DOCSLIB.ORG

LIMITS 1. Limits and Colimits 1.1. Limits. 1.1.1. Functor Categories. Definition 1.1. Let D and C Be Categories. (A) the Class O

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LIMITS 1. Limits and Colimits 1.1. Limits. 1.1.1. Functor Categories. Definition 1.1. Let D and C Be Categories. (A) the Class O LIMITS Abstract. Limits and colimits. Applications. 1. Limits and colimits 1.1. Limits. 1.1.1. Functor categories. Definition 1.1. Let D and C be categories. ( ) ! D (a) The class of all functors F : D C is denoted by C 0. (b) The class( of all) natural transformations( ) τ : F ! G between D D objects of C 0 is denoted by C ( 1. ) ! D (c) Given an element F : D C of C 0, the identity natural ! transformation 1F has components (1F )x = 1xF : xF xF at each vertex x of D. (d) Given natural transformations( ) τ1 : F0 ! F1 and τ2 : F1 ! F2 D between objects of C 0, the composite natural transformation τ1τ2 : F0 ! F2 is defined by its components (τ1τ2)x = (τ1)x(τ2)x at each vertex(( x of) D(. ) ) D D D (e) Then C = C 0 ; C 1 is known as a functor category. Example 1.2. Let G be a group that is realized as a category G with a single object X, and a morphism g for each group element g (compare Example 1.4, Categories). Consider the category Z of abelian groups. Then the functor category ZG is the category of G-modules. Indeed, given a functor r : G ! Z with Xr = M, each morphism gr (for g 2 G) is an automorphism of the abelian group M, and the functoriality of r means that mgrhr = m(gh)r for m 2 M and g; h 2 G. Example 1.3. A poset is discrete if it has the form (I; =) for a set I. Then for 2 = f0; 1g construed as a discrete poset category, the functor 2 category C has an object class consisting of pairs (x0; x1) of objects of C, and a morphism class consisting of pairs (f0 : x0 ! y0; f1 : x1 ! y1) of morphisms of C. 1.1.2. Limits. Definition 1.4. Let J and C be categories, and let F : J ! C be a functor. 1 2 LIMITS (a) The diagonal functor ∆: C ! CJ sends each object X of C to the constant functor [X]: J ! C. Each morphism f : X ! Y of C is sent to the natural transformation [f]:[x] ! [y] with component [f]j = f at each object j of J. (b) Let [F ] be the constant functor [F ]: 1 ! C. Then the limit lim F of F is a terminal object of the comma category (∆ # [F ]). − The comma category (∆ # [F ]) in Definition 1.4(b) is built on the pair [F ] C −!∆ CJ − 1 of functors whose common codomain is the functor category CJ . • An object (Y; Y ∆ ! F; 1) of the comma category (∆ # [F ]) consists of a natural transformation f :[Y ] ! F , specified by its components fj : Y ! jF at each object j of J. • In particular, the terminal object lim F of the comma category − (∆ # [F ]) consists of an object of C itself, informally denoted as lim F , together with a natural transformation π : [lim F ] ! F , − − specified by its components π : lim F ! jF for each object j j − of J. These components are known as projections. • The terminality of lim F means that for each object Y of C with − morphisms fj : Y ! jF for j 2 J0, there is a unique comma category morphism (lim f; 1 ) 2 C(Y; lim F ) × 1(1; 1) − 1 − such that the diagrams [lim f] lim f − / − / (1.1) [Y ] [lim F ] or Y > lim F − >> − >> zz f π >> z > zz π fj > }zz j F / F jF 1F commute (in the second case, for each object j of J). (For the first diagram, compare (1.1) in Structural specifications). 1.1.3. Products and pullbacks as limits. Products of pairs of objects are implemented as limits in which the index category J is the discrete Qposet category 2 of Example 1.3. More generally, an arbitrary product i2I Xi is implemented as a limit in which the index category J is the discrete poset category I given by the set I. LIMITS 3 Example 1.5. Let J be the join semilattice poset category with Hasse diagram 0 −! 