DOCSLIB.ORG

An Introduction to Category Theory Lecture 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Introduction to Category Theory Lecture 1 An Introduction to Category Theory Lecture 1 Dr Marco Benini [email protected] Dottorato di Ricerca in Informatica e Matematica del Calcolo Università degli Studi dell’Insubria 2014 Syllabus ■ categories: examples of abstract and concrete categories, product categories, subcategories); ■ basic constructions: limits and colimits, exponentiation, subobject classifiers; ■ functors and natural transformations: Yoneda lemma, presheaves, representable functors, functor categories; ■ adjunctions: definition and examples (2 of 189) Texts Slides and supporting material: ■ All the course material is on the website: http://wp.me/P1rYpC-8W Textbooks: ■ [Borceux] F. Borceux, Handbook of Categorical Algebra I: Basic Category Theory, Cambridge University Press (1994). ISBN: 978-0521061193 The lectures are mainly based on this book ■ [MacLane] S. Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician, 2nd edition, Springer-Verlag (1998). ISBN: 978-0387984032 ■ [Goldblatt] R. Goldblatt, Topoi: The categorical analysis of logic, Elsevier (1984). ISBN: 978-0444867117 This book has been republished at a nicer price by Dover (2009). ISBN: 978-0486450261. (3 of 189) Examination The final examination for this course will be a seminar. The topic has to be decided together with the teacher, and it should expand a part of the course, possibly following the interests of the student. (4 of 189) Some points of history ■ Eilenberg and Mac Lane, 1942–1958: starting from algebraic topology, they abstracted a collection of concepts, and a new language to speak of them. Soon, it was clear that algebraic topology was just an application of a more general theory. ■ Grothendieck, 1957: Abelian categories. This is the starting point of Grothendieck’s work in algebraic geometry, which, as a by-product, will deliver the fundamental concept of topos. ■ Kan, 1958: adjoint functors. This was a fundamental result which lies behind the general and abstract treatment category theory allows. ■ Lawvere, 1963: category theory as a foundation for mathematics. Elementary topoi as the universe of mathematics, since they are, at the same time, a logical system, a mathematical theory, an algebraic framework, a space, . (5 of 189) Today ■ Entire branches of mathematics are described using, to various extents, category theory as the elected language: algebra, algebraic topology, algebraic geometry, and large parts of logic, just to name a few. ■ Since the development of denotational semantics by Scott, category theory has become a fundamental tool to describe, understand and research the meaning of computation. A fundamental part of theoretical computer science, semantics of programming languages, is strictly dominated by the categorical approach. ■ Functional programming uses, in real programming languages, categorical structures, e.g., monads in Haskell. And type theory can be really understood only within a categorical framework. ■ In contemporary research, Voevodosky launched Homotopy Type Theory, an interpretation of mathematics in a computational world, where algebraic topology is the founding basis. It uses in a fundamental way category theory and toposes. (6 of 189) Categorical style Category theory appears to be abstract and difficult. Although this is true, to some extent, the impression arises because it is, in the first place, a revolutionary approach. It is based on a few principles which are pushed to their extreme: ■ Looking systems from outside: objects have no meaning or nature, but what determines their behaviour is just the way they interact with other objects. ■ Theories have their own natural environment: it is wrong and deviating to study a theory in a framework which does not naturally and completely exploit the information in the theory. ■ Computation is a structure: computation has nothing to do with machines, but captures a fundamental property of the mathematical description of the world. ■ Mathematics talks about structures: and it does so by means of the way they are mutually related. (7 of 189) References and hints Every lesson is concluded with references to texts which may be useful to study and to get a better understanding of the content. Sometimes, reference to additional material is also given, so that the interested student has an hint where to find more information. These references, when present, are, of course, not exhaustive but just a possible starting point. In the present case, an excellent exposition on the history and philosophy of category theory can be found in J-P. Marquis, From a Geometrical Point of View, Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science, 14, Springer-Verlag (2009). ISBN: 978-1-4020-9383-8 CC BY: $\ C Dr Marco Benini 2014 (8 of 189) An Introduction to Category Theory Lecture 2 Dr Marco Benini [email protected] Dottorato di Ricerca in Informatica e Matematica del Calcolo Università degli Studi dell’Insubria 2014 Categories I Definition 2.1 (Category) A category C is a structure C O,Hom, ,1 such that Æ h ± i ■ O is a class of objects, denoted as ObjC. ■ Hom is an operation assigning to each pair A, B of objects a set Hom(A,B), sometimes denoted as C(A,B), of arrows or morphisms. Given an arrow f Hom(A,B), we say and write that A is the domain of f (dom(f ) dom 2f A), B is the codomain of f (cod(f ) cod f B), Æ Æ Æ Æ and we usually write f : A B instead of f Hom(A,B). ! 