DOCSLIB.ORG

Category Theory Supplemental Notes 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Category Theory Supplemental Notes 1 Category theory Supplemental notes 1 Justin Campbell February 10, 2017 1 Universal properties Informally speaking, a universal property of a mathematical object is a uniform description of morphisms either into or out of the object. One often writes down a universal property and asks if an object with that property exists, which is equivalent to writing down a functor and asking if it is representable. It was understood before the development of category theory that a universal property characterizes an object with that property, if it exists, uniquely up to unique isomorphism. Yoneda's lemma can be understood as the most general form of this assertion. Let C be any category. By way of reminder, a functor F : C op ! Set is called representable if there exists an object X of C and an isomorphism of functors η : hX !~ F . Yoneda's lemma provides a bijection HomFun(C op;Set)(hX ;F )−! ~ F (X); and the element u 2 F (X) corresponding to η is called the universal element. More explicitly, we have u = ηX (idX ) (this is the construction from the proof of Yoneda's lemma). By the Yoneda lemma, the universal element u 2 F (X) determines the isomorphism of functors η : hX ! F . This is important because a priori a morphism of functors contains a great deal of data, but in this case it can be specified by the single element u. Example 1.1. Consider the Cartesian product S × T of two sets S and T , with pS : S × T ! S and pT : S × T ! T being the projection maps defined by pS(s; t) = s and pT (s; t) = t. The universal property of S × T says that maps U ! S × T for any set U correspond bijectively via f 7! (pS ◦ f; pT ◦ f) to pairs of maps U ! S and U ! T . More concisely, S × T represents the functor F : Setop ! Set defined on objects by the formula F (U) := HomSet(U; S) × HomSet(U; T ); with the universal element being the pair (pS; pT ) 2 HomSet(S × T;S) × HomSet(S × T;T ) = F (S × T ) consisting of the two projection maps. We leave the action of F on maps for the reader to discover. More precisely, the isomorphism of functors η : hS×T !~ F consists of bijections ηU : HomSet(U; S × T ) = hS×T (U)−! ~ F (U) = HomSet(U; S) × HomSet(U; T ) for all sets U, which are given by the formula ηU (f) := (pS ◦ f; pT ◦ f): To see that these are bijections, define the inverse as follows: to any pair f : U ! S, g : U ! T assign the map U ! S × T which sends x 7! (f(x); g(x)). To find the universal element, we take U = S × T (the representing object), and observe that ηS×T (idS×T ) = (pS ◦ idS×T ; pT ◦ idS×T ) = (pS; pT ): 1 Now we state and prove \the universal property of a universal element," which includes all classical universal properties as special cases. Proposition 1.2. Let F : C op ! Set be a representable functor, so there is an isomorphism of functors η : hX !~ F for some object X in C , with universal element u := ηX (idX ) 2 F (X). For any object Y in C and element s 2 F (Y ), there exists a unique morphism f : Y ! X in C with the property that F (f): F (X) ! F (Y ) sends u to s. −1 Proof. The desired morphism is f := ηY (s), i.e. f corresponds to s under the bijection ηY : hX (Y )! ~ F (Y ). Since η is a morphism of functors hX ! F , our f : Y ! X gives rise to a commutative square ηX hX (X) F (X) hX (f) F (f) ηY hX (Y ) F (Y ): Therefore we have as needed F (f)(u) = F (f)(ηX (idX )) = ηY (hX (f)(idX )) = ηY (idX ◦f) = ηY (f) = s: As for the uniqueness of f, suppose f 0 : Y ! X is any morphism with the property that F (f)(u) = s. 0 From this equation we obtain, using the square above, that ηY (f ) = s. Thus 0 −1 0 −1 f = ηY (ηY (f )) = ηY (s) = f: From this we can deduce the general uniqueness result. Corollary 1.2.1. If F is represented by X and X0 with universal elements u 2 F (X) and u0 2 F (X0), there exists a unique isomorphism α : X!