DOCSLIB.ORG

1. General Sheaf Theory Exercises 1.1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1. General Sheaf Theory Exercises 1.1 SHEAF THEORY EXERCISES PETER J. HAINE 1. General Sheaf Theory Exercises 1.1. Exercise. Let 푋 be a space. Prove that the opposite of the poset Op(푋) of open subsets of 푋 is filtered. 1.2. Exercise. Let 푋 be a space and 푥 ∈ 푋. Write Op푥(푋) for the full subposet of Op(푋) op spanned by those open subsets containing the point 푥. Prove that Op푥(푋) is filtered. 1.3. Exercise. Prove that the subcategory of CRing of domains is stable under filtered col- imits, i.e., that if 퐹∶ 퐼 → CRing be a filtered diagram of commutative rings, where 퐹(푖) is a domain for all 푖 ∈ 퐼, then colim퐼 퐹 is a domain (where the colimit is taken in CRing). You’ll need to use the explicit description of filtered colimits in Set, which also describes the underlying set of the filtered colimit in CRing. You should think about what the ring structure should be. More generally, this description gives the underlying set of a filtered colimit in Mod푅 or Alg푅, where 푅 is a commutative ring (taking 푅 = 퐙, we recover the special cases of Ab = Mod퐙 and CRing = Alg퐙). 1.4. Exercise. Let 퐶 be a category and 푓∶ 푋 → 푌 be a morphism in 퐶. Prove 푓 is a monomorphism if and only if the square 푋 푋 푓 푋 푌 푓 is a pullback square. 1.5. Exercise. Suppose that 퐶 and 퐷 are categories and 퐹, 퐺∶ 퐶 → 퐷 functors. Prove that if 훼∶ 퐹 ⇒ 퐺 is a natural transformation whose components are monomorphisms in 퐷, then 훼 is a monomorphism in 퐷퐶. Conversely, if 퐶 is small, 퐷 has pullbacks, and 훼 is a monomorphism in 퐷퐶, prove that each component of 훼 is a monomorphism in 퐷. 1.6. Definition. Let F be a presheaf of sets (or commutative rings, or abelian groups) on a space 푋. The stalk of F at 푥 is the colimit F ≔ colim F 푥 op Op푥(푋) op (of the diagram F restricted to Op푥(푋) ). 1.7. Exercise. Let 휙∶ F ↣ G be a monomorphism of presheaves of sets on a space 푋. Prove that for all 푥 ∈ 푋, the induced map on stalks 휙푥 ∶ F푥 → G푥 is an injection. Date: March 9, 2018. 1 2 PETER J. HAINE 1.8. Definition. Let F be a presheaf of sets (or commutative rings, or abelian groups) on a space 푋, 푓 ∈ F(푋), and 푥 ∈ 푋. Write 푓푥 for the image of 푓 in the stalk F푥 under the leg 휆푋 ∶ F(푋) → F푥 of the colimit cone. The element 푓푥 is called the germ of 푓 at 푥. 1.9. Definition. Let F be a presheaf on a space 푋, and 푈 ⊂ 푋 be open. The germ map 푔F (푈)∶ F(푈) → ∏ F푥 푥∈푈 is the map given by the assignment 푓 ↦ (푓푥)푥∈푈. 1.10. Exercise. Show that if F is a sheaf on a space 푋, then for every open subset 푈 ⊂ 푋 the germ map 푔F (푈)∶ F(푈) → ∏푥∈푈 F푥 is injective. Have you used the entirety of the sheaf condition here? The next exercise is an extension of Exercise 1.7 for sheaves. 1.11. Exercise. Suppose that 휙∶ F → G is a morphism of sheaves of sets on a toplogical space 푋. Show that the following are equivalent: (1.13.a) 휙 is a monomorphism in the category of sheaves. (1.13.b) 휙 is injective on the level of stalks: 휙푥 ∶ F푥 → G푥 is injective for all 푥 ∈ 푋. (1.13.c) 휙 is injective on the level of open sets: 휙(푈)∶ F(푈) → G(푈) is injective for all open 푈 ⊂ 푋. 1.12. Exercise. Let 휙, 휓∶ F → G be morphism of sheaves of sets on a toplogical space 푋. Show that if 휙푥 = 휓푥 as maps F푥 → G푥 for all 푥 ∈ 푋, then 휙 = 휓 as morphisms of sheaves. 