0+1 − 1. Then for a functor F : J ! C with jF = Xj for j 2 J , the limit lim F is the pullback X π−0 X × X −!π1 X . 0 − 0 0 X0+1 1 1 × ! ! F Note that π0+1 : X0 X0+1 X1 X0+1 is the composite π0(0 0+1) = F π1(1 ! 0 + 1) . The diagram 8 XO 1 F f FF 1 FF(1!0+1)F FF π1 FF F# / / Y lim F X0+1 lim f − π0+1 ; − xx xx π0 xx xx (0!0+1)F f0 & x X0 summarizes this case of the right-hand diagrams in (1.1). 1.1.4. Equalizers. Let k or parallel denote the category ( 8 0 6 1 f with a parallel pair of non-identity arrows. Thus a functor F : k ! C f0 / corresponds to a parallel pair of arrows X0 / X1 in the category f1 C. The limit lim F is a morphism e: E ! X such that − 0 D AA AA lim d AAd − A A f0 / / / E e X0 X1 f1 commutes, i.e., such that ef0 = ef1, and such that d: D ! X0 with df = df implies the existence of a unique morphism lim d: D ! E 0 1 − with (lim d)e = d. The limit E is known as the equalizer of f and f . − 0 1 In the category of sets, or concrete categories of algebras, one may take e as the insertion of the subset E = fx 2 X0 j xf0 = xf1g into X0. 1.2. Colimits. Colimits are the duals of limits. Definition 1.6. Let J and C be categories, and let F : J ! C be a functor, with [F ] as the constant functor [F ]: 1 ! C. Then the colimit lim F of F is an initial object of the comma category ([F ] # ∆). −! 4 LIMITS The comma category ([F ] # ∆) in Definition 1.6 is built on the pair [F ] 1 −! CJ ∆− C of functors whose common codomain is the functor category CJ . • An object (1;F ! Y ∆;Y ) of the comma category ([F ] # ∆) consists of a natural transformation f : F ! [Y ], specified by its components fj : jF ! Y at each object j of J. • In particular, the initial object lim F of the comma category −! ([F ] # ∆) consists of an object of C itself, informally denoted as lim F , together with a natural transformation ι: F ! [lim F ], −! −! specified by its components ι : jF ! lim F for each object j of j −! J. These components are known as insertions. • The initiality of lim F means that for each object Y of C with −! morphisms fj : jF ! Y for j 2 J0, there is a unique comma category morphism (1 ; f) 2 1(1; 1) × C(lim F; Y ) 1 −! such that the diagrams 1 (1.2) F F / F or jF z >> zz > ιj zz >>fj ι f zz >> }zz > [lim F ] / [Y ] lim F / Y −! [lim f] −! lim f −! −! commute (in the second case, for each object j of J). Remark 1.7. Limits are also known as \projective limits" (because they come with projections) or \inverse limits," and may be written as \lim." Colimits, which may be written as \colim," are also known as \inductive limits" or \direct limits." Remark 1.8. As a mnemonic for the direction of the arrow under limit π and colimit symbols, one may think of the projections jF −j lim F − ι coming out of limits and the insertions jF −!j lim F going in to colimits. −! 1.2.1. Coproducts. Coproducts of pairs of objects are just colimits in which the index category J is the discrete poset category 2 `considered Pin Example 1.3. More generally, an arbitrary coproduct i2I Xi or i2I Xi is a colimit in which the index category J is the discrete poset category I given by the set I. LIMITS 5 ` Example 1.9. (a) If I is empty, the coproduct i2I Xi is just an initial object. f j 2 g R (b) Let X = xi i I be a subset of thatP is bounded above. Then R ≤ in the poset category ( ; ), the coproduct j2I xj is the supremum sup X. 2 (c) If thereP is an object X such that Xi = X for all i I, then the coproduct i2I Xi is the I-th multiple IX. 1.2.2. Pushouts. Definition 1.10. Let J be the meet semilattice poset category with Hasse diagram 0 − 0 · 1 −! 1. Then for a functor F : J ! C with jF = Xj for j 2 J0, the pushout −!ι0 ι−1 (1.3) X0 X0 +X0·1 X1 X1 is the colimit lim F . −! F F In the pushout (1.3), the composite (0 · 1 ! 0) ι0 = (0 · 1 ! 1) ι1 ! is the insertion ι0·1 : X0·1 X0 +X0·1 X1. The diagram 4 X1 (0·1!1)F f1 ι1 / / X0·1 X0 +X · X1 BY ι0+1 O 0 1 lim f −! ι0 · ! (0 1 0)F * f0 X0 summarizes this case of the right-hand diagrams in (1.2). 