When is the diagonal functor Frobenius?

Before proving the three assertions, we make some observations useful in all three arguments. Fix a functor F\in\mathcal C^I, and consider the contravariant functor T_F:\mathcal C\to{\bf Set} defined by sending each object c to the set of cones \tau:c\stackrel{\cdot}{\rightarrow}F (Mac Lane’s terminology and notation; see [MacL, Chapter III \S3]). The set of cones can also be defined as the object set of the comma category c\downarrow F ([MacL, Chapter II \S6]). Since I is small, the comma category is indeed small, so it makes sense to talk about its object set. Notice that the limit \varprojlim F is precisely the representing object of T_F. Moreover, F\mapsto T_F is natural in F.

On the other hand, again having fixed F\in\mathcal C^I, consider the functor S_F:\mathcal C\to{\bf Set} sending c to collections of cones \tau_j:c\stackrel{\cdot}{\rightarrow}(F|_{I_j}),\ j\in J from c to the restrictions of F to the connected components I_j. By the definition of limits, the representing object for S_F is \displaystyle\prod_{j\in J}(\varprojlim F|_{I_j}). Notice however that, since there are no morphisms between distinct connected components, the functors T_F and S_F actually coincide. In conclusion, the representing objects \varprojlim F and \displaystyle\prod_{j\in J}(\varprojlim F|_{I_j}) are in fact isomorphic; the isomorphism exhibited here is natural in F, because F\mapsto T_F is. Similarly, \varinjlim F\cong\displaystyle\coprod_{j\in J}(\varinjlim F|_{I_j}). We are now ready for the proof proper.

(a) We have just seen that \varprojlim F\cong\displaystyle\prod_{j\in J}(\varprojlim F|_{I_j}) naturally in F. Each I_j is Frobenius, so the latter is isomorphic to \displaystyle\prod_{j\in J}(\varinjlim F|_{I_j}) (naturally in F). The component set J is Frobenius, so this is isomorphic to \displaystyle\coprod_{j\in J}(\varinjlim F|_{I_j}) (again, naturally in F). Finally, the above discussion shows that this is isomorphic to \varinjlim F.

(b) Instead of looking at the whole of \mathcal C^I, consider only those functors I\to\mathcal C which restrict to constants on each component I_j. These are precisely the functors factoring through the canonical functor \nu:I\to J, which sends each I_j to j. Again, use the isomorphism \varprojlim F\cong\displaystyle\prod(\varprojlim F|_{I_j}): the limit of a constant functor on a connected category is easily seen to be precisely the image object (with all structural morphisms equal to the identity); it follows that in the case at hand, when F restricts to a constant on each component, \varprojlim F is naturally isomorphic to the product of the objects F(I_j). The same discussion applies to colimits: \displaystyle\varinjlim F\cong\coprod F(I_j). The desired conclusion that J must be \mathcal C-Frobenius follows.

(c) In view of (b), we must show that given the additional hypothesis of a zero object, each I_j is \mathcal C-Frobenius. Fix some index k\in J, and consider only those functors I\to\mathcal C which send each component I_j,\ j\ne k to the zero object 0. Using once more the discussion at the beginning of the proof, we conclude that for these functors, the limit is naturally isomorphic to the product \displaystyle\left(\varprojlim F|_{I_k}\right)\times\prod_{j\ne k}0. Since in any complete category product with the final object is naturally isomorphic to the identity, we conclude that \varprojlim F\cong\varprojlim F|_{I_k}, naturally in F. Similarly, the colimit of F is isomorphic to that of F|_{I_k}, so I_k must indeed be \mathcal C-Frobenius if I is.

We will make use of the following well-known combinatorial result: if a connected directed graph is not strongly connected, then its vertex set can be partitioned into two non-empty subsets A,\ B such that all the arrows connecting them go from A to B. Moreover, A can be chosen to be connected. Assuming that I is not strongly connected, apply this to the underlying graph of I. We get non-empty, full subcategories A,\ B of I with A connected, which partition its object set, and such that all morphisms between A and B go from A to B.

