You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
@Jean-Baptiste Vienney raised a fun question which I posted to MathOverflow. Check it out:
I think I've answered it: yes. Let me test out the answer on you folks.
First think about the category of affine spaces over some field. This famously has both a cartesian monoidal structure and a semicartesian monoidal structure : the latter is explained here.
Let's look at the full subcategory of affine spaces that are either terminal (the one-element affine space) or of countably infinite dimension, by which I mean they're a coproduct of a countably infinite number of copies of the terminal affine space. I claim that for all objects we have
I also claim is a monoidal subcategory with respect to either or : for example, the cartesian or tensor product of two affine spaces of countably infinite dimension again has countably infinite dimension.
Now take a skeleton of . We can transfer both the and monoidal structures from to this skeleton, and since we had
in
we have
in
Concretely, has just two objects, the terminal object and the affine space of countably infinite dimension, . These have
and also
To finish the proof we just need to check that is not cartesian monoidal. I need to check that more carefully. However, it would seem amazing if the non-cartesian tensor product of affine spaces were cartesian on affine spaces of countably infinite dimension!
I don’t understand from the nLab what’s the tensor product of two affine spaces? And of two affine maps?
Ok, now I see that I must learn what is the tensor product of two algebras for a commutative algebraic theory and this will just be an instance of this: really nice.
The nLab link I gave describes the tensor product of two finite-dimensional affine spaces quite explicitly, and the same basic idea works in general. We get this description using the fact that
1) every affine space is free on some set , so call it
2)
This should remind you immensely of how vector spaces work. But you have to adjust your intuitions a bit, remembering that in an affine space we can only form affine combinations, not more general linear combinations, and in particular an affine space doesn't have an element called .
Thus, the free vector space on has one point, while the free affine space on is empty. Similarly the free vector space on is (your chosen field), while the free affine space on is a one-element set. The free vector space on is , while the free affine space on is a line containing the two points of . The free vector space on is , while the free affine space on is a plane containing the three points of , which form the vertices of a triangle. And so on.
Using this idea (which extends to the free affine space on an infinite set) and 2), we can understand a lot about the tensor product of affine spaces.
Is there a reason you start from affine spaces? It seems to me that you could've done the same construction on vector spaces and still get a seemingly plausible example of what you're after.
Affine spaces are known to have a semicartesian tensor product that's not cartesian, so the unit object for is the terminal object, so it's same as the unit object for .
Vector spaces don't have any semicartesian tensor product that I know of: in particular, the unit object for the usual of vector spaces is not the terminal vector space.
So, my plan was this: start with the category of affine spaces with its two tensor products and . They share the same unit object. Next, try to make them equal on all objects. The two different tensor products of finite-dimensional affine spaces aren't isomorphic since they have different dimension. But:
if and have countably infinite dimension then since they have the same dimension.
if is the terminal affine space we have since is semicartesian.
also
So let's consider the full subcategory of the category of affine spaces consisting only of terminal and countably-infinite-dimensional affine spaces! For any objects we have
Further, is a monoidal subcategory of under either or , since the product or tensor product of two affine spaces of countably infinite dimension again has countably infinite dimension.
(This is easy to see in terms of bases. To get a basis of we take the disjoint union of a basis of and a basis of . To get a basis of we take the cartesian product of a basis of and a basis of .)
Now let be a skeleton of . Now isomorphic objects become equal, so we get
for all objects of .
John Baez said:
Affine spaces are known to have a semicartesian tensor product that's not cartesian, so the unit object for is the terminal object, so it's same as the unit object for .
Vector spaces don't have any semicartesian tensor product that I know of: in particular, the unit object for the usual of vector spaces is not the terminal vector space.
Oh yeah of course, I was just thinking of the two monoidal products coinciding in the countable case but forgot about being semicartesian.