TITLE: Negative objects in categories
QUESTION [8 upvotes]: I seem to remember a proof that if a category $C$ has coproducts and a $0$ object, then necessarily if we had objects of $C$, say $a$ and $-a$, such that $a \oplus -a \simeq 0$, then $a\simeq 0\simeq -a$.  
But right now, I can't place this, nor am I 100% sure that that is the correct property.  I am able to show that, using the various universal properties at play, that the morphisms in such a category are necessarily quite boring, but not that it completely collapses (i.e. if I assume that all objects have a corresponding 'negative' object).

REPLY [10 votes]: There are three proofs:
1) If $C$ has infinite coproducts, you may use the Eilenberg swindle:
$$a \cong a \oplus (-a \oplus a) \oplus (-a \oplus a) \oplus \dotsc \cong (a \oplus -a) \oplus (a \oplus -a) \oplus  \dotsc \cong 0.$$
2) Here is my personal summary of Philippe's proof: (a) It is enough to prove the dual statement $a \times a^{-1} \cong 1 \Rightarrow a \cong 1$ in categories with products. (b) This may be reduced, by the Yoneda embedding which preserves products, to the case $\mathsf{Set}$. (c) In the case of $\mathsf{Set}$ it is clear. 
3) If $\mathcal{L}$ is an invertible object of a symmetric monoidal category, then $\mathcal{L} \otimes -$ is cocontinuous since $\mathcal{L}^{-1} \otimes - $ is right adjoint to it. In particular $\mathcal{L} \otimes -$ preserves initial objects. Now apply this to $(C,\oplus,0)$. Thus if $a$ is invertible w.r.t. $\oplus$, we have $a \oplus 0 \cong 0$. On the other hand, the left hand side is also $a$.