



(Try computing it yourself at this point)



To compute T(Z), we hvae the formula:
HomRing(TZ, R) ~ HomAb(Z, R)​
The group on the right is (naturally isomorphic to) the elements of R. So the left set as well -- therefore TZ must be the polynomial ring Z[x].



(Try computing it yourself at this point)



Any presentation of an abelian group A is the same thing as writing the group as a colimit, since it let's you write A as the quotient of a free abelian group by a free abelian group.


(Try computing it yourself at this point)


The coproduct of polynomial rings is the polynomial ring on the disjoint union of the variables. Can you now write down a presentation for T(A)?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K