4
$\begingroup$

Let $(H, \mu, \eta, \Delta, \epsilon, S)$ be a Hopf algebra with $S: H \to H$ denoting the antipode. By definition, $S$ is the convolution inverse of $1: H \to H$ in $\operatorname{End}(H)$, with the convolution product $f*g$ given by the composition $$H \xrightarrow{\Delta} H \otimes H \xrightarrow{f \otimes g} H \otimes H \xrightarrow{\mu} H$$ It is commonly known that $S$ is an antihomomorphism ($S(xy) = S(y)S(x)$), but the only proof I am aware of is via direct computation (like Prop III.3.3 in Kassel's Quantum Groups).

While I can spend time on understanding the proof, I wonder if there is a more categorical proof of this. In the end, a Hopf algebra makes sense in any symmetric (or braided) monoidal category, and $S$ being an antihomomorphism simply translates to asking the equality $$S \circ \mu = \mu \circ \tau \circ (S \otimes S): H \otimes H \to H$$ (where $\tau: H \otimes H \to H \otimes H$ is the braiding). Thus, my speculation is that a purely diagrammatic proof should exist, unless the statement is not true for a general symmetric monoidal category (in which case I would like to know what makes vector spaces special). Does anyone have a reference?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Does the nlab answer your question? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 29 at 7:37
  • $\begingroup$ I doubt. As fancy as it sounds, I think Sweedler notation implicitly uses the fact that $H$ is a set with extra structures. If we want to do it on the level of symmetry monoidal category, then the only way I can think of is to construct a (possibly huge) diagram, show that it commute, and there is a subpentagon consisting of the compositions $S \circ \mu$ and $\mu \circ \tau \circ (S \otimes S)$. $\endgroup$
    – Ray
    Commented Jun 29 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ Sweedler notation is just a way of baking coassociativity into your notation, so I think you can translate the direct computation proof into a version using maps. The reason why you haven't seen this diagrammatic proof is probably because it gets very unwieldy, where you have to keep track of six tensor factors and the braiding between them at some point. The diagrammatic proofs that do exist also tend to condense it down to even more concise diagrams. For such a proof, you can see Fig. 9.14 of Majid's Foundations, or here for the main gist. $\endgroup$
    – Elliot Yu
    Commented Jun 29 at 12:10

0

You must log in to answer this question.