~ X0 such that F (α)(u0) = u. Proof. Proposition 1.2 tells us that there exist unique morphisms α : X ! X0 and β : X0 ! X such that F (α)(u0) = u and F (β)(u) = u0. Note that β ◦ α has the property that F (β ◦ α)(u) = F (α)(F (β)(u)) = F (β)(u0) = u; as does idX , but the proposition tells us that there is only one endomorphism X ! X such that the induced map F (X) ! F (X) sends u 7! u. Therefore β ◦ α = idX . On proves similarly that α ◦ β = idX0 , so α is an isomorphism as needed. Example 1.3. Let G be a group and N ⊂ G a normal subgroup. Then the quotient group G=N, which has a canonical surjective homomorphism π : G ! G=N, is characterized by the following universal property. For any group H and any homomorphism ' : G ! H with the property that the restriction 'jN is the trivial homomorphism N ! H, there exists a homomorphism 'e : G=N ! H uniquely characterized by the property that 'e ◦ π = '. Let's say this in the language of representable functors. Having fixed G and N, let F : Grp ! Set be the functor defined on objects by F (H) := f' : G ! H j 'jN is trivialg: We leave it to the reader to define the action of F on morphisms. The universal property of π : G ! G=N is encapsulated by the fact that F is corepresented by G=N, with universal element π 2 F (G=N). Indeed, the above proposition (applied with C = Grpop) says that for any group H and ' 2 F (H), i.e. homomorphism ' : G ! H such that 'jN is trivial, there exists a unique morphism 'e : G=N ! H such that F ('e)(π) = '. But F ('e)(π) = π ◦ 'e, so this is the universal property stated above. We leave it to the reader as a worthwhile exercise to deduce the following uniqueness assertion from the corollary: for any group (G=N)0 and homomorphism π0 : G ! (G=N)0 with the above universal property, there exists a unique isomorphism ' : G=N!~ (G=N)0 such that ' ◦ π = π0. 2 2 Products and representable functors Let's generalize the discussion of Cartesian product of sets in Example 1.1 to products in an arbitrary category C . Definition 2.1. For any objects X and Y in C , their product, if it exists, is an object X × Y equipped with maps pX : X × Y ! X and pY : X × Y ! Y , satisfying the following universal property: for any object Z in C and any morphisms f : Z ! X and g : Z ! Y , there exists a unique morphism (f; g): Z ! X × Y satisfying pX ◦ (f; g) = f and pY ◦ (f; g) = g. This can be restated succinctly by saying that X × Y represents the functor F : C op ! Set given on objects by F (Z) := hX (Z) × hY (Z) = HomC (Z; X) × HomC (Z; Y ) and morphisms by F (f) := hX (f) × hY (f), and that (pX ; pY ) 2 F (X × Y ) is a universal element (i.e. the corresponding morphism of functors hX×Y ! F is an isomorphism). By Corollary 1.2.1, this characterizes the product uniquely up to unique isomorphism, and in particular the notation X × Y is unambiguous. Now let F : C ! D be an arbitrary functor. Note that for any objects X and Y in C whose product exists, there is a canonical morphism (F (pX );F (pY )) : F (X × Y ) −! F (X) × F (Y ) in D. We say that F preserves products if (F (pX );F (pY )) is an isomorphism whenever X × Y exists. If X and Y are objects of C and their product in C op exists, we call it the coproduct X t Y in C . Proposition 2.2. A (co)representable functor preserves products. Proof. Suppose F : C ! Set is corepresented by an object X and η : hX !