1.2.3. Coequalizers. For a functor F : k ! C yielding a parallel pair of f0 / arrows X / X in a category C, the colimit lim F is known as a 1 0 −! f1 coequalizer. It is a morphism q : X0 ! Q such that }> PO p }} } lim p }} −! }} f0 / / / X1 X0 q Q f1 commutes, i.e., such that f0q = f1q, and such that p: X0 ! P with f p = f p implies the existence of a unique morphism lim p: Q ! P 0 1 −! with q(lim p) = p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congruences Between Derivatives of Geometric L-Functions
    1 Congruences between Derivatives of Geometric L-Functions David Burns with an appendix by David Burns, King Fai Lai and Ki-Seng Tan Abstract. We prove a natural equivariant re¯nement of a theorem of Licht- enbaum describing the leading terms of Zeta functions of curves over ¯nite ¯elds in terms of Weil-¶etalecohomology. We then use this result to prove the validity of Chinburg's ­(3)-Conjecture for all abelian extensions of global function ¯elds, to prove natural re¯nements and generalisations of the re- ¯ned Stark conjectures formulated by, amongst others, Gross, Tate, Rubin and Popescu, to prove a variety of explicit restrictions on the Galois module structure of unit groups and divisor class groups and to describe explicitly the Fitting ideals of certain Weil-¶etalecohomology groups. In an appendix coau- thored with K. F. Lai and K-S. Tan we also show that the main conjectures of geometric Iwasawa theory can be proved without using either crystalline cohomology or Drinfeld modules. 1991 Mathematics Subject Classi¯cation: Primary 11G40; Secondary 11R65; 19A31; 19B28. Keywords and Phrases: Geometric L-functions, leading terms, congruences, Iwasawa theory 2 David Burns 1. Introduction The main result of the present article is the following Theorem 1.1. The central conjecture of [6] is valid for all global function ¯elds. (For a more explicit statement of this result see Theorem 3.1.) Theorem 1.1 is a natural equivariant re¯nement of the leading term formula proved by Lichtenbaum in [27] and also implies an extensive new family of integral congruence relations between the leading terms of L-functions associated to abelian characters of global functions ¯elds (see Remark 3.2).
    [Show full text]
  • Op → Sset in Simplicial Sets, Or Equivalently a Functor X : ∆Op × ∆Op → Set
    Contents 21 Bisimplicial sets 1 22 Homotopy colimits and limits (revisited) 10 23 Applications, Quillen’s Theorem B 23 21 Bisimplicial sets A bisimplicial set X is a simplicial object X : Dop ! sSet in simplicial sets, or equivalently a functor X : Dop × Dop ! Set: I write Xm;n = X(m;n) for the set of bisimplices in bidgree (m;n) and Xm = Xm;∗ for the vertical simplicial set in horiz. degree m. Morphisms X ! Y of bisimplicial sets are natural transformations. s2Set is the category of bisimplicial sets. Examples: 1) Dp;q is the contravariant representable functor Dp;q = hom( ;(p;q)) 1 on D × D. p;q G q Dm = D : m!p p;q The maps D ! X classify bisimplices in Xp;q. The bisimplex category (D × D)=X has the bisim- plices of X as objects, with morphisms the inci- dence relations Dp;q ' 7 X Dr;s 2) Suppose K and L are simplicial sets. The bisimplicial set Kט L has bisimplices (Kט L)p;q = Kp × Lq: The object Kט L is the external product of K and L. There is a natural isomorphism Dp;q =∼ Dpט Dq: 3) Suppose I is a small category and that X : I ! sSet is an I-diagram in simplicial sets. Recall (Lecture 04) that there is a bisimplicial set −−−!holim IX (“the” homotopy colimit) with vertical sim- 2 plicial sets G X(i0) i0→···→in in horizontal degrees n. The transformation X ! ∗ induces a bisimplicial set map G G p : X(i0) ! ∗ = BIn; i0→···→in i0→···→in where the set BIn has been identified with the dis- crete simplicial set K(BIn;0) in each horizontal de- gree.
