DOCSLIB.ORG

The Language of Categories

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Language of Categories The language of categories Mariusz Wodzicki March 15, 2011 1 Universal constructions 1.1 Initial and inal objects 1.1.1 Initial objects An object 푖 of a category 풞 is said to be initial if for any object 푐 ∈ Ob 풞, there exists a unique morphism 푖 → 푐. Any two initial objects are isomorphic and the isomorphism is unique. 1.1.2 Final objects An object 푓 of a category 풞 is said to be inal if for any object 푐 ∈ Ob 풞, there exists a unique morphism 푐 → 푓. Any two inal objects are isomorphic and the isomorphism is unique. 1.1.3 Example: the category of sets In the category of sets, denoted hereafter Set, the empty set ∅ is the unique initial object. A set is a inal object in Set precisely when it has one element. The same holds in the category of topological spaces Top. 1.1.4 Example: a partially ordered set Given a partially ordered set (푆, ≤), consider the category 풮 whose objects are elements of 푆 and, for any pair 푠, 푡 ∈ 푆, there is exactly one morphism 푠 → 푡 if 푠 ≤ 푡, and Hom풮(푠, 푡) = ∅ otherwise. In what follows we shall not distinguish a partially ordered set and the corresponding category. 1 The empty set, 0 = ∅, corresponds to the empty category: Ob 0 = ∅. (1) An element 푠 ∈ 푆 is an initial object of 풮, if 푠 = min 푆; it is inal, if 푠 = max 푆. In particular, the initial object is unique when it exists. The same ap- plies also to the inal object. 1.1.5 Example: the category of all (small) categories A category Γ is said to be small if its objects and arrows form sets. Small categories form a category denoted Cat and functors Γ ⇝ Γ are morphisms from Γ to Γ: HomCat(Γ, Γ ) = Funct(Γ, Γ ) =∶ Γ . The empty category, 0, is the unique initial object in Cat. Category 1 is a inal object. 1.1.6 Skeletal categories The category 풮 associated with an arbitrary partially ordered set (푆, ≤) is an example of a skeletal category: a category is said to be skeletal if there is at most one morphism between any pair of objects. The deinition of 풮 only requires that the relation on set 푆 be relexive and transitive. Any small skeletal category arises this way and small skeletal cat- egories form a subcategory of Cat which is isomorphic to the category of sets equipped with a relation that is both relexive and transitive. 1.1.7 Discrete categories A category 풞 is said to be discrete if the only morphisms in 풞 are the identity morphisms id (푐 ∈ Ob 풞). Small discrete categories form a subcategory in Cat which is isomorphic to the category of sets, Set. Note that the initial and inal objects of Set are also initial and, respectively, inal objects in Cat. 2 1.1.8 Example: the category of 푅-modules An 푅-module is an initial as well as a inal object in the category of 푅-modules precisely when it has only one element. We speak of this module as the zero module even though it is not unique: any one-element set can be made into an 푅-module. This applies both to the category of left 푅-modules, which is denoted 푅-mod, and to the category of right 푅-modules which is denoted mod-푅. A special case is provided by the category of vector spaces, Vect, over a ield 퐾. 1.2 Direct and inverse limits 1.2.1 Diagrams Let Γ be a small category. For any category 풞, functors Γ ⇝ 풞 are often called Γ-diagrams (in 풞). This usage is particularly frequent when Γ has very few objects and morphisms. 1.2.2 Example: the empty diagram For any category 풞, there is just one 0-diagram in 풞, where 0 denotes the empty category, cf. (1). We shall refer to it as the empty diagram. 1.2.3 Example: an object An object in a category 풞 is the same as a Γ-diagram in 풞 where Γ is the par- tially ordered set 2 (the set of all subsets of 0 = ∅). 1.2.4 Example: an arrow An arrow in a category 풞 is the same as a Γ-diagram in 풞 where Γ is the linearly ordered set 2 (the set of all subsets of 1 = {0}). 3 1.2.5 Example: a commutative square A commutative square in a category 풞 / 푐 푐 (2) ↺ / 푐 푐 is the same as a Γ-diagram in 풞 where Γ is the partially ordered set 2 (the set of all subsets of 2 = {0, 1}). 