~ F . By replacing C with C op this proof applies to representable functors as well. Notice that hX preserves products: for any objects Y and Z whose product exists, the map X X X X X (h (pY ); h (pZ )) : h (Y × Z) = HomC (X; Y × Z) −! HomC (X; Y ) × HomC (X; Z) = h (Y ) × h (Z) is bijective by the definition of the product. We have a commutative square η hX (Y × Z) Y ×Z F (Y × Z) (hX (pY );hX (pZ )) (F (pY );F (pZ )) η ×η hX (Y ) × hX (Z) Y Z F (Y ) × F (Z); and the right vertical map is bijective because the other three maps are bijective. In the case of a representable functor F : C op ! Set, preservation of products means that it sends coproducts in C to products of sets. Example 2.3. Let's use Proposition 2.2 to prove that a functor is not corepresentable. Namely, consider F : Set ! Set defined on objects as F (S) := S t S (here t is disjoint union of sets) and morphismss by F (f) := f t f. Observe that for any two sets S and T , we have F (S) × F (T ) = (S t S) × (T t T ) =∼ (S × S) t (S × T ) t (S × T ) t (T × T ): On other hand, F (S × T ) = (S × T ) t (S × T ); and (F (pS);F (pT )) is the inclusion of the latter set into the former.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table of Contents
    UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY MASSACHUSETTS PERSONAL PROPERTY MANUAL HOMEOWNERS PROGRAM EDITION 02/15 TABLE OF CONTENTS RULE CONTENT PAGE NO. 1 Application of Program Rules 1 2 Reserved for Future Use 1 3 Extent of Coverage 1 4 Reserved for Future Use 1 5 Policy Fee 1 6 Reserved for Future Use 1 7 Policy Period, Minimum Premium and Waiver of Premium 1 8 Rounding of Premiums 1 9 Changes and Mid-Term Premium Adjustments 2 10 Effective Date and Important Notices 2 11 Protective Device Credits 2 12 Townhouses or Rowhouses 2 13 Underwriting Surcharges 3 14 Mandatory Additional Charges 3 15 Payment and Payment Plan Options 4 16 Building Code Compliance 5 100 Reserved for Future Use 5 101 Limits of Liability and Coverage Relationship 6 102 Description of Coverages 6 103 Mandatory Coverages 7 104 Eligibility 7 105 Secondary Residence Premises 9 106 Reserved for Future Use 9 107 Construction Definitions 9 108 Seasonal Dwelling Definition 9 109 Single Building Definition 9 201 Policy Period 9 202 Changes or Cancellations 9 203 Manual Premium Revision 9 204 Reserved for Future Use 10 205 Reserved for Future Use 10 206 Transfer or Assignment 10 207 Reserved for Future Use 10 208 Premium Rounding Rule 10 209 Reserved for Future Use 10 300 Key Factor Interpolation Computation 10 301 Territorial Base Rates 11 401 Reserved for Future Use 20 402 Personal Property (Coverage C ) Replacement Cost Coverage 20 403 Age of Home 20 404 Ordinance or Law Coverage - Increased Limits 21 405 Debris Removal – HO 00 03 21 406 Deductibles 22 407 Additional
    [Show full text]
  • Symmetry Preserving Interpolation Erick Rodriguez Bazan, Evelyne Hubert
    Symmetry Preserving Interpolation Erick Rodriguez Bazan, Evelyne Hubert To cite this version: Erick Rodriguez Bazan, Evelyne Hubert. Symmetry Preserving Interpolation. ISSAC 2019 - International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, Jul 2019, Beijing, China. 10.1145/3326229.3326247. hal-01994016 HAL Id: hal-01994016 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01994016 Submitted on 25 Jan 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Symmetry Preserving Interpolation Erick Rodriguez Bazan Evelyne Hubert Université Côte d’Azur, France Université Côte d’Azur, France Inria Méditerranée, France Inria Méditerranée, France [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT general concept. An interpolation space for a set of linear forms is The article addresses multivariate interpolation in the presence of a subspace of the polynomial ring that has a unique interpolant for symmetry. Interpolation is a prime tool in algebraic computation each instantiated interpolation problem. We show that the unique while symmetry is a qualitative feature that can be more relevant interpolants automatically inherit the symmetry of the problem to a mathematical model than the numerical accuracy of the pa- when the interpolation space is invariant (Section 3).
