Intereting Posts

Infinite prisoners with hats — is choice really needed?
Can someone explain the algorithm for composition of cycles?
Thinking about $p^n = x^m + y^m$ where $p | m$
technique of proving continuity complex function
Prove that a subgroup which contains half of all elements is a normal subgroup.
Constructing self-complementary regular graphs
Permutations and Derangements
Minimal difference between classical and intuitionistic sequent calculus
Is $\sum\limits_{n=3}^\infty\dfrac{1}{n\log n}$ absolutely convergent, conditionally convergent or divergent?
Does set theory help understand machine learning or make new machine learning algorithms?
What is the formula for nth derivative of arcsin x, arctan x, sec x and tan x?
What is the most elegant and simple proof for the law of cosines?
Unbiased Estimator for a Uniform Variable Support
Prove the inequality $|xy|\leq\frac{1}{2}(x^2+y^2)$
$X_n\leq Y_n$ implies $\liminf X_n \leq \liminf Y_n$ and $\limsup X_n \leq \limsup Y_n$

Let $G$ be a group, regarded as category with one object $*$ in which each arrow is invertible. Then the category of $G$-Sets is just the category of functors from $G$ to $\mathbf{Set}$. Now I’ve read that an arrow $\varphi: \tau \to \tau'$ (where $\tau$ and $\tau'$ are functors from $G$ to $\mathbf{Set}$) in the category of $G$-Sets is monic if and only if $\varphi_*$ is monic in $\mathbf{Set}$. I’m having trouble seeing why the only if part of this statement is true.

- for any ring $A$ the matrix ring $M_n(A)$ is simple if and only if $A$ is simple
- A maximal ideal is always a prime ideal?
- Who named “Quotient groups”?
- How to get used to commutative diagrams? (the case of products).
- What is the opposite category of $\operatorname{Top}$?
- How do I prove that $x^p-x+a$ is irreducible in a field with $p$ elements when $a\neq 0$?
- Is the algebraic subextension of a finitely generated field extension finitely generated?
- Given two algebraic conjugates $\alpha,\beta$ and their minimal polynomial, find a polynomial that vanishes at $\alpha\beta$ in a efficient way
- Additive group of rationals has no minimal generating set
- The number of elements which are squares in a finite field.

As **wildildildlife** pointed out, the naive approach is to consider morphisms $\alpha_0, \alpha_1 : \sigma\to\tau$, where $\sigma$ is the “trivial” object. The mistake is that a singleton set is a “trivial” set, we instead need a “trivial” action of $G$ (= $G$-set). It is the canonical action of $G$ on itself given by the curried 2-ary operation of $G$ (like in Cayley’s theorem)!

Lets denote by $|\rho|$ the carrier and by $\triangleleft_\rho$ the operation of any action $\rho$ of $G$. Lets $\sigma$ be the canonical action of $G$, then $|\sigma|=|G|$, $\forall g_0 g_1 (g_1\triangleleft_\sigma g_0 = g_1 +_G g_0)$.

For every $x\in|\tau|$ (you defined $\tau$ in your question) define a function $\psi(g):=g\triangleleft_\tau x$. By definition of the action, $g_1\triangleleft_\tau (g_0\triangleleft_\tau x) = (g_1 + g_0)\triangleleft_\tau x$, $g_1\triangleleft_\tau (\psi(g_0)) = \psi(g_1 + g_0) = \psi(g_1\triangleleft_\sigma g_0)$, then $\psi:\sigma\to\tau$ is a homomorphism of actions. $\psi(0)=0\triangleleft_\sigma x=0 + x=x$, i.e. we can have a homomorphism which maps $0$ to any $x$ we want. Proceed as in the naive approach.

$\sigma$ is a separator in the category of actions of $G$.

The following answer prove a more general result that show an application of yoneda lemma, so I hope you’ll like it.

Let $\mathcal F, \mathcal G \colon A \to \textbf{Set}$ be two functors, then given a natural transformation $\tau \colon \mathcal F \to \mathcal G$ we have that $\tau$ is monic if and only if $\tau_a$ is monic for each $a \in A$.

Let’s prove this.

