Calculations Inside Semisimple Categories
Posted by Urs Schreiber
– guest post by Bruce Bartlett –
Hi guys,
I’ve got a question regarding performing calculations inside semisimple categories.
I posted a version of it back in March. I’ve made quite a lot of progress, but I’m still missing some vital ingredient which I can’t put my fingers on. John hinted (rather sneakily!) in one of his TWF comments that he had made some progress on it too. Since everyone has been working so diligently on it, I thought it’s time to reconvene the homework group and compare notes.
Recall that the problem is about defining adjoints (or ‘daggers’) of natural transformations. There are two ways to define them : a left-handed way and a right-handed way, and we’d like to check they are the same.
Don’t worry about the specific problem. Just think : we have some calculation to perform inside a semisimple category. What are we going to do?
Since we want to be as elegant as possible, here are the ground rules :
(a) No assuming that the categories are skeletal.
(b) Choosing bases of the hom-spaces is to be frowned upon.
Ok. Now let me explain the progress I’ve made, and then perhaps people can comment on how they would go about performing this type of calculation. The bad news first : my method hasn’t yet been able to solve the problem!
We perform calculations the only way I know how - by developing a graphical calculus for working with semisimple categories enriched in Hilb (or Vect). In fact, it’s just a simplified version of John’s QG notes on a graphical calculus for working with closed monoidal categories.
Right, let’s begin. We have a semisimple category , which I’m going to sometimes assume is a 2-Hilbert space. That basically just means it’s enriched in Hilb; i.e. there are inner products on the hom-spaces.
Anyhow, for any two objects we have a vector space , which I’ll occasionally write simply as , and we draw it as a ribbon:
I’m too lazy to colour these ribbons in… sue me! Composition of morphisms in corresponds to a multiplication map :
Remember, these diagrams are happening inside the monoidal category Vect, and they go top-down. The identity morphism for each object corresponds to a map :
Right, so far everything has been standard. Now let’s specialize to 2-Hilbert spaces. Since they’re enriched in Hilb, we can take the duals (adjoints) of all these linear maps inside Hilb. So we have the adjoint of the multiplication map, and also the adjoint of the identity, :
We haven’t used semisimplicity yet. Being semisimple means there are a finite number of nonisomorphic simple objects . It’s well known (see page 12 of John’s 2-Hilbert spaces paper) that this implies we can decompose any morphism canonically into its ‘isotypic’ components,
I realized recently that a nice way to express this is to say that we have a canonical ‘resolution of the identity’:
This makes it clear that it’s the categorification of the corresponding statement for ordinary Hilbert spaces,
Let’s be clear about the equation occuring two lines up. When I use the objects “” above, I haven’t chosen a basis on the hom-sets. It works for any complete set of simple objects, and its canonical. Going from right-to-left, one sends a pair , to
That’s canonical, so its inverse is too. It is analogous to the statement that for any vector spaces , there is a canonical isomorphism .
Anyhow, we draw the resolution of the identity as
It’s inverse is the multiplication map, so we have the rules
You get the idea.
And so we can go on and on. We also have the symmetry map
as well as the ‘star’ map
It’s pretty cool how the -structure makes our ribbons behave seriously as ribbons! And you can do functors, natural transformations, adjoints, etc. all in this graphical language. Here at the n-category cafe, I’m preaching to the choir.
This is getting a bit lengthy… so I’ll just quickly recall the calculation we need to perform, which I was hoping could be done in a nice graphical way.
Problem : We have linear direct sum-preserving functors , which have adjoints (semisimple categories!) , and we have a natural transformation .
We want to concoct the corresponding natural transformation between their adjoints, .
Remarks. Sit down for a second and you’ll see that there are two natural choices, which I drew in string diagrams in my last post. Since is the (left-and-right) adjoint for , we have isomorphisms
and the same for . Of course, and are just ‘flip sides of the same coin’, i.e.
or in pictures:
Anyway, we have to calculate if the following two candidates are the same. In other words, we need to check whether the following two elements of are the same. is defined as:
While is defined as:
Now, are these the same? I’ve tried lots of graphical calculations… there’s even another way to define … but I’m sure I’m missing something, perhaps something very simple. Can anyone help?
Re: Calculations Inside Semisimple Categories
I’m sorry not to have replied sooner… if anyone should answer this, it’s me!
It’s possible your long, nice, pedagogical description of the problem made it seem more specific, technical, and terrifying than it really is. There might be some way to strip away the details of and ask this question for a bunch of 2-categories. If that’s true, folks like Todd Trimble might be able to solve it in a jiffy.
(You might object that there’s nobody ‘like’ Todd Trimble. However, I know at least one.)
Here’s an attempt. Let me know if an answer to this question would make you happier.
Suppose we have a couple of objects and in a 2-category . Suppose we have morphisms
and a 2-morphism
Suppose has a left adjoint , and has a right adjoint . Then, I think there’s just one way to define a 2-morphism
It looks like this:
(Pardon the low-tech ASCII art — I just happened to have this figure lying around.)
But now, suppose is also the right adjoint of , and is also the left adjoint of . This gives a second way to define a 2-morphism from to :
Does this have to be the same?If so, why?
Personally, I can’t imagine a general abstract-nonsense argument that these two 2-morphisms, say and , need to be the same… not at this level of generality, anyway!
If no such argument exists, maybe this is some extra coherence law we can place on a 2-category where every morphism is part of an ambidextrous adjunction. And then you’re either asking whether this law holds in , or asking for a diagrammatic calculation that proves this law. Which one is it?
Can’t you just do a grungy basis-ridden linear algebra calculation to see whether this law is true in ? If it is, then there must be some good reason. At worst, you can just add this law to your bag of string diagram calculation techniques.
If it’s not true, I’ll be shocked! I’ll buy you a pizza.