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1705.02246V2 [Math.RT] 20 Nov 2019 Esyta Ulsubcategory Full a That Say [15]
    WIDE SUBCATEGORIES OF d-CLUSTER TILTING SUBCATEGORIES MARTIN HERSCHEND, PETER JØRGENSEN, AND LAERTIS VASO Abstract. A subcategory of an abelian category is wide if it is closed under sums, summands, kernels, cokernels, and extensions. Wide subcategories provide a significant interface between representation theory and combinatorics. If Φ is a finite dimensional algebra, then each functorially finite wide subcategory of mod(Φ) is of the φ form φ∗ mod(Γ) in an essentially unique way, where Γ is a finite dimensional algebra and Φ −→ Γ is Φ an algebra epimorphism satisfying Tor (Γ, Γ) = 0. 1 Let F ⊆ mod(Φ) be a d-cluster tilting subcategory as defined by Iyama. Then F is a d-abelian category as defined by Jasso, and we call a subcategory of F wide if it is closed under sums, summands, d- kernels, d-cokernels, and d-extensions. We generalise the above description of wide subcategories to this setting: Each functorially finite wide subcategory of F is of the form φ∗(G ) in an essentially φ Φ unique way, where Φ −→ Γ is an algebra epimorphism satisfying Tord (Γ, Γ) = 0, and G ⊆ mod(Γ) is a d-cluster tilting subcategory. We illustrate the theory by computing the wide subcategories of some d-cluster tilting subcategories ℓ F ⊆ mod(Φ) over algebras of the form Φ = kAm/(rad kAm) . Dedicated to Idun Reiten on the occasion of her 75th birthday 1. Introduction Let d > 1 be an integer. This paper introduces and studies wide subcategories of d-abelian categories as defined by Jasso. The main examples of d-abelian categories are d-cluster tilting subcategories as defined by Iyama.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Properties, Free Algebras, Presentations
    Universal Properties, Free Algebras, Presentations Modern Algebra 1 Fall 2016 Modern Algebra 1 (Fall 2016) Universal Properties, Free Algebras, Presentations 1 / 14 (1) f ◦ g exists if and only if dom(f ) = cod(g). (2) Composition is associative when it is defined. (3) dom(f ◦ g) = dom(g), cod(f ◦ g) = cod(f ). (4) If A = dom(f ) and B = cod(f ), then f ◦ idA = f and idB ◦ f = f . (5) dom(idA) = cod(idA) = A. (1) Ob(C) = O is a class whose members are called objects, (2) Mor(C) = M is a class whose members are called morphisms, (3) ◦ : M × M ! M is a binary partial operation called composition, (4) id : O ! M is a unary function assigning to each object A 2 O a morphism idA called the identity of A, (5) dom; cod : M ! O are unary functions assigning to each morphism f objects called the domain and codomain of f respectively. The laws defining categories are: Defn (Category) A category is a 2-sorted partial algebra C = hO; M; ◦; id; dom; codi where Modern Algebra 1 (Fall 2016) Universal Properties, Free Algebras, Presentations 2 / 14 (1) f ◦ g exists if and only if dom(f ) = cod(g). (2) Composition is associative when it is defined. (3) dom(f ◦ g) = dom(g), cod(f ◦ g) = cod(f ). (4) If A = dom(f ) and B = cod(f ), then f ◦ idA = f and idB ◦ f = f . (5) dom(idA) = cod(idA) = A. (2) Mor(C) = M is a class whose members are called morphisms, (3) ◦ : M × M ! M is a binary partial operation called composition, (4) id : O ! M is a unary function assigning to each object A 2 O a morphism idA called the identity of A, (5) dom; cod : M ! O are unary functions assigning to each morphism f objects called the domain and codomain of f respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Fibrations and Yoneda's Lemma in An
    Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 221 (2017) 499–564 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra www.elsevier.com/locate/jpaa Fibrations and Yoneda’s lemma in an ∞-cosmos Emily Riehl a,∗, Dominic Verity b a Department of Mathematics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA b Centre of Australian Category Theory, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: We use the terms ∞-categories and ∞-functors to mean the objects and morphisms Received 14 October 2015 in an ∞-cosmos: a simplicially enriched category satisfying a few axioms, reminiscent Received in revised form 13 June of an enriched category of fibrant objects. Quasi-categories, Segal categories, 2016 complete Segal spaces, marked simplicial sets, iterated complete Segal spaces, Available online 29 July 2016 θ -spaces, and fibered versions of each of these are all ∞-categories in this sense. Communicated by J. Adámek n Previous work in this series shows that the basic category theory of ∞-categories and ∞-functors can be developed only in reference to the axioms of an ∞-cosmos; indeed, most of the work is internal to the homotopy 2-category, astrict 2-category of ∞-categories, ∞-functors, and natural transformations. In the ∞-cosmos of quasi- categories, we recapture precisely the same category theory developed by Joyal and Lurie, although our definitions are 2-categorical in natural, making no use of the combinatorial details that differentiate each model. In this paper, we introduce cartesian fibrations, a certain class of ∞-functors, and their groupoidal variants.
