Let me start with three examples to illustrate my question (probably vague; I apologize in advance).

  1. $\mathbf{Man}$, the category of closed (compact without boundary) topological manifold. For any $M, N\in \mathbf{Man}$ there is the following theorem (Whittaker) which says that

$$\mathrm{Homeo}(M)\cong_{\text{as groups}} \mathrm{Homeo}(N) \, \textit{ if and only if } \, M\cong_{\text{as manifold}} N$$

  1. $\mathbf{NFields}$, the category of Number fields. For any $F, K\in \mathbf{NFields}$ there is a theorem (Neukirch-Uchida) which says that

$$\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K)\cong_{\text{as progroups}} \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}/F) \textit{ if and only if } K\cong_{\text{as fields}} F $$

  1. $\mathbf{Vect}$, the category of finite dimensional vector spaces. For any $V, W\in \mathbf{Vect}$ we have that

$$\mathrm{GL}(V)\cong \mathrm{GL}(W) \textit{ if and only if } V\cong W $$

In the first and the third examples we see that the automorphism group of an object determines the object. The second example seems to be similar in some sense however it does not admit the same naive interpretation.

$\textbf{Question:}$ What are other non-trivial examples of interesting categories where the automorphism group of an object determines the object itself? Is there a name for such categories? Is there a way to compare and characterize these kind of categories?

share|cite|improve this question
5  
An interesting question. I wasn't aware of the result 1.; is there an easily accessible reference for that? – Todd Trimble yesterday
1  
@ToddTrimble I think this paper is the original one Whittaker, James V. On isomorphic groups and homeomorphic spaces. Ann. of Math. (2) 78 1963 74–91 dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5188175/whit.pdf – Muhammed Ali yesterday
2  
@IgorRivin Thanks! We might as well link to it: mathoverflow.net/questions/92422/… – Todd Trimble yesterday
6  
Incidentally, with regard to 2., a little bird told me that the result extends to all global fields (so number fields, and also function fields for curves over a finite field -- the extension is apparently due to Pop). This might be a nicer formulation. – Todd Trimble yesterday
2  
On suggestion from another user, let's make this a big list CW. – Todd Trimble 20 hours ago

The following result holds.

Theorem.

(1) $\,$ (Baer-Kaplanski) $\,$ If $G$ and $H$ are torsion groups with isomorphic endomorphism rings $\mathrm{End}(G)$ and $\mathrm{End}(H)$, then $G$ and $H$ are isomorphic, and any ring isomorphism $\psi \colon \mathrm{End}(G) \to \mathrm{End}(H)$ is induced by some group isomorphism $\varphi \colon G \to H$.

(2) $\,$ (Leptin-Liebert) If $G$, $H$ are abelian $p$-groups $(p >3)$ and $\mathrm{Aut}(G)$ is isomorphic to $\mathrm{Aut}(H)$, then $G$ is isomorphic to $H$.

See A. V. Mikhalev, G. Pilz: The Concise Handbook of Algebra, p.74 and the references given therein.

share|cite|improve this answer
4  
The first item is about endos not autos. Are the groups abelian? – Benjamin Steinberg 22 hours ago
    
Yes, I know :-) Regarding the groups: well, the statement of the Baer-Kaplanski theorem in the reference that I posted does not say "abelian", but other references actually seem to require this assumption. Let us say "abelian" for the moment, I will try to look at the original reference by Baer or Kaplanski. – Francesco Polizzi 20 hours ago
1  
@FrancescoPolizzi $End(G)$ is usually not a ring when $G$ is not abelian. – YCor 16 hours ago
    
@YCor: yes, I was thinking about this. Probably the assumption "abelian" for some reason was tacitly assumed in the statement I read, and unfortunately I still do not have access to the original papers. – Francesco Polizzi 15 hours ago

If $M,N$ are two countable, $\omega$-categorical and $\omega$-stable structures, and $\operatorname{Aut}(M)\cong \operatorname{Aut}(N)$ (as topological groups), then $M$ and $N$ are bi-interpretable.

More generally, $M$ and $N$ only need to be countable, $\omega$-categorical and satisfy the so-called small index property. As far as I can recall, an analogous result is true for metric structures (in continuous logic).

share|cite|improve this answer

Under the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis, $$2^{\aleph_\alpha}=\aleph_{\alpha+1}\quad(\forall\alpha),$$ sets with no structure (so automorphisms are just bijections) is an example.

Namely, by

Cardinality of the permutations of an infinite set

we have $\text{card Aut}(X)=2^{\text{card}(X)}$, and $$2^{\aleph_\alpha}=2^{\aleph_\beta}\implies\aleph_{\alpha+1}=\aleph_{\beta+1}\implies\alpha+1=\beta+1\implies\alpha=\beta.$$

(I suppose it's easy to check that we need more than ZFC but do not need GCH here.)

share|cite|improve this answer
1  
There was on MO a question about the "injectivity of the continuum function". If I remember correctly it was stated there that it is indeed weaker than GCH – Max 8 hours ago
    
2  
(modulo the silly objection that the empty set and the one-element set have the same automorphisms) – Gabriel C. Drummond-Cole 5 hours ago

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.