2 ■ is a partial operation, called composition, assigning to each pair of arrows± f and g such that cod f dom g, an arrow g f such that dom(g f ) dom f and cod(g Æf ) cod g. ± ± Æ ± Æ , ! (10 of 189) Categories II , (Category) ! ■ Moreover, satisfies the associative law: for any arrows f , g, h such that the following± compositions are defined, h (g f ) (h g) f . ± ± Æ ± ± ■ 1 is an operation, called identity, assigning to each object P an arrow 1P such that dom(1P ) P cod(1P ). Æ Æ Moreover, 1P satisfies the identity law: for any arrow f : P Q, ■ ! 1Q f f f 1P . ± Æ Æ ± Definition 2.2 Given a category C O,Hom, ,1 , we say that C is small if O is a set. Æ h ± i Sometimes, the definition of category is relaxed, requiring that Hom(A,B) is just a class for every A,B ObjC. In this case, the categories satisfying our previous definition are called2 locally small, while the relaxed categories are called large. (11 of 189) Categories III A substantial point in the definition of categories is that objects have no nature by themselves: what really defines a category is the way objects are linked to each other through arrows. In fact, it is possible to define categories without requiring objects at all. Moreover, arrows have no nature either. They are just links between objects. As far as we are able to render a mathematical structure S through these basic entities, and to reduce the fundamental properties to equality of arrows, S can be effectively described in categorical terms. It is a fact that most mathematical entities can be reduced in this way, and in many cases this description is a deep and powerful one. (12 of 189) Concrete categories I Concrete categories are, generally speaking, based on sets. Example 2.3 (Set) The category Set has sets as objects and (total) functions between them as arrows. Specifically, Set O,Hom, ,1 and Æ h ± i ■ O is the proper class of all sets; ■ Hom(D,C) is the set of total functions from D to C; ■ is the usual composition of functions: given f : D E and g : E C, g± f : D C is (g f )(x) g(f (x)), for all x D; ! ! ± ! ± Æ 2 1P : P P is the identity on P, i.e., for all x P, 1P (x) x. ■ ! 2 Æ It is immediate to see that the associative and the identity laws both hold. [Exercise] Prove it. (13 of 189) Concrete categories II There is a subtlety in the definition of Set: each function corresponds to many arrows in Set, in fact, given f : D C and g : D E such that for all x D, f (x) g(x), it does not follow that! f g, unless!C E. 2 Æ Æ Æ Arrows are defined along with their domain and codomain, as we did. Also, most of the times, composition and identities are obvious from the context; in these cases, it is customary to define the category specifying only the objects and the arrows. Sometimes, when also the arrows (objects) are clear from the context, just the objects (arrows) are specified. (14 of 189) Concrete categories III Definition 2.4 (Poset) A preorder is a pair P, P such that P is a binary relation on P which is reflexive and transitive.h · i · A partially ordered set or poset is a preorder P, P where the relation is also anti-symmetric. h · i An order preserving function or monotone function from the poset (preorder) P, P to the poset (preorder) Q, Q is a function f : P Q such that, if h · i h · i ! p P p0, then f (p) Q f (p0). · · Posets and preorders are an example of algebraic structure, that is, a set, the universe, plus a number of operations acting on the universe. (15 of 189) Concrete categories IV Example 2.5 (Poset) The category Poset has all the posets as objects and all the monotone functions between them as arrows. Example 2.6 (Preorder) The category Preorder has all the preorders as objects and all the monotone functions between them as arrows. [Exercise] Check that Poset and Preorder are categories. (16 of 189) Concrete categories V Example 2.7 (Mon) The category Mon has all the monoids as objects and their homomorphisms as arrows.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Finite Sum – Product Logic