Now consider the functor F\in\mathcal C^I which restricts to the constant functor T_\emptyset on A, to the constant T_1 on B, and sends all morphisms A\to B onto the unique morphism T_\emptyset\to T_1:

An argument very similar to the one used in the proof of Lemma ? (the beginning of that proof) shows that the limit of F is T_\emptyset. On the other hand, the colimit is the coproduct of one copy of T_1 for each connected component B_j,\ j\in J of B; here J is simply the (non-empty) set of connected components. T is a left adjoint by definition, so it preserves coproducts; this means that \displaystyle\coprod_J T_1\cong T_J. We have already remarked, in the discussion after Definition ?, that T_\emptyset cannot be isomorphic to a free object T_J,\ J\ne\emptyset, so I is not \mathcal C-Frobenius. We have reached a contradiction.

The functors in \mathcal C^I we will work with are i^*=T_{{\rm Hom}(i,-)} for objects i\in I. T being a left adjoint, it preserves colimits. In other words, \varinjlim i^*\cong T_{\varinjlim {\rm Hom}(i,-)}. By the description of colimits in {\bf Set} one sees immediately that \varinjlim {\rm Hom}(i,-) is a singleton. In conclusion, \varinjlim i^*\cong T_1. By the \mathcal C-Frobenius property we can identify \varprojlim i^* with T_1 as well. We will denote by 1 the element generating T_1; in the present context it corresponds to the image of any morphism in {\rm Hom}(i,j) through the canonical map {\rm Hom}(i,j)\to T_{\varinjlim {\rm Hom}(i,-)}\cong\varprojlim i^*.

Let \psi_i^j:T_1\cong\varprojlim i^*\to T_{{\rm Hom}(i,j)} be the structure map of the limit, and denote by x_i^j the element \psi_i^j(1)\in T_{{\rm Hom}(i,j)} (keep in mind the convention made after Definition ?: we regard the objects of \mathcal C simply as sets, omitting the faithful functor U:\mathcal C\to{\bf Set}). By condition (4) of Definition ?, there is a smallest finite set S\subseteq {\rm Hom}(i,j) such that x_i^j\in T_S. Denote it by S_i^j; as the notation suggests, these will be the components of our IS.

(S_i^j) is an LS. For all j,k\in I and all f_j^k we have a commutative diagram

It follows that (i^*f_j^k)(x_i^j)=x_i^k, so, by the definition of the sets S_i^j, we have f_j^kS_i^j\supseteq S_i^k. In other words, composition to the left maps S_i^j onto a set containing S_i^k. A consequence of this is that |S_i^k|\le|S_i^j| whenever the hom set {\rm Hom}(j,k) is non-empty. However, we know from Lemma ? that all hom sets are nonempty, so all S_i^j have the same cardinality. Moreover, composition to the left with any morphism must be a bijection.

All we need to do now in order to conclude that S=(S_i^j) is an LS is to show that the sets S_i^j are non-empty. Assume they are. Then \psi_i^j maps \varprojlim i^*\cong T_1 into T_\emptyset\subset T_{{\rm Hom}(i,j)}=i^*(j) for all j. This means that the limiting cone \varprojlim i^*\stackrel{\cdot}{\rightarrow}i^* factors through T_\emptyset\stackrel{\cdot}{\rightarrow}i^* which, in turn, implies that T_1\cong\varprojlim i^*\cong T_\emptyset. This is impossible by condition (3) in Definition ? (see Remark ?).

(S_i^j) is an RS. This is where the naturality of \eta:\varprojlim\cong\varinjlim comes in. More pecisely, consider any morphism f=f_i^j\in {\rm Hom}(i,j). It induces a natural transformation f^* from j^* to i^*. The corresponding transformations \varprojlim j^*\to\varprojlim i^* and \varinjlim j^*\to\varinjlim i^* will again be denoted by f^*. For each k\in I we have the following commutative diagram:

The horizontal arrows of the left square are the components of the natural isomorphism \eta:\varinjlim\cong\varprojlim.