    [Show full text]
  • A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints
    A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Copyright c 2003 by Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Abstract A Category-Theoretic Approach to Representation and Analysis of Inconsistency in Graph-Based Viewpoints Mehrdad Sabetzadeh Master of Science Graduate Department of Computer Science University of Toronto 2003 Eliciting the requirements for a proposed system typically involves different stakeholders with different expertise, responsibilities, and perspectives. This may result in inconsis- tencies between the descriptions provided by stakeholders. Viewpoints-based approaches have been proposed as a way to manage incomplete and inconsistent models gathered from multiple sources. In this thesis, we propose a category-theoretic framework for the analysis of fuzzy viewpoints. Informally, a fuzzy viewpoint is a graph in which the elements of a lattice are used to specify the amount of knowledge available about the details of nodes and edges. By defining an appropriate notion of morphism between fuzzy viewpoints, we construct categories of fuzzy viewpoints and prove that these categories are (finitely) cocomplete. We then show how colimits can be employed to merge the viewpoints and detect the inconsistencies that arise independent of any particular choice of viewpoint semantics. Taking advantage of the same category-theoretic techniques used in defining fuzzy viewpoints, we will also introduce a more general graph-based formalism that may find applications in other contexts. ii To my mother and father with love and gratitude. Acknowledgements First of all, I wish to thank my supervisor Steve Easterbrook for his guidance, support, and patience.
    [Show full text]
  • Category Theory
    Michael Paluch Category Theory April 29, 2014 Preface These note are based in part on the the book [2] by Saunders Mac Lane and on the book [3] by Saunders Mac Lane and Ieke Moerdijk. v Contents 1 Foundations ....................................................... 1 1.1 Extensionality and comprehension . .1 1.2 Zermelo Frankel set theory . .3 1.3 Universes.....................................................5 1.4 Classes and Gödel-Bernays . .5 1.5 Categories....................................................6 1.6 Functors .....................................................7 1.7 Natural Transformations. .8 1.8 Basic terminology . 10 2 Constructions on Categories ....................................... 11 2.1 Contravariance and Opposites . 11 2.2 Products of Categories . 13 2.3 Functor Categories . 15 2.4 The category of all categories . 16 2.5 Comma categories . 17 3 Universals and Limits .............................................. 19 3.1 Universal Morphisms. 19 3.2 Products, Coproducts, Limits and Colimits . 20 3.3 YonedaLemma ............................................... 24 3.4 Free cocompletion . 28 4 Adjoints ........................................................... 31 4.1 Adjoint functors and universal morphisms . 31 4.2 Freyd’s adjoint functor theorem . 38 5 Topos Theory ...................................................... 43 5.1 Subobject classifier . 43 5.2 Sieves........................................................ 45 5.3 Exponentials . 47 vii viii Contents Index .................................................................. 53 Acronyms List of categories. Ab The category of small abelian groups and group homomorphisms. AlgA The category of commutative A-algebras. Cb The category Func(Cop,Sets). Cat The category of small categories and functors. CRings The category of commutative ring with an identity and ring homomor- phisms which preserve identities. Grp The category of small groups and group homomorphisms. Sets Category of small set and functions. Sets Category of small pointed set and pointed functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes and Solutions to Exercises for Mac Lane's Categories for The
    Stefan Dawydiak Version 0.3 July 2, 2020 Notes and Exercises from Categories for the Working Mathematician Contents 0 Preface 2 1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations 2 1.1 Functors . .2 1.2 Natural Transformations . .4 1.3 Monics, Epis, and Zeros . .5 2 Constructions on Categories 6 2.1 Products of Categories . .6 2.2 Functor categories . .6 2.2.1 The Interchange Law . .8 2.3 The Category of All Categories . .8 2.4 Comma Categories . 11 2.5 Graphs and Free Categories . 12 2.6 Quotient Categories . 13 3 Universals and Limits 13 3.1 Universal Arrows . 13 3.2 The Yoneda Lemma . 14 3.2.1 Proof of the Yoneda Lemma . 14 3.3 Coproducts and Colimits . 16 3.4 Products and Limits . 18 3.4.1 The p-adic integers . 20 3.5 Categories with Finite Products . 21 3.6 Groups in Categories . 22 4 Adjoints 23 4.1 Adjunctions . 23 4.2 Examples of Adjoints . 24 4.3 Reflective Subcategories . 28 4.4 Equivalence of Categories . 30 4.5 Adjoints for Preorders . 32 4.5.1 Examples of Galois Connections . 32 4.6 Cartesian Closed Categories . 33 5 Limits 33 5.1 Creation of Limits . 33 5.2 Limits by Products and Equalizers . 34 5.3 Preservation of Limits . 35 5.4 Adjoints on Limits . 35 5.5 Freyd's adjoint functor theorem . 36 1 6 Chapter 6 38 7 Chapter 7 38 8 Abelian Categories 38 8.1 Additive Categories . 38 8.2 Abelian Categories . 38 8.3 Diagram Lemmas . 39 9 Special Limits 41 9.1 Interchange of Limits .