    [Show full text]
  • Projective Geometry: a Short Introduction
    Projective Geometry: A Short Introduction Lecture Notes Edmond Boyer Master MOSIG Introduction to Projective Geometry Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Objective . .2 1.2 Historical Background . .3 1.3 Bibliography . .4 2 Projective Spaces 5 2.1 Definitions . .5 2.2 Properties . .8 2.3 The hyperplane at infinity . 12 3 The projective line 13 3.1 Introduction . 13 3.2 Projective transformation of P1 ................... 14 3.3 The cross-ratio . 14 4 The projective plane 17 4.1 Points and lines . 17 4.2 Line at infinity . 18 4.3 Homographies . 19 4.4 Conics . 20 4.5 Affine transformations . 22 4.6 Euclidean transformations . 22 4.7 Particular transformations . 24 4.8 Transformation hierarchy . 25 Grenoble Universities 1 Master MOSIG Introduction to Projective Geometry Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Objective The objective of this course is to give basic notions and intuitions on projective geometry. The interest of projective geometry arises in several visual comput- ing domains, in particular computer vision modelling and computer graphics. It provides a mathematical formalism to describe the geometry of cameras and the associated transformations, hence enabling the design of computational ap- proaches that manipulates 2D projections of 3D objects. In that respect, a fundamental aspect is the fact that objects at infinity can be represented and manipulated with projective geometry and this in contrast to the Euclidean geometry. This allows perspective deformations to be represented as projective transformations. Figure 1.1: Example of perspective deformation or 2D projective transforma- tion. Another argument is that Euclidean geometry is sometimes difficult to use in algorithms, with particular cases arising from non-generic situations (e.g.
    [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]
  • AN INTRODUCTION to CATEGORY THEORY and the YONEDA LEMMA Contents Introduction 1 1. Categories 2 2. Functors 3 3. Natural Transfo
    AN INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY THEORY AND THE YONEDA LEMMA SHU-NAN JUSTIN CHANG Abstract. We begin this introduction to category theory with definitions of categories, functors, and natural transformations. We provide many examples of each construct and discuss interesting relations between them. We proceed to prove the Yoneda Lemma, a central concept in category theory, and motivate its significance. We conclude with some results and applications of the Yoneda Lemma. Contents Introduction 1 1. Categories 2 2. Functors 3 3. Natural Transformations 6 4. The Yoneda Lemma 9 5. Corollaries and Applications 10 Acknowledgments 12 References 13 Introduction Category theory is an interdisciplinary field of mathematics which takes on a new perspective to understanding mathematical phenomena. Unlike most other branches of mathematics, category theory is rather uninterested in the objects be- ing considered themselves. Instead, it focuses on the relations between objects of the same type and objects of different types. Its abstract and broad nature allows it to reach into and connect several different branches of mathematics: algebra, geometry, topology, analysis, etc. A central theme of category theory is abstraction, understanding objects by gen- eralizing rather than focusing on them individually. Similar to taxonomy, category theory offers a way for mathematical concepts to be abstracted and unified. What makes category theory more than just an organizational system, however, is its abil- ity to generate information about these abstract objects by studying their relations to each other. This ability comes from what Emily Riehl calls \arguably the most important result in category theory"[4], the Yoneda Lemma. The Yoneda Lemma allows us to formally define an object by its relations to other objects, which is central to the relation-oriented perspective taken by category theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Equivariant and Isovariant Function Spaces
    UC Riverside UC Riverside Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Equivariant and Isovariant Function Spaces Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7fk0p69b Author Safii, Soheil Publication Date 2015 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Equivariant and Isovariant Function Spaces A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics by Soheil Safii March 2015 Dissertation Committee: Professor Reinhard Schultz, Chairperson Professor Julia Bergner Professor Fred Wilhelm Copyright by Soheil Safii 2015 The Dissertation of Soheil Safii is approved: Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside Acknowledgments I would like to thank Professor Reinhard Schultz for all of the time and effort he put into being a wonderful advisor. Without his expansive knowledge and unending patience, none of our work would be possible. Having the opportunity to work with him has been a privilege. I would like to acknowledge Professor Julia Bergner and Professor Fred Wilhelm for their insight and valuable feedback. I am grateful for the unconditional support of my classmates: Mathew Lunde, Jason Park, and Jacob West. I would also like to thank my students, who inspired me and taught me more than I could have ever hoped to teach them. Most of all, I am appreciative of my friends and family, with whom I have been blessed. iv To my parents. v ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Equivariant and Isovariant Function Spaces by Soheil Safii Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate Program in Mathematics University of California, Riverside, March 2015 Professor Reinhard Schultz, Chairperson The Browder{Straus Theorem, obtained independently by S.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Category Theory (Notes for Course Taught at HUJI, Fall 2020-2021) (UNPOLISHED DRAFT)