1.13. Exercise. Let 휙∶ F → G be morphism of sheaves of sets on a toplogical space 푋. Show that 휙 is an isomorphism if and only if 휙푥 ∶ F푥 → G푥 is a bijection for all 푥 ∈ 푋. 1.14. Exercise. Let F be a presheaf of commutative rings on a space 푋, and 푓 ∈ F(푋). Prove that the set × { 푥 ∈ 푋 | 푓푥 ∈ F푥 } ⊂ 푋 × is open, where F푥 is the group of units of the stalk F푥. 1.15. Definition. Let 푋 be a space and 푥 ∈ 푋. Write 푥∶ {푥} ↪ 푋 for the inclusion of the point 푋. The skyscraper sheaf functor is the pushforward 푥⋆ ∶ Set ≅ Shv({푥}) → Shv(푋) . 1.16. Exercise. Let 푋 be a space, 푥 ∈ 푋, and 푆 a set. Describe the skyscraper sheaf 푥⋆(푆) explicitly. 1.17. Exercise. Let 푋 be a space and 푥 ∈ 푋. Show that the skyscraper sheaf functor 푥⋆ ∶ Set → Shv(푋) is right adjoint to the stalk functor (−)푥 ∶ Shv(푋) → Set. 1.18. Definition. Let 푋 be a space and 푆 a set. The constant presheaf on 푋 with value 푆 is the constant functor 푆∶ Op(푋)op → Set at 푆. 1.19. Exercise. Let 푋 be a space. For which sets 푆 is the constant presheaf at 푆 a sheaf? Hint: The axioms for a topology on a set 푋 guarantee that certain subsets of 푋 are open, and the value of the constant presheaf is completely determined by where it sends any open subset 푈 ⊂ 푋. SHEAF THEORY EXERCISES 3 1.20. Exercise. Let F and G be presheaves on a space 푋. In this exercise we define a presheaf Hom(F, G) on 푋. On objects, send an open set 푈 ⊂ 푋 to Hom(F, G)(푈) ≔ Shv푈(F|푈, G|푈) . Now: (1.20.a) Extend this assignment on objects to morphisms (so that Hom(F, G) defines a presheaf on 푋). (1.20.b) Show that if G is a sheaf, then Hom(F, G) is a sheaf. 2. Exercises Related to Sheafification 2.1. Definition. The Godement construction God∶ PShv(푋) → Shv(푋) is the functor given by sending a presheaf F ∈ PShv(푋) to the sheaf God(F) defined by sending an open set 푈 to God(F)(푈) ≔ ∏ F푥 , 푥∈푈 with the restriction morphisms given by product projections. The assignment of God on morphisms is given by sending a morphism of presheaves 휙∶ F → G to the morphism God(휙)(푈) ≔ ∏ 휙푥 ∶ ∏ F푥 → ∏ G푥 . 푥∈푈 푥∈푈 푥∈푈 2.2. Exercise. Verify that if F is a presheaf on a space 푋, then God(F) is a sheaf (not merely a presheaf). 2.3. Exercise. Let F be a presheaf on a space 푋. Show that the germ maps 푔F (푈)∶ F(푈) → ∏ F푥 = God(F)(푈) , 푥∈푈 for 푈 ⊂ 푋 open, define a morphism of presheaves 푔F ∶ F → God(F). 2.4. Definition. Let F be a presheaf on a space 푋 and 푈 ⊂ 푋 open. An element (푓푥)푥∈푈 ∈ ∏푥∈푈 F푥 consists of compatible germs over 푈 if for all 푥 ∈ 푈 there is an open cover {푈훼}훼∈퐴 of 푈 and sections 푠훼 ∈ F(푈훼) for each 훼 ∈ 퐴 so that if 푥 ∈ 푈훼, then (푠훼)푥 = 푓푥. Note that any section 푓 ∈ F(푈) clearly gives a choice of compatible germs over 푈. 2.5. Exercise. Let F be a sheaf on a space 푋, and 푈 ⊂ 푋 open. Prove that any choice (푓푥)푥∈푈 of compatible germs for F over 푈 is the image of a section 푓 ∈ F(푈) under the germ map 푔F (푈)∶ F(푈) → ∏푥∈푈 F푥. Have you used the entirety of the sheaf condition here? 2.6. Exercise. Let F be a sheaf on a space 푋, and 푈 ⊂ 푋 open. Identify the image of the germ map 푔F (푈)∶ F(푈) → ∏푥∈푈 F푥. Use this to identify F with a subsheaf of the Godement sheaf God(F). 