    [Show full text]
  • Derived Functors and Homological Dimension (Pdf)
    DERIVED FUNCTORS AND HOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION George Torres Math 221 Abstract. This paper overviews the basic notions of abelian categories, exact functors, and chain complexes. It will use these concepts to define derived functors, prove their existence, and demon- strate their relationship to homological dimension. I affirm my awareness of the standards of the Harvard College Honor Code. Date: December 15, 2015. 1 2 DERIVED FUNCTORS AND HOMOLOGICAL DIMENSION 1. Abelian Categories and Homology The concept of an abelian category will be necessary for discussing ideas on homological algebra. Loosely speaking, an abelian cagetory is a type of category that behaves like modules (R-mod) or abelian groups (Ab). We must first define a few types of morphisms that such a category must have. Definition 1.1. A morphism f : X ! Y in a category C is a zero morphism if: • for any A 2 C and any g; h : A ! X, fg = fh • for any B 2 C and any g; h : Y ! B, gf = hf We denote a zero morphism as 0XY (or sometimes just 0 if the context is sufficient). Definition 1.2. A morphism f : X ! Y is a monomorphism if it is left cancellative. That is, for all g; h : Z ! X, we have fg = fh ) g = h. An epimorphism is a morphism if it is right cancellative. The zero morphism is a generalization of the zero map on rings, or the identity homomorphism on groups. Monomorphisms and epimorphisms are generalizations of injective and surjective homomorphisms (though these definitions don't always coincide). It can be shown that a morphism is an isomorphism iff it is epic and monic.
    [Show full text]
  • Generalized Inverse Limits and Topological Entropy
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repository of Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb FACULTY OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS Goran Erceg GENERALIZED INVERSE LIMITS AND TOPOLOGICAL ENTROPY DOCTORAL THESIS Zagreb, 2016 PRIRODOSLOVNO - MATEMATICKIˇ FAKULTET MATEMATICKIˇ ODSJEK Goran Erceg GENERALIZIRANI INVERZNI LIMESI I TOPOLOŠKA ENTROPIJA DOKTORSKI RAD Zagreb, 2016. FACULTY OF SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS Goran Erceg GENERALIZED INVERSE LIMITS AND TOPOLOGICAL ENTROPY DOCTORAL THESIS Supervisors: prof. Judy Kennedy prof. dr. sc. Vlasta Matijevic´ Zagreb, 2016 PRIRODOSLOVNO - MATEMATICKIˇ FAKULTET MATEMATICKIˇ ODSJEK Goran Erceg GENERALIZIRANI INVERZNI LIMESI I TOPOLOŠKA ENTROPIJA DOKTORSKI RAD Mentori: prof. Judy Kennedy prof. dr. sc. Vlasta Matijevic´ Zagreb, 2016. Acknowledgements First of all, i want to thank my supervisor professor Judy Kennedy for accept- ing a big responsibility of guiding a transatlantic student. Her enthusiasm and love for mathematics are contagious. I thank professor Vlasta Matijevi´c, not only my supervisor but also my role model as a professor of mathematics. It was privilege to be guided by her for master's and doctoral thesis. I want to thank all my math teachers, from elementary school onwards, who helped that my love for math rises more and more with each year. Special thanks to Jurica Cudina´ who showed me a glimpse of math theory already in the high school. I thank all members of the Topology seminar in Split who always knew to ask right questions at the right moment and to guide me in the right direction. I also thank Iztok Baniˇcand the rest of the Topology seminar in Maribor who welcomed me as their member and showed me the beauty of a teamwork.