    Theory and Applications of Categories, Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 63–99. FINITE SUM – PRODUCT LOGIC J.R.B. COCKETT1 AND R.A.G. SEELY2 ABSTRACT. In this paper we describe a deductive system for categories with finite products and coproducts, prove decidability of equality of morphisms via cut elimina- tion, and prove a “Whitman theorem” for the free such categories over arbitrary base categories. This result provides a nice illustration of some basic techniques in categorical proof theory, and also seems to have slipped past unproved in previous work in this field. Furthermore, it suggests a type-theoretic approach to 2–player input–output games. Introduction In the late 1960’s Lambekintroduced the notion of a “deductive system”, by which he meant the presentation of a sequent calculus for a logic as a category, whose objects were formulas of the logic, and whose arrows were (equivalence classes of) sequent deriva- tions. He noticed that “doctrines” of categories corresponded under this construction to certain logics. The classic example of this was cartesian closed categories, which could then be regarded as the “proof theory” for the ∧ – ⇒ fragment of intuitionistic propo- sitional logic. (An excellent account of this may be found in the classic monograph [Lambek–Scott 1986].) Since his original work, many categorical doctrines have been given similar analyses, but it seems one simple case has been overlooked, viz. the doctrine of categories with finite products and coproducts (without any closed structure and with- out any extra assumptions concerning distributivity of the one over the other). We began looking at this case with the thought that it would provide a nice simple introduction to some techniques in categorical proof theory, particularly the idea of rewriting systems modulo equations, which we have found useful in investigating categorical structures with two tensor products (“linearly distributive categories” [Blute et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Complete Objects in Categories
    Complete objects in categories James Richard Andrew Gray February 22, 2021 Abstract We introduce the notions of proto-complete, complete, complete˚ and strong-complete objects in pointed categories. We show under mild condi- tions on a pointed exact protomodular category that every proto-complete (respectively complete) object is the product of an abelian proto-complete (respectively complete) object and a strong-complete object. This to- gether with the observation that the trivial group is the only abelian complete group recovers a theorem of Baer classifying complete groups. In addition we generalize several theorems about groups (subgroups) with trivial center (respectively, centralizer), and provide a categorical explana- tion behind why the derivation algebra of a perfect Lie algebra with trivial center and the automorphism group of a non-abelian (characteristically) simple group are strong-complete. 1 Introduction Recall that Carmichael [19] called a group G complete if it has trivial cen- ter and each automorphism is inner. For each group G there is a canonical homomorphism cG from G to AutpGq, the automorphism group of G. This ho- momorphism assigns to each g in G the inner automorphism which sends each x in G to gxg´1. It can be readily seen that a group G is complete if and only if cG is an isomorphism. Baer [1] showed that a group G is complete if and only if every normal monomorphism with domain G is a split monomorphism. We call an object in a pointed category complete if it satisfies this latter condi- arXiv:2102.09834v1 [math.CT] 19 Feb 2021 tion.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Categories of Sets with a Group Action
    Categories of sets with a group action Bachelor Thesis of Joris Weimar under supervision of Professor S.J. Edixhoven Mathematisch Instituut, Universiteit Leiden Leiden, 13 June 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Abstract . .1 1.2 Working method . .1 1.2.1 Notation . .1 2 Categories 3 2.1 Basics . .3 2.1.1 Functors . .4 2.1.2 Natural transformations . .5 2.2 Categorical constructions . .6 2.2.1 Products and coproducts . .6 2.2.2 Fibered products and fibered coproducts . .9 3 An equivalence of categories 13 3.1 G-sets . 13 3.2 Covering spaces . 15 3.2.1 The fundamental group . 15 3.2.2 Covering spaces and the homotopy lifting property . 16 3.2.3 Induced homomorphisms . 18 3.2.4 Classifying covering spaces through the fundamental group . 19 3.3 The equivalence . 24 3.3.1 The functors . 25 4 Applications and examples 31 4.1 Automorphisms and recovering the fundamental group . 31 4.2 The Seifert-van Kampen theorem . 32 4.2.1 The categories C1, C2, and πP -Set ................... 33 4.2.2 The functors . 34 4.2.3 Example . 36 Bibliography 38 Index 40 iii 1 Introduction 1.1 Abstract In the 40s, Mac Lane and Eilenberg introduced categories. Although by some referred to as abstract nonsense, the idea of categories allows one to talk about mathematical objects and their relationions in a general setting. Its origins lie in the field of algebraic topology, one of the topics that will be explored in this thesis. First, a concise introduction to categories will be given.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 of Concrete Abstractions: an Introduction to Computer