If for each $a \in A$ we have $\tau_a$ monic clearly given a functor $\mathcal E \colon A \to \textbf{Set}$ and two natural transformation $\sigma^1, \sigma^2 \colon \mathcal E \to \mathcal F$ such that $\tau \circ \sigma^1 = \tau \circ \sigma^2$ then we have that

for each $a \in A$ hold the equality $\tau_a \circ {\sigma^1}_a = \tau_a \circ {\sigma^2}_a$ and because $\tau_a$ is monic thus it follows that $\sigma^1_a= \sigma^2_a$. Because this equation holds for each $a \in A$ we have $\sigma^1=\sigma^2$.

On the other end we also have that given a $\tau \colon \mathcal F \to \mathcal G$ which is monic then by yoneda lemma for each $a \in A$ there is a natural isomorphism $\varphi \colon \text{Nat}(A(a,-),\bullet) \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \bullet (a)$: the functors involved are the $\hom$-functor $\text{Nat}(A(a,-),\bullet) \colon \textbf{Cat}(A,\textbf{Set}) \to \textbf{Set}$, the argument being identified by the $\bullet$, and the evaluation functor $\bullet (a) \colon \textbf{Cat}(A,\textbf{Set}) \to \textbf{Set}$, which sends every functor in its value on $a$.

Via naturality of $\varphi$ we get that the equations

$$\tau_a \circ \varphi_\mathcal{F} = \varphi_\mathcal{G} \circ \text{Nat}(A(a,-),\mathcal G)$$

must hold for each $a \in A$.

But because $\varphi$ is an isomorphisms this imply that $\varphi_\mathcal{H}$ is an isomorphisms in $\textbf{Set}$ for each functor $\mathcal H \colon A \to \textbf{Set}$ and so $\tau_a = \varphi_\mathcal{G} \circ \text{Nat}(A(a,-),\tau) \circ \varphi_\mathcal{F}^{-1}$. For properties of $\hom$-functors and because of the hypothesis $\tau$ is monic also $\text{Nat}(A(a,-),\tau)$ is monic and so $\tau_a$ is monic being composition of monic.

Edit: ops I’ve just noted that I’ve forgotten to solve your question:

it’s a corollary to this theorem in the case when $A=G$ is group seen as a category.

Thanks to *beroal* for his answer. May I add the following perspective:

To prove that in a concrete category *monic* implies *injective*, one can sometimes use an identification between ‘elements’ and ‘arrows’, because ‘monic’ basically means injective on arrows.

- In $\sf{Set}$, $\sf{Top}$: $Hom(\{\star\},X)\cong X$ via $f\mapsto f(\star)$.
- In $\sf{Gr}$ and $\sf{Ab}$: $Hom(\mathbb{Z},G)\cong G$ via $f\mapsto f(1)$.
- In $\sf{Ring}$: $Hom(\mathbb{Z}[x],R)\cong R$ via $f\mapsto f(x)$.

In other words, the forgetful functor is *represented* by $\{\star\},\mathbb{Z},\mathbb{Z}[x]$ (the free object on the singleton set) respectively.

The same works in $G$-$\sf{Set}$ by taking $G$ as ‘Cayley’ $G$-set:

$Hom(G,X)\cong X$ via $f\mapsto f(e)$.

- LIATE / ILATE rule
- Prove that, $(2\cdot 4 \cdot 6 \cdot … \cdot 4000)-(1\cdot 3 \cdot 5 \cdot …\cdot 3999)$ is a multiple of $2001$
- Prove that $h'(t)=\int_{a}^{b}\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial t}ds$.
- Group of order $3^a\cdot5\cdot11$ has a normal Sylow 3-group
- Why $P(A) \cup P(B)$ is not equivalent to $P(A \cup B)$
- Cylinder Gaussian Curvature
- Finding circle circumscribed in spherical triangle
- Showing that a one-to-one linear transformation maps a linearly independent set onto a linearly independent set
- Two definitions of Lebesgue integration
- Combinatorics/variation dinner problem
- Show that there exist no $a, b, c \in \mathbb Z^+$ such that $a^3 + 2b^3 = 4c^3$
- find remainder of a number
- Solving an integral with substitution method
- Why is the eigenvector of a covariance matrix equal to a principal component?
- Spectrum of Laplace operator with potential acting on $L^2(\mathbb R)$ is discrete