    [Show full text]
  • Coreflective Subcategories
    transactions of the american mathematical society Volume 157, June 1971 COREFLECTIVE SUBCATEGORIES BY HORST HERRLICH AND GEORGE E. STRECKER Abstract. General morphism factorization criteria are used to investigate categorical reflections and coreflections, and in particular epi-reflections and mono- coreflections. It is shown that for most categories with "reasonable" smallness and completeness conditions, each coreflection can be "split" into the composition of two mono-coreflections and that under these conditions mono-coreflective subcategories can be characterized as those which are closed under the formation of coproducts and extremal quotient objects. The relationship of reflectivity to closure under limits is investigated as well as coreflections in categories which have "enough" constant morphisms. 1. Introduction. The concept of reflections in categories (and likewise the dual notion—coreflections) serves the purpose of unifying various fundamental con- structions in mathematics, via "universal" properties that each possesses. His- torically, the concept seems to have its roots in the fundamental construction of E. Cech [4] whereby (using the fact that the class of compact spaces is productive and closed-hereditary) each completely regular F2 space is densely embedded in a compact F2 space with a universal extension property. In [3, Appendice III; Sur les applications universelles] Bourbaki has shown the essential underlying similarity that the Cech-Stone compactification has with other mathematical extensions, such as the completion of uniform spaces and the embedding of integral domains in their fields of fractions. In doing so, he essentially defined the notion of reflections in categories. It was not until 1964, when Freyd [5] published the first book dealing exclusively with the theory of categories, that sufficient categorical machinery and insight were developed to allow for a very simple formulation of the concept of reflections and for a basic investigation of reflections as entities themselvesi1).
    [Show full text]
  • Limits Commutative Algebra May 11 2020 1. Direct Limits Definition 1
    Limits Commutative Algebra May 11 2020 1. Direct Limits Definition 1: A directed set I is a set with a partial order ≤ such that for every i; j 2 I there is k 2 I such that i ≤ k and j ≤ k. Let R be a ring. A directed system of R-modules indexed by I is a collection of R modules fMi j i 2 Ig with a R module homomorphisms µi;j : Mi ! Mj for each pair i; j 2 I where i ≤ j, such that (i) for any i 2 I, µi;i = IdMi and (ii) for any i ≤ j ≤ k in I, µi;j ◦ µj;k = µi;k. We shall denote a directed system by a tuple (Mi; µi;j). The direct limit of a directed system is defined using a universal property. It exists and is unique up to a unique isomorphism. Theorem 2 (Direct limits). Let fMi j i 2 Ig be a directed system of R modules then there exists an R module M with the following properties: (i) There are R module homomorphisms µi : Mi ! M for each i 2 I, satisfying µi = µj ◦ µi;j whenever i < j. (ii) If there is an R module N such that there are R module homomorphisms νi : Mi ! N for each i and νi = νj ◦µi;j whenever i < j; then there exists a unique R module homomorphism ν : M ! N, such that νi = ν ◦ µi. The module M is unique in the sense that if there is any other R module M 0 satisfying properties (i) and (ii) then there is a unique R module isomorphism µ0 : M ! M 0.