1.2.6 Example: a composable pair of arrows A composable pair of arrows in a category 풞 / / 푐 푐 푐 (3) is the same as a Γ-diagram in 풞 where Γ is the linearly ordered set 3 = {0, 1, 2}. 1.2.7 Example: a parallel pair Consider the category with just two objects, 푠 and 푡, and two morphisms 훾, 훾 ∶ 푠 → 푡. We shall denote this category by ⇉ .A ⇉-diagram in a category 풞 is the same as a pair of morphisms in 풞 with the common source and target / 푐 / 푐 . (4) 1.2.8 Example: a 퐺-object The category of monoids Mon is naturally isomorphic with the full subcate- gory of Cat consisting of categories with a single object: 퐺 ↭ Γ, End(∗) = Hom(∗, ∗) = 퐺, where ∗ denotes the only object of Γ. From now on we shall identify monoids with categories having a single object. Given a monoid 퐺 and a category 풞, a 퐺-diagram in 퐶 is the same as an 4 object 푐 ∈ Ob 풞 equipped with the action of 퐺 on 푐, i.e., with a homomorphism of monoids 퐺 → End풞(푐). We shall refer to it as a 퐺-object. In the case of 풞 = Set, Top, or Vect, we talk of 퐺-sets, 퐺-spaces and, respectively, (퐾-linear) representations of 퐺. 1.2.9 The category of Γ-diagrams Since Γ-diagrams in 풞 are just functors, Γ ⇝ 풞, Γ-diagrams in 풞 form a category 풞 ∶= Funct(Γ, 풞) with morphisms being natural transformations of functors. 1.2.10 The diagonal embedding 풞 ↪ 풞 There is a canonical embedding of 풞 onto a full subcategory of 풞 which sends 푐 ∈ 풞 to the constant diagram Δ: Δ(푔) = 푐 for any 푔 ∈ Ob Γ (5) and Δ(훾) = id for any 훾 ∈ Arr Γ (6) In what follows we shall identify 풞 with its image in 풞 under the diagonal embedding. 1.2.11 Direct limits For a given Γ-diagram 퐷 ∶ Γ ⇝ 풞 in a category 풞, consider the category 풞 whose objects are families of morphisms 휙 = {휙 ∶ 퐷(푔) → 푐}∈Ob 5 with common target 푐 ∈ Ob 풞 which are compatible with the diagram, i.e., such that 휙 ∘ 퐷(훾) = 휙 (훾 ∈ Hom(푔, 푔 )). Morphisms 휙 → 휙 in category 풞 are deined as morphisms 훼 ∶ 푐 → 푐 between the targets such that 훼 ∘ 휙 = 휙 (푔 ∈ Ob Γ). An initial object in 풞 is called the direct limit of diagram 퐷.1 The direct limit of 퐷 is denoted lim 퐷. −−→ In use there are also terms: the inductive limit of 퐷 and the push-out of 퐷. The latter usage is generally conined to diagrams with few vertices. Exercise 1 Denote by 픻 the partially ordered set of positive integers ordered by the divisibility relation: 푚 ≤ 푛 if 푚|푛. Consider the following 픻-diagram in the category of abelian groups Ab 푛 퐷 = ℤ, 퐷(푚|푛) ∶= multiplication by , (푚, 푛 ∈ ℤ ). 푚 Show that lim 퐷 = ℚ −−→ with the morphisms 퐷 → ℚ being the homomorphisms of abelian groups 푖 ℤ ⟶ ℚ, 푖 ↦ (푖 ∈ ℤ). 푛 1.2.12 Inverse limits For a given Γ-diagram 퐷 ∶ Γ ⇝ 풞 in a category 풞, consider the category 퐷풞 whose objects are families of morphisms 휓 = {휓 ∶ 푐 → 퐷(푔)}∈Ob 1Note that we are using the deinite article even though direct limit is usually not unique; it is unique only up to a unique isomorphism. 6 with common source 푐 ∈ Ob 풞 which are compatible with the diagram, i.e., such that i.e., such that 퐷(훾) ∘ 휓 = 휓 (훾 ∈ Hom(푔, 푔 )). Morphisms 휓 → 휓 in category 퐷풞 are deined as morphisms 훼 ∶ 푐 → 푐 between the sources such that 훼 ∘ 휙 = 휙 (푔 ∈ Ob Γ). A inal object in 풞 is called the inverse limit of diagram 퐷. The inverse limit of 퐷 is denoted lim 퐷. ←−− In use there are also terms: the projective limit of 퐷 and the pull-back of 퐷. The latter usage is generally conined to diagrams with few vertices whereas the former one is more often applied to diagrams with ininitely many vertices. 1.2.13 Limits and colimits Another usage gaining popularity is: limits—for inverse limits, and colim- its—for direct limits. Exercise 2 Show that lim ∅ is a inal object of 풞, while lim ∅ is an initial object ←−− −−→ of 풞. Exercise 3 Let ℕ be the set of natural numbers with the reverse linear order ≥ and let 푝 be a prime. Consider the following ℕ-diagram in the category of rings 퐷 = ℤ/푝 ℤ, 퐷(푚 ≥ 푛) ∶= the canonical epimorphism ℤ/푝 ℤ ↠ ℤ/푝 ℤ, where 푚, 푛 ∈ ℤ. Show that the inverse limit of 퐷 is the ring of 푝-adic numbers, lim 퐷 = ℤ , ←−− with the morphisms ℤ → 퐷 being the quotient maps ℤ ⟶ ℤ/푝 ℤ.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 1 Equalizers and Coequalizers