    Introduction to category theory (notes for course taught at HUJI, Fall 2020-2021) (UNPOLISHED DRAFT) Alexander Yom Din February 10, 2021 It is never true that two substances are entirely alike, differing only in being two rather than one1. G. W. Leibniz, Discourse on metaphysics 1This can be imagined to be related to at least two of our themes: the imperative of considering a contractible groupoid of objects as an one single object, and also the ideology around Yoneda's lemma ("no two different things have all their properties being exactly the same"). 1 Contents 1 The basic language 3 1.1 Categories . .3 1.2 Functors . .7 1.3 Natural transformations . .9 2 Equivalence of categories 11 2.1 Contractible groupoids . 11 2.2 Fibers . 12 2.3 Fibers and fully faithfulness . 12 2.4 A lemma on fully faithfulness in families . 13 2.5 Definition of equivalence of categories . 14 2.6 Simple examples of equivalence of categories . 17 2.7 Theory of the fundamental groupoid and covering spaces . 18 2.8 Affine algebraic varieties . 23 2.9 The Gelfand transform . 26 2.10 Galois theory . 27 3 Yoneda's lemma, representing objects, limits 27 3.1 Yoneda's lemma . 27 3.2 Representing objects . 29 3.3 The definition of a limit . 33 3.4 Examples of limits . 34 3.5 Dualizing everything . 39 3.6 Examples of colimits . 39 3.7 General colimits in terms of special ones . 41 4 Adjoint functors 42 4.1 Bifunctors . 42 4.2 The definition of adjoint functors . 43 4.3 Some examples of adjoint functors .
    [Show full text]
  • Definition 1.1. a Group Is a Quadruple (G, E, ⋆, Ι)
    GROUPS AND GROUP ACTIONS. 1. GROUPS We begin by giving a definition of a group: Definition 1.1. A group is a quadruple (G, e, ?, ι) consisting of a set G, an element e G, a binary operation ?: G G G and a map ι: G G such that ∈ × → → (1) The operation ? is associative: (g ? h) ? k = g ? (h ? k), (2) e ? g = g ? e = g, for all g G. ∈ (3) For every g G we have g ? ι(g) = ι(g) ? g = e. ∈ It is standard to suppress the operation ? and write gh or at most g.h for g ? h. The element e is known as the identity element. For clarity, we may also write eG instead of e to emphasize which group we are considering, but may also write 1 for e where this is more conventional (for the group such as C∗ for example). Finally, 1 ι(g) is usually written as g− . Remark 1.2. Let us note a couple of things about the above definition. Firstly clo- sure is not an axiom for a group whatever anyone has ever told you1. (The reason people get confused about this is related to the notion of subgroups – see Example 1.8 later in this section.) The axioms used here are not “minimal”: the exercises give a different set of axioms which assume only the existence of a map ι without specifying it. We leave it to those who like that kind of thing to check that associa- tivity of triple multiplications implies that for any k N, bracketing a k-tuple of ∈ group elements (g1, g2, .
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1005.0156V3
    FOUR PROBLEMS REGARDING REPRESENTABLE FUNCTORS G. MILITARU C Abstract. Let R, S be two rings, C an R-coring and RM the category of left C- C C comodules. The category Rep (RM, SM) of all representable functors RM→ S M is C shown to be equivalent to the opposite of the category RMS . For U an (S, R)-bimodule C we give necessary and sufficient conditions for the induction functor U ⊗R − : RM→ SM to be: a representable functor, an equivalence of categories, a separable or a Frobenius functor. The latter results generalize and unify the classical theorems of Morita for categories of modules over rings and the more recent theorems obtained by Brezinski, Caenepeel et al. for categories of comodules over corings. Introduction Let C be a category and V a variety of algebras in the sense of universal algebras. A functor F : C →V is called representable [1] if γ ◦ F : C → Set is representable in the classical sense, where γ : V → Set is the forgetful functor. Four general problems concerning representable functors have been identified: Problem A: Describe the category Rep (C, V) of all representable functors F : C→V. Problem B: Give a necessary and sufficient condition for a given functor F : C→V to be representable (possibly predefining the object of representability). Problem C: When is a composition of two representable functors a representable functor? Problem D: Give a necessary and sufficient condition for a representable functor F : C → V and for its left adjoint to be separable or Frobenius. The pioneer of studying problem A was Kan [10] who described all representable functors from semigroups to semigroups.
    [Show full text]