2.7. Exercise. Give an example of a space 푋 and a sheaf F on 푋 so that F is not isomorphic to the Godement sheaf God(F). 2.8. Exercise. Let 푋 be a space. Define a subfunctor 퐿푋 of God by setting 퐿푋(F)(푈) ≔ {compatible germs over 푈} ⊂ God(F)(푈) , for F ∈ PShv(푋) and 푈 ⊂ 푋 open. (2.8.a) Verify that 퐿푋(F) is a well-defined presheaf for any F ∈ PShv(푋). (2.8.b) Show that 퐿푋(F) is actually a sheaf for any F ∈ PShv(푋). 4 PETER J. HAINE (2.8.c) Show that the germ morphism 푔F ∶ F → God(F) factors through 퐿푋(F) ⊂ God(F). (2.8.d) Show that the germ morphism 푔F ∶ F → 퐿푋(F) exhibits 퐿푋(F) as a sheafification of F, hence 퐿푋 defines a left adjoint to the inclusion Shv(푋) ↪ PShv(푋). 2.9. Exercise. Let 푋 be a space. Show explicitly from the construction of the sheafification in Exercise 2.8 that the germ map 푔F ∶ F → 퐿푋(F) induces an isomorphism on stalks for any presheaf F on 푋. 2.10. Exercise. Let 푋 be a space. The constant sheaf functor (−)푋 ∶ Set → Shv(푋) is the composite of the constant presheaf functor Set → PShv(푋) with the sheafification func- tor 퐿푋 ∶ PShv(푋) → Shv(푋). The constant sheaf functor has a right adjoint. Describe this adjoint explicitly. 3. Exercises Related to Inverse Image Sheaves 3.1. Exercise. Let 푋 be a space and 푗∶ 푈 ↪ 푋 the inclusion of an open subspace. (3.1.a) Show that the functor 푗⋆ ∶ PShv(푈) → PShv(푋) is fully faithful and note that the same is true if we restrict to categories of sheaves.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Category of G-Groups and Its Spectral Category
    Communications in Algebra ISSN: 0092-7872 (Print) 1532-4125 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lagb20 Category of G-Groups and its Spectral Category María José Arroyo Paniagua & Alberto Facchini To cite this article: María José Arroyo Paniagua & Alberto Facchini (2017) Category of G-Groups and its Spectral Category, Communications in Algebra, 45:4, 1696-1710, DOI: 10.1080/00927872.2016.1222409 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2016.1222409 Accepted author version posted online: 07 Oct 2016. Published online: 07 Oct 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 12 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lagb20 Download by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] Date: 29 November 2016, At: 17:29 COMMUNICATIONS IN ALGEBRA® 2017, VOL. 45, NO. 4, 1696–1710 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2016.1222409 Category of G-Groups and its Spectral Category María José Arroyo Paniaguaa and Alberto Facchinib aDepartamento de Matemáticas, División de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Iztapalapa, Mexico, D. F., México; bDipartimento di Matematica, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Let G be a group. We analyse some aspects of the category G-Grp of G-groups. Received 15 April 2016 In particular, we show that a construction similar to the construction of the Revised 22 July 2016 spectral category, due to Gabriel and Oberst, and its dual, due to the second Communicated by T. Albu. author, is possible for the category G-Grp.