Notice that 1\in T_1\cong\varinjlim j^* gets mapped onto 1\in T_1\cong\varinjlim i^* (see the description of 1 in the first paragraph of the proof). Since we have identified \varprojlim j^* to T_1 through \eta, it follows from this diagram that f^*(x_j^k)=x_i^k. By the definiton of the sets S, this means that S_j^kf_i^j\supseteq S_i^k. Now we continue as in the proof for left invariance, using the fact that all hom sets are non-empty (I is strongly connected).

A functor M\to\mathcal C is an action of M on some object c\in\mathcal C, i.e. a monoid morphism M\to {\rm Hom}(c,c). For such a functor F, glue the limting and the colimiting cone into the following commutative diagram:

Because e is idempotent, we get a cone

which induces a unique morphism \xi:c\to\varprojlim F such that Fe=\phi\xi. From the uniqueness of \xi we get \xi\circ Fe=\xi. Now the commutative diagram

and the universality of the limit prove that \xi\phi is the identity of \varprojlim F.

Dually, one finds \eta:\varinjlim F\to c through which Fe factors, with the properties Fe\circ\eta=\eta and \psi\eta=1_{\varinjlim F}. Putting all of this together we see that the composition \xi\eta:\varinjlim F\to\varprojlim F is the inverse of the natural morphism \psi\phi:\varprojlim F\to\varinjlim F (bottom row of the first diagram above). All the constructions used above are natural with respect to F, so we get a natural isomorphism \varprojlim\cong\varinjlim, as desired.

The two-element monoid M from the previous lemma is embedded in G^+ as \{1,e\}, where 1 is the identity of G^+ and e is the identity of G. A functor F:G^+\to\mathcal C is an action of the monoid G^+ on some object c\in C. Restrict this action to the submonoid M\le G^+, and let \phi:d\to c be the limiting cone of the restriction F|_M. We construct an action F^* of G on d as follows: for every s\in G we have a commutative diagram

which induces a unique endomorphism F^*s of d making the following diagram commutative:

That F^* is indeed a functor is easily checked; it must preserve composition by uniqueness because F does, and F^*e is the identity because \phi:d\to c is a cone from d to F|_M, and e is a morphism in M.

I claim now that \varprojlim F is naturally isomorphic to \varprojlim F^*. Indeed, because \phi:d\to c is limiting, any cone \varphi:t\stackrel{\cdot}{\rightarrow}c which (by definition) makes commutative the diagrams

must factor through d:

Dually, one constructs an action F_* of G on \varinjlim F|_M, and we have a natural isomorphism \varinjlim F\cong\varinjlim F_*. Now, because M is always \mathcal C-Frobenius (Lemma ?), \varprojlim F|_M\cong\varinjlim F|_M naturally. Moreover, recall from the proof of Lemma ? that the isomorphism between \varprojlim F|_M and \varinjlim F|_M we have exhibited was precisely the composition of natural maps \varprojlim F|_M\to c\to\varinjlim F|_M. The actions F^* and F_* were constructed such that the following diagrams are commutative:

Hence, upon identifying the limit and colimit of F|_M by the given isomorphism, the action F_* is identified to F^*. The conclusion now follows from the hypothesis that G is \mathcal C-Frobenius.

Assume I satisfies the conditions in the statement. Then the group G_I\cong S_i^i,\ \forall i\in I introduced in the discussion before Proposition ? is the trivial group. From Proposition ? we know that in order to conclude that I is Frobenius, it suffices to check that G_I is. It is clear that the trivial group is \mathcal C-Frobenius for any complete, cocomplete category \mathcal C, and the proof of this implication is finished.

Conversely, suppose I is {\bf Set}-Frobenius. Lemma ? (b) then tells us that the set J of connected components of I, viewed as a discrete category, must be {\bf Set}-Frobenius. The only non-empty {\bf Set}-frobenius discrete category is the singleton: notice for instance that the product of a non-empty set and at least one copy of the empty set is empty, whereas the disjoint union of all these sets is non-empty. Hence J is a singleton, i.e. I is connected.