    Travaux Dirigés Equalizers, epi-mono factorization, first-order logic λ-calculs et catégories (7 octobre 2019) 1 Equalizers and coequalizers In this exercise, we study the notion of equalizer (called “égalisateur” in French) and its dual notion of coequalizer. Suppose given a pair of coinitial and cofinal arrows f, g : X Y in a category C . An equalizer of f and g is an arrow m : E X such that f ◦ m = g ◦ m and such that, for every arrow n : F X such that f ◦ n = g ◦ n there exists a unique arrow h : F E such that n = m ◦ h. §1. Show that every pair of functions f, g : X −→ Y has an equalizer m : E −→ X in the category Sets and describe this equalizer. §2. Show that when it exists in a category C , the equalizer m : E −→ X of a pair of arrows f, g : X −→ Y is a mono. §3. Formulate the dual notion of coequalizer e : Y −→ Q of two arrows f, g : X Y in a category C . §4. Show that when it exists in a category C , the coequalizer e : Y −→ Q of two arrows f, g : X −→ Y is an epi. §5. Show that every pair of functions f, g : X −→ Y has a coequalizer e : Y −→ Q in the category Sets and describe this coequalizer. §6. An epi e : Y −→ Q is called regular when there exists a pair of arrows f, g : X −→ Y such that e is a coequalizer of f and g as in the diagram below: f X Y e Q g Show that every surjective function e : A −→ B is a regular epi in the category Sets.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 395: Category Theory Northwestern University, Lecture Notes
    Math 395: Category Theory Northwestern University, Lecture Notes Written by Santiago Can˜ez These are lecture notes for an undergraduate seminar covering Category Theory, taught by the author at Northwestern University. The book we roughly follow is “Category Theory in Context” by Emily Riehl. These notes outline the specific approach we’re taking in terms the order in which topics are presented and what from the book we actually emphasize. We also include things we look at in class which aren’t in the book, but otherwise various standard definitions and examples are left to the book. Watch out for typos! Comments and suggestions are welcome. Contents Introduction to Categories 1 Special Morphisms, Products 3 Coproducts, Opposite Categories 7 Functors, Fullness and Faithfulness 9 Coproduct Examples, Concreteness 12 Natural Isomorphisms, Representability 14 More Representable Examples 17 Equivalences between Categories 19 Yoneda Lemma, Functors as Objects 21 Equalizers and Coequalizers 25 Some Functor Properties, An Equivalence Example 28 Segal’s Category, Coequalizer Examples 29 Limits and Colimits 29 More on Limits/Colimits 29 More Limit/Colimit Examples 30 Continuous Functors, Adjoints 30 Limits as Equalizers, Sheaves 30 Fun with Squares, Pullback Examples 30 More Adjoint Examples 30 Stone-Cech 30 Group and Monoid Objects 30 Monads 30 Algebras 30 Ultrafilters 30 Introduction to Categories Category theory provides a framework through which we can relate a construction/fact in one area of mathematics to a construction/fact in another. The goal is an ultimate form of abstraction, where we can truly single out what about a given problem is specific to that problem, and what is a reflection of a more general phenomenom which appears elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Systems and Direct Limit Groups Informal Guided Reading Supervised by Dr Moty Katzman
    Direct Systems and Direct Limit Groups Informal guided reading supervised by Dr Moty Katzman Jai Adam Schrem Based on Chapter 1 from Derek J.S. Robinson's \A Course in the Theory of Groups" 23rd September 2020 Jai Adam Schrem Direct Systems and Direct Limit Groups Notation and Definitions Let Λ be a set, with λ, µ, ν 2 Λ. Definition: Equivalence Relation An equivalence relation is a binary relation between elements