Nice 0-ification of monoids?
When dealing with a non-unital algebra over a field
, there are two ways of adding a 1 to it:
- The unitalization
with product
- The multiplier algebra
.
Each of these constructions has its meaning and its place. A while ago I already talked at the ARTS blog on how these constructions relate to different compactifications.
Now, let be a (multiplicative) monoid (or a monoid object in a monoidal category, if you are that kind of person). Assume that I want to add a 0 to that monoid (i.e. an element such that
for all
). There is an obvious way to do it: just add a formal element 0 to
and define the multiplication as above.
That construction resembles the trivial unitalization of an algebra, and has a similar problem: it is completely oblivious on whether the original monoid already had a 0 element or not (such as the trivial unitalization doesn’t check if the algebra already had a 1).
My question is, is there any construction similar to the multiplier algebra one that adds a 0 (and possibly some other elements) in such a way that if our starting monoid already had a 0, the resulting object is isomorphic to the original one?
Does “adding a 0″ have any geometrical meaning, maybe in the context of toric varieties (which are locally given by the spectrum of monoid rings)?
javier 5:59 pm on August 11, 2009 Permalink |
PS: Apparently I am not able to get my TeX working…
lieven lebruyn 6:21 pm on August 11, 2009 Permalink |
Javier, the site uses WP-latex rather than latexrender (as did the F_un blog). The syntax to use can be found here. Or, just use latex where you would use tex.
javier 6:25 pm on August 11, 2009 Permalink |
Thanks, solved
carl weisman 4:27 am on August 16, 2009 Permalink |
I lack the experience or technique to push this thru, but here goes.
Let M be a monoid, let Mod be the category of sets with a unital left action of M , and let Mod0 be the full subcategory M-sets with a unique fixed point. For an object X of Mod , consider the category of M-maps X –> Y , where Y is an object of Mod0 . Ignoring set-theoretic subtleties, let X –> X0 be the direct limit of this category. The functor X |–> X0 is, I believe, left adjoint to the forgetful functor Mod_0 –> Mod .
If there is justice in the universe, M0 will have a natural monoid structure, for which Mod0 is the category of all M_0-sets. But as I said I’m too much the novice.
Carl Weisman
Carl Weisman 1:54 pm on August 17, 2009 Permalink |
Posting is so embarrassing. As you all have been too polite to remark:
To be at all meaningful the construction would use the inverse limit, not the direct.
My reference to the “functor” X |–> X_0 implicitly assumes that an M-map X –> X’ induces a functor from the category of X –> Y to the category of X’ –> Y’ , where each target has a unique fixed point. I find I don’t know how to accomplish this.
Carl
Carl Weisman 4:14 pm on August 17, 2009 Permalink |
To get the functor: Let Z be the pushout of X –> X’ and X –> Y in Mod , and let Y’ := Z_0 .
Carl
Carl Weisman 8:43 pm on August 19, 2009 Permalink |
More straightforward, this seems to be addressed in Durov’s thesis http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.2030v1.pdf .
As I understand it, a monoid is in his formalism an algebra over the field without elements, and a monoid with 0 is an algebra over the field with one element. In section 5, he discusses the tensor product which would take the first to the second.
Carl