Now Theorem ? applies to show that I has an IS consisting of finite non-empty sets S_i^j. Now we go once more through the argument in the first paragraph, in reverse: Proposition ? says that I is {\bf Set}-Frobenius if and only if the finite group G_I is, so we have to prove that the only {\bf Set}-Frobenius finite group is the trivial group.

Functors from G_I to {\bf Set} are actions of G_I on a set. They have easily described limits and colimits: the limiting cone of an action of G_I on the set c is the inclusion of the set of points in c fixed by all elements of G_I. The colimiting cone, on the other hand, is the canonical projection of c onto the set of orbits of the action (sending each element onto its orbit). In particular, we see that the colimit of an action on a non-empty set is always a non-empty set, whereas one can always find actions on non-empty sets with no fixed points whenever G_I is non-trivial: simply make G_I act on itself by left multiplication, for example.

This is [Iov1, Theorem 2.7]. In that paper it is both an immediate consequence of the main result [Iov1, Theorem 1.4], and proved separately using a finiteness result on Frobenius corings ([Iov1, Theorem 2.3]; see also [BW, \S27] for definitions and relevant results on Frobenius corings). We give here a different proof, relying on another proposition found in [Iov1].

On the one hand, it is well-known that finite sets are _R\mathcal M-Frobenius. In fact, products and coproducts are canonically isomorphic in any additive category.

Conversely, assume that J is _R\mathcal M-Frobenius. Now [Iov1, Proposition 1.2] says that the canonical map \displaystyle\bigoplus_J\to\prod_J is a natural isomorphism. Consider the composition

in which the first arrow is the map with all components equal to the identity on R, while the second arrow is the inverse of the canonical isomorphism \displaystyle\bigoplus_J\to\prod_J. It is a morphism from R to \displaystyle\bigoplus_JR having the property that the image of R is not contained in any \displaystyle\bigoplus_{J'}R for J'\subsetneq J. As R is a finitely generated R-module, however, its image is certainly contained in a finite direct sum. Hence J must be finite.

Functors G\to\ _R\mathcal M are precisely R-modules with a G action, or, in other words, R[G]-modules. The diagonal functor _R\mathcal M\to(_R\mathcal M)^G associates to each R-module the same module with trivial G action. This means that one can identify the diagonal functor with the restriction of scalars from R to R[G] through the augmentation \varepsilon:R[G]\to R (the unique ring morphism sending each element of G\subset R[G] to the identity 1_R\in R).

The problem has now been reduced to the classical question of deciding when a restriction of scalars is Frobenius. By a well-known result of Morita ([Mo] or [Men, Theorem 3.15]), restriction of scalars through a ring morphism A\to B is Frobenius if and only if B is left A-projective and finitely generated, and B\cong\ _A{\rm Hom}(B,A) as (B,A)-bimodules. We are going to apply this characterization to the ring extension \varepsilon:R[G]\to R.

R is left R[G]-projective if and only if the augmentation \varepsilon:R[G]\to R splits through some left R[G]-module map \eta:R\to R[G]. For any such splitting, \eta(1) is some element \displaystyle\sum_{g\in G}a_gg of R[G] fixed by left multiplication with any element of G. This shows at once that G must be finite, and that \displaystyle\eta(1)=a\sum_{g\in G}g. Finally, from \varepsilon\circ\eta={\rm id}_R we find that a\in R must in fact be the inverse of |G|. Conversely, if |G|<\infty is invertible in R, simply consider the R-module map sending 1\in R to \displaystyle |G|^{-1}\sum_{g\in G}g\in R[G]; clearly, it is a splitting for \varepsilon.

We still have to prove that when G satisfies the condtitions in the statement of the proposition (and hence, as we have just seen, R is left R[G]-projective), we also have an isomorphism \displaystyle R\cong\ _{R[G]}{\rm Hom}(R,R[G]) in _R\mathcal M_{R[G]}. The second term is canonically isomorphic to the (R,R[G])-sub-bimodule of R[G] generated by the central idempotent e=\displaystyle|G|^{-1}\sum_Gg; there is an obvious (R,R[G])-bimodule isomorphism of R onto this bimodule, sending 1 to e.