    [Show full text]
  • The Calabi Complex and Killing Sheaf Cohomology
    The Calabi complex and Killing sheaf cohomology Igor Khavkine Department of Mathematics, University of Trento, and TIFPA-INFN, Trento, I{38123 Povo (TN) Italy [email protected] September 26, 2014 Abstract It has recently been noticed that the degeneracies of the Poisson bra- cket of linearized gravity on constant curvature Lorentzian manifold can be described in terms of the cohomologies of a certain complex of dif- ferential operators. This complex was first introduced by Calabi and its cohomology is known to be isomorphic to that of the (locally constant) sheaf of Killing vectors. We review the structure of the Calabi complex in a novel way, with explicit calculations based on representation theory of GL(n), and also some tools for studying its cohomology in terms of of lo- cally constant sheaves. We also conjecture how these tools would adapt to linearized gravity on other backgrounds and to other gauge theories. The presentation includes explicit formulas for the differential operators in the Calabi complex, arguments for its local exactness, discussion of general- ized Poincar´eduality, methods of computing the cohomology of locally constant sheaves, and example calculations of Killing sheaf cohomologies of some black hole and cosmological Lorentzian manifolds. Contents 1 Introduction2 2 The Calabi complex4 2.1 Tensor bundles and Young symmetrizers..............5 2.2 Differential operators.........................7 2.3 Formal adjoint complex....................... 11 2.4 Equations of finite type, twisted de Rham complex........ 14 3 Cohomology of locally constant sheaves 16 3.1 Locally constant sheaves....................... 16 3.2 Acyclic resolution by a differential complex............ 18 3.3 Generalized Poincar´eduality...................
    [Show full text]
  • Sheaf Theory
    Sheaf Theory Anne Vaugon December 20, 2013 The goals of this talk are • to define a generalization denoted by RΓ(F) of de Rham cohomology; • to explain the notation RΓ(F) (here F is a sheaf and RΓ is a derived functor). 1 Presheaves and sheaves 1.1 Definitions and examples Let X be a topological space. Definition 1.1. A presheaf of k-modules F on X is defined by the following data: • a k-module F(U) for each open set U of X; • a map rUV : F(U) → F(V ) for each pair V ⊂ U of open subsets such that – rWV ◦ rVU = rWU for all open subsets W ⊂ V ⊂ U; – rUU = Id for all open subsets U. Therefore, a presheaf is a functor from the opposite category of open sets to the category of k-modules. If F is a presheaf, F(U) is called the set of sections of U and rVU the restriction from U to V . Definition 1.2. A presheaf F is a sheaf if • for any family (Ui)i∈I of open subsets of X • for any family of elements si ∈ F(Ui) such that rUi∩Uj ,Ui (si) = rUi∩Uj ,Uj (sj) for all i, j ∈ I there exists a unique s ∈ F(U) where U = ∪i∈I Ui such that rUi,U (s) = si for all i ∈ I. This means that we can extend a locally defined section. Definition 1.3. A morphism of presheaves f : F → G is a natural trans- formation between the functors F and G: for each open set U, there exists a morphism f(U): F(U) → G(U) such that the following diagram is commutative for V ⊂ U.
    [Show full text]
  • The Smooth Locus in Infinite-Level Rapoport-Zink Spaces
    The smooth locus in infinite-level Rapoport-Zink spaces Alexander Ivanov and Jared Weinstein February 25, 2020 Abstract Rapoport-Zink spaces are deformation spaces for p-divisible groups with additional structure. At infinite level, they become preperfectoid spaces. Let M8 be an infinite-level Rapoport-Zink space of ˝ ˝ EL type, and let M8 be one connected component of its geometric fiber. We show that M8 contains a dense open subset which is cohomologically smooth in the sense of Scholze. This is the locus of p-divisible groups which do not have any extra endomorphisms. As a corollary, we find that the cohomologically smooth locus in the infinite-level modular curve Xpp8q˝ is exactly the locus of elliptic curves E with supersingular reduction, such that the formal group of E has no extra endomorphisms. 1 Main theorem Let p be a prime number. Rapoport-Zink spaces [RZ96] are deformation spaces of p-divisible groups equipped with some extra structure. This article concerns the geometry of Rapoport-Zink spaces of EL type (endomor- phisms + level structure). In particular we consider the infinite-level spaces MD;8, which are preperfectoid spaces [SW13]. An example is the space MH;8, where H{Fp is a p-divisible group of height n. The points of MH;8 over a nonarchimedean field K containing W pFpq are in correspondence with isogeny classes of p-divisible groups G{O equipped with a quasi-isogeny G b O {p Ñ H b O {p and an isomorphism K OK K Fp K n Qp – VG (where VG is the rational Tate module).
    [Show full text]
  • Bertini's Theorem on Generic Smoothness
    U.F.R. Mathematiques´ et Informatique Universite´ Bordeaux 1 351, Cours de la Liberation´ Master Thesis in Mathematics BERTINI1S THEOREM ON GENERIC SMOOTHNESS Academic year 2011/2012 Supervisor: Candidate: Prof.Qing Liu Andrea Ricolfi ii Introduction Bertini was an Italian mathematician, who lived and worked in the second half of the nineteenth century. The present disser- tation concerns his most celebrated theorem, which appeared for the first time in 1882 in the paper [5], and whose proof can also be found in Introduzione alla Geometria Proiettiva degli Iperspazi (E. Bertini, 1907, or 1923 for the latest edition). The present introduction aims to informally introduce Bertini’s Theorem on generic smoothness, with special attention to its re- cent improvements and its relationships with other kind of re- sults. Just to set the following discussion in an historical perspec- tive, recall that at Bertini’s time the situation was more or less the following: ¥ there were no schemes, ¥ almost all varieties were defined over the complex numbers, ¥ all varieties were embedded in some projective space, that is, they were not intrinsic. On the contrary, this dissertation will cope with Bertini’s the- orem by exploiting the powerful tools of modern algebraic ge- ometry, by working with schemes defined over any field (mostly, but not necessarily, algebraically closed). In addition, our vari- eties will be thought of as abstract varieties (at least when over a field of characteristic zero). This fact does not mean that we are neglecting Bertini’s original work, containing already all the rele- vant ideas: the proof we shall present in this exposition, over the complex numbers, is quite close to the one he gave.
    [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]
  • SHEAVES of MODULES 01AC Contents 1. Introduction 1 2
    SHEAVES OF MODULES 01AC Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Pathology 2 3. The abelian category of sheaves of modules 2 4. Sections of sheaves of modules 4 5. Supports of modules and sections 6 6. Closed immersions and abelian sheaves 6 7. A canonical exact sequence 7 8. Modules locally generated by sections 8 9. Modules of finite type 9 10. Quasi-coherent modules 10 11. Modules of finite presentation 13 12. Coherent modules 15 13. Closed immersions of ringed spaces 18 14. Locally free sheaves 20 15. Bilinear maps 21 16. Tensor product 22 17. Flat modules 24 18. Duals 26 19. Constructible sheaves of sets 27 20. Flat morphisms of ringed spaces 29 21. Symmetric and exterior powers 29 22. Internal Hom 31 23. Koszul complexes 33 24. Invertible modules 33 25. Rank and determinant 36 26. Localizing sheaves of rings 38 27. Modules of differentials 39 28. Finite order differential operators 43 29. The de Rham complex 46 30. The naive cotangent complex 47 31. Other chapters 50 References 52 1. Introduction 01AD This is a chapter of the Stacks Project, version 77243390, compiled on Sep 28, 2021. 1 SHEAVES OF MODULES 2 In this chapter we work out basic notions of sheaves of modules. This in particular includes the case of abelian sheaves, since these may be viewed as sheaves of Z- modules. Basic references are [Ser55], [DG67] and [AGV71]. We work out what happens for sheaves of modules on ringed topoi in another chap- ter (see Modules on Sites, Section 1), although there we will mostly just duplicate the discussion from this chapter.
    [Show full text]
  • Abelian Categories
    Abelian Categories Lemma. In an Ab-enriched category with zero object every finite product is coproduct and conversely. π1 Proof. Suppose A × B //A; B is a product. Define ι1 : A ! A × B and π2 ι2 : B ! A × B by π1ι1 = id; π2ι1 = 0; π1ι2 = 0; π2ι2 = id: It follows that ι1π1+ι2π2 = id (both sides are equal upon applying π1 and π2). To show that ι1; ι2 are a coproduct suppose given ' : A ! C; : B ! C. It φ : A × B ! C has the properties φι1 = ' and φι2 = then we must have φ = φid = φ(ι1π1 + ι2π2) = ϕπ1 + π2: Conversely, the formula ϕπ1 + π2 yields the desired map on A × B. An additive category is an Ab-enriched category with a zero object and finite products (or coproducts). In such a category, a kernel of a morphism f : A ! B is an equalizer k in the diagram k f ker(f) / A / B: 0 Dually, a cokernel of f is a coequalizer c in the diagram f c A / B / coker(f): 0 An Abelian category is an additive category such that 1. every map has a kernel and a cokernel, 2. every mono is a kernel, and every epi is a cokernel. In fact, it then follows immediatly that a mono is the kernel of its cokernel, while an epi is the cokernel of its kernel. 1 Proof of last statement. Suppose f : B ! C is epi and the cokernel of some g : A ! B. Write k : ker(f) ! B for the kernel of f. Since f ◦ g = 0 the map g¯ indicated in the diagram exists.
    [Show full text]
  • Smoothness, Semi-Stability and Alterations
    PUBLICATIONS MATHÉMATIQUES DE L’I.H.É.S. A. J. DE JONG Smoothness, semi-stability and alterations Publications mathématiques de l’I.H.É.S., tome 83 (1996), p. 51-93 <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=PMIHES_1996__83__51_0> © Publications mathématiques de l’I.H.É.S., 1996, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la revue « Publications mathématiques de l’I.H.É.S. » (http:// www.ihes.fr/IHES/Publications/Publications.html) implique l’accord avec les conditions géné- rales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam.org/conditions). Toute utilisation commerciale ou im- pression systématique est constitutive d’une infraction pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ SMOOTHNESS, SEMI-STABILITY AND ALTERATIONS by A. J. DE JONG* CONTENTS 1. Introduction .............................................................................. 51 2. Notations, conventions and terminology ...................................................... 54 3. Semi-stable curves and normal crossing divisors................................................ 62 4. Varieties.................................................................................. QQ 5. Alterations and curves ..................................................................... 76 6. Semi-stable alterations ..................................................................... 82 7. Group actions and alterations .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Monomorphism - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Monomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomorphism Monomorphism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In the context of abstract algebra or universal algebra, a monomorphism is an injective homomorphism. A monomorphism from X to Y is often denoted with the notation . In the more general setting of category theory, a monomorphism (also called a monic morphism or a mono) is a left-cancellative morphism, that is, an arrow f : X → Y such that, for all morphisms g1, g2 : Z → X, Monomorphisms are a categorical generalization of injective functions (also called "one-to-one functions"); in some categories the notions coincide, but monomorphisms are more general, as in the examples below. The categorical dual of a monomorphism is an epimorphism, i.e. a monomorphism in a category C is an epimorphism in the dual category Cop. Every section is a monomorphism, and every retraction is an epimorphism. Contents 1 Relation to invertibility 2 Examples 3 Properties 4 Related concepts 5 Terminology 6 See also 7 References Relation to invertibility Left invertible morphisms are necessarily monic: if l is a left inverse for f (meaning l is a morphism and ), then f is monic, as A left invertible morphism is called a split mono. However, a monomorphism need not be left-invertible. For example, in the category Group of all groups and group morphisms among them, if H is a subgroup of G then the inclusion f : H → G is always a monomorphism; but f has a left inverse in the category if and only if H has a normal complement in G.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Morphology Via Category Theory 3
    Mathematical Morphology via Category Theory Hossein Memarzadeh Sharifipour1 and Bardia Yousefi2,3 1 Department of Computer Science, Laval University, Qubec, CA [email protected] 2 Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Laval University, Qubec, CA 3 Address: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia PA 19104 [email protected] Abstract. Mathematical morphology contributes many profitable tools to image processing area. Some of these methods considered to be basic but the most important fundamental of data processing in many various applications. In this paper, we modify the fundamental of morphological operations such as dilation and erosion making use of limit and co-limit preserving functors within (Category Theory). Adopting the well-known matrix representation of images, the category of matrix, called Mat, can be represented as an image. With enriching Mat over various semirings such as Boolean and (max, +) semirings, one can arrive at classical defi- nition of binary and gray-scale images using the categorical tensor prod- uct in Mat. With dilation operation in hand, the erosion can be reached using the famous tensor-hom adjunction. This approach enables us to define new types of dilation and erosion between two images represented by matrices using different semirings other than Boolean and (max, +) semirings. The viewpoint of morphological operations from category the- ory can also shed light to the claimed concept that mathematical mor- phology is a model for linear logic. Keywords: Mathematical morphology · Closed monoidal categories · Day convolution. Enriched categories, category of semirings 1 Introduction Mathematical morphology is a structure-based analysis of images constructed on set theory concepts.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifying Categories the Jordan-Hölder and Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorems for Abelian Categories
    U.U.D.M. Project Report 2018:5 Classifying Categories The Jordan-Hölder and Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorems for Abelian Categories Daniel Ahlsén Examensarbete i matematik, 30 hp Handledare: Volodymyr Mazorchuk Examinator: Denis Gaidashev Juni 2018 Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Classifying Categories The Jordan-Holder¨ and Krull-Schmidt-Remak theorems for abelian categories Daniel Ahlsen´ Uppsala University June 2018 Abstract The Jordan-Holder¨ and Krull-Schmidt-Remak theorems classify finite groups, either as direct sums of indecomposables or by composition series. This thesis defines abelian categories and extends the aforementioned theorems to this context. 1 Contents 1 Introduction3 2 Preliminaries5 2.1 Basic Category Theory . .5 2.2 Subobjects and Quotients . .9 3 Abelian Categories 13 3.1 Additive Categories . 13 3.2 Abelian Categories . 20 4 Structure Theory of Abelian Categories 32 4.1 Exact Sequences . 32 4.2 The Subobject Lattice . 41 5 Classification Theorems 54 5.1 The Jordan-Holder¨ Theorem . 54 5.2 The Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorem . 60 2 1 Introduction Category theory was developed by Eilenberg and Mac Lane in the 1942-1945, as a part of their research into algebraic topology. One of their aims was to give an axiomatic account of relationships between collections of mathematical structures. This led to the definition of categories, functors and natural transformations, the concepts that unify all category theory, Categories soon found use in module theory, group theory and many other disciplines. Nowadays, categories are used in most of mathematics, and has even been proposed as an alternative to axiomatic set theory as a foundation of mathematics.[Law66] Due to their general nature, little can be said of an arbitrary category.
    [Show full text]