    [Show full text]
  • A Few Points in Topos Theory
    A few points in topos theory Sam Zoghaib∗ Abstract This paper deals with two problems in topos theory; the construction of finite pseudo-limits and pseudo-colimits in appropriate sub-2-categories of the 2-category of toposes, and the definition and construction of the fundamental groupoid of a topos, in the context of the Galois theory of coverings; we will take results on the fundamental group of étale coverings in [1] as a starting example for the latter. We work in the more general context of bounded toposes over Set (instead of starting with an effec- tive descent morphism of schemes). Questions regarding the existence of limits and colimits of diagram of toposes arise while studying this prob- lem, but their general relevance makes it worth to study them separately. We expose mainly known constructions, but give some new insight on the assumptions and work out an explicit description of a functor in a coequalizer diagram which was as far as the author is aware unknown, which we believe can be generalised. This is essentially an overview of study and research conducted at dpmms, University of Cambridge, Great Britain, between March and Au- gust 2006, under the supervision of Martin Hyland. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 General knowledge 3 3 On (co)limits of toposes 6 3.1 The construction of finite limits in BTop/S ............ 7 3.2 The construction of finite colimits in BTop/S ........... 9 4 The fundamental groupoid of a topos 12 4.1 The fundamental group of an atomic topos with a point . 13 4.2 The fundamental groupoid of an unpointed locally connected topos 15 5 Conclusion and future work 17 References 17 ∗e-mail: [email protected] 1 1 Introduction Toposes were first conceived ([2]) as kinds of “generalised spaces” which could serve as frameworks for cohomology theories; that is, mapping topological or geometrical invariants with an algebraic structure to topological spaces.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Category Theory and Topos Theory
    Basic Category Theory and Topos Theory Jaap van Oosten Jaap van Oosten Department of Mathematics Utrecht University The Netherlands Revised, February 2016 Contents 1 Categories and Functors 1 1.1 Definitions and examples . 1 1.2 Some special objects and arrows . 5 2 Natural transformations 8 2.1 The Yoneda lemma . 8 2.2 Examples of natural transformations . 11 2.3 Equivalence of categories; an example . 13 3 (Co)cones and (Co)limits 16 3.1 Limits . 16 3.2 Limits by products and equalizers . 23 3.3 Complete Categories . 24 3.4 Colimits . 25 4 A little piece of categorical logic 28 4.1 Regular categories and subobjects . 28 4.2 The logic of regular categories . 34 4.3 The language L(C) and theory T (C) associated to a regular cat- egory C ................................ 39 4.4 The category C(T ) associated to a theory T : Completeness Theorem 41 4.5 Example of a regular category . 44 5 Adjunctions 47 5.1 Adjoint functors . 47 5.2 Expressing (co)completeness by existence of adjoints; preserva- tion of (co)limits by adjoint functors . 52 6 Monads and Algebras 56 6.1 Algebras for a monad . 57 6.2 T -Algebras at least as complete as D . 61 6.3 The Kleisli category of a monad . 62 7 Cartesian closed categories and the λ-calculus 64 7.1 Cartesian closed categories (ccc's); examples and basic facts . 64 7.2 Typed λ-calculus and cartesian closed categories . 68 7.3 Representation of primitive recursive functions in ccc's with nat- ural numbers object .
    [Show full text]
  • Sheaves with Values in a Category7
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Topology Vol. 3, pp. l-18, Pergamon Press. 196s. F’rinted in Great Britain SHEAVES WITH VALUES IN A CATEGORY7 JOHN W. GRAY (Received 3 September 1963) $4. IN’IXODUCTION LET T be a topology (i.e., a collection of open sets) on a set X. Consider T as a category in which the objects are the open sets and such that there is a unique ‘restriction’ morphism U -+ V if and only if V c U. For any category A, the functor category F(T, A) (i.e., objects are covariant functors from T to A and morphisms are natural transformations) is called the category ofpresheaces on X (really, on T) with values in A. A presheaf F is called a sheaf if for every open set UE T and for every strong open covering {U,) of U(strong means {U,} is closed under finite, non-empty intersections) we have F(U) = Llim F( U,) (Urn means ‘generalized’ inverse limit. See $4.) The category S(T, A) of sheares on X with values in A is the full subcategory (i.e., morphisms the same as in F(T, A)) determined by the sheaves. In this paper we shall demonstrate several properties of S(T, A): (i) S(T, A) is left closed in F(T, A). (Theorem l(i), $8). This says that if a left limit (generalized inverse limit) of sheaves exists as a presheaf then that presheaf is a sheaf.
    [Show full text]