    Out of print; full text available for free at http://www.gustavus.edu/+max/concrete-abstractions.html CHAPTER TWO Recursion and Induction 2.1 Recursion We have used Scheme to write procedures that describe how certain computational processes can be carried out. All the procedures we've discussed so far generate processes of a ®xed size. For example, the process generated by the procedure square always does exactly one multiplication no matter how big or how small the number we're squaring is. Similarly, the procedure pinwheel generates a process that will do exactly the same number of stack and turn operations when we use it on a basic block as it will when we use it on a huge quilt that's 128 basic blocks long and 128 basic blocks wide. Furthermore, the size of the procedure (that is, the size of the procedure's text) is a good indicator of the size of the processes it generates: Small procedures generate small processes and large procedures generate large processes. On the other hand, there are procedures of a ®xed size that generate computa- tional processes of varying sizes, depending on the values of their parameters, using a technique called recursion. To illustrate this, the following is a small, ®xed-size procedure for making paper chains that can still make chains of arbitrary lengthÐ it has a parameter n for the desired length. You'll need a bunch of long, thin strips of paper and some way of joining the ends of a strip to make a loop. You can use tape, a stapler, or if you use slitted strips of cardstock that look like this , you can just slip the slits together.
    [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]
  • A Subtle Introduction to Category Theory
    A Subtle Introduction to Category Theory W. J. Zeng Department of Computer Science, Oxford University \Static concepts proved to be very effective intellectual tranquilizers." L. L. Whyte \Our study has revealed Mathematics as an array of forms, codify- ing ideas extracted from human activates and scientific problems and deployed in a network of formal rules, formal definitions, formal axiom systems, explicit theorems with their careful proof and the manifold in- terconnections of these forms...[This view] might be called formal func- tionalism." Saunders Mac Lane Let's dive right in then, shall we? What can we say about the array of forms MacLane speaks of? Claim (Tentative). Category theory is about the formal aspects of this array of forms. Commentary: It might be tempting to put the brakes on right away and first grab hold of what we mean by formal aspects. Instead, rather than trying to present \the formal" as the object of study and category theory as our instrument, we would nudge the reader to consider another perspective. Category theory itself defines formal aspects in much the same way that physics defines physical concepts or laws define legal (and correspondingly illegal) aspects: it embodies them. When we speak of what is formal/physical/legal we inescapably speak of category/physical/legal theory, and vice versa. Thus we pass to the somewhat grammatically awkward revision of our initial claim: Claim (Tentative). Category theory is the formal aspects of this array of forms. Commentary: Let's unpack this a little bit. While individual forms are themselves tautologically formal, arrays of forms and everything else networked in a system lose this tautological formality.
    [Show full text]
  • Category Theory
    CMPT 481/731 Functional Programming Fall 2008 Category Theory Category theory is a generalization of set theory. By having only a limited number of carefully chosen requirements in the definition of a category, we are able to produce a general algebraic structure with a large number of useful properties, yet permit the theory to apply to many different specific mathematical systems. Using concepts from category theory in the design of a programming language leads to some powerful and general programming constructs. While it is possible to use the resulting constructs without knowing anything about category theory, understanding the underlying theory helps. Category Theory F. Warren Burton 1 CMPT 481/731 Functional Programming Fall 2008 Definition of a Category A category is: 1. a collection of ; 2. a collection of ; 3. operations assigning to each arrow (a) an object called the domain of , and (b) an object called the codomain of often expressed by ; 4. an associative composition operator assigning to each pair of arrows, and , such that ,a composite arrow ; and 5. for each object , an identity arrow, satisfying the law that for any arrow , . Category Theory F. Warren Burton 2 CMPT 481/731 Functional Programming Fall 2008 In diagrams, we will usually express and (that is ) by The associative requirement for the composition operators means that when and are both defined, then . This allow us to think of arrows defined by paths throught diagrams. Category Theory F. Warren Burton 3 CMPT 481/731 Functional Programming Fall 2008 I will sometimes write for flip , since is less confusing than Category Theory F.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1811.04966V3 [Math.NT]
    Descartes’ rule of signs, Newton polygons, and polynomials over hyperfields Matthew Baker and Oliver Lorscheid Abstract. In this note, we develop a theory of multiplicities of roots for polynomials over hyperfields and use this to provide a unified and conceptual proof of both Descartes’ rule of signs and Newton’s “polygon rule”. Introduction Given a real polynomial p ∈ R[T ], Descartes’ rule of signs provides an upper bound for the number of positive (resp. negative) real roots of p in terms of the signs of the coeffi- cients of p. Specifically, the number of positive real roots of p (counting multiplicities) is bounded above by the number of sign changes in the coefficients of p(T ), and the number of negative roots is bounded above by the number of sign changes in the coefficients of p(−T ). Another classical “rule”, which is less well known to mathematicians in general but is used quite often in number theory, is Newton’s polygon rule. This rule concerns polynomi- als over fields equipped with a valuation, which is a function v : K → R ∪{∞} satisfying • v(a) = ∞ if and only if a = 0 • v(ab) = v(a) + v(b) • v(a + b) > min{v(a),v(b)}, with equality if v(a) 6= v(b) for all a,b ∈ K. An example is the p-adic valuation vp on Q, where p is a prime number, given by the formula vp(s/t) = ordp(s) − ordp(t), where ordp(n) is the maximum power of p dividing a nonzero integer n. Another example is the T -adic valuation v on k(T), for any field k, given by v ( f /g) = arXiv:1811.04966v3 [math.NT] 26 May 2020 T T ordT ( f )−ordT (g), where ordT ( f ) is the maximum power of T dividing a nonzero polyno- mial f ∈ k[T].
    [Show full text]
  • Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality
    Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality by Dmitry Vagner Department of Mathematics Duke University Date: Approved: Ezra Miller, Supervisor Lenhard Ng Sayan Mukherjee Paul Bendich Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mathematics in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 ABSTRACT Diagrammatics in Categorification and Compositionality by Dmitry Vagner Department of Mathematics Duke University Date: Approved: Ezra Miller, Supervisor Lenhard Ng Sayan Mukherjee Paul Bendich An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Mathematics in the Graduate School of Duke University 2019 Copyright c 2019 by Dmitry Vagner All rights reserved Abstract In the present work, I explore the theme of diagrammatics and their capacity to shed insight on two trends|categorification and compositionality|in and around contemporary category theory. The work begins with an introduction of these meta- phenomena in the context of elementary sets and maps. Towards generalizing their study to more complicated domains, we provide a self-contained treatment|from a pedagogically novel perspective that introduces almost all concepts via diagrammatic language|of the categorical machinery with which we may express the broader no- tions found in the sequel. The work then branches into two seemingly unrelated disciplines: dynamical systems and knot theory. In particular, the former research defines what it means to compose dynamical systems in a manner analogous to how one composes simple maps. The latter work concerns the categorification of the slN link invariant. In particular, we use a virtual filtration to give a more diagrammatic reconstruction of Khovanov-Rozansky homology via a smooth TQFT.
    [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]
  • A Small Complete Category
    Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 40 (1988) 135-165 135 North-Holland A SMALL COMPLETE CATEGORY J.M.E. HYLAND Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statktics, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 ISB, England Communicated by D. van Dalen Received 14 October 1987 0. Introduction This paper is concerned with a remarkable fact. The effective topos contains a small complete subcategory, essentially the familiar category of partial equiv- alence realtions. This is in contrast to the category of sets (indeed to all Grothendieck toposes) where any small complete category is equivalent to a (complete) poset. Note at once that the phrase ‘a small complete subcategory of a topos’ is misleading. It is not the subcategory but the internal (small) category which matters. Indeed for any ordinary subcategory of a topos there may be a number of internal categories with global sections equivalent to the given subcategory. The appropriate notion of subcategory is an indexed (or better fibred) one, see 0.1. Another point that needs attention is the definition of completeness (see 0.2). In my talk at the Church’s Thesis meeting, and in the first draft of this paper, I claimed too strong a form of completeness for the internal category. (The elementary oversight is described in 2.7.) Fortunately during the writing of [13] my collaborators Edmund Robinson and Giuseppe Rosolini noticed the mistake. Again one needs to pay careful attention to the ideas of indexed (or fibred) categories. The idea that small (sufficiently) complete categories in toposes might exist, and would provide the right setting in which to discuss models for strong polymorphism (quantification over types), was suggested to me by Eugenio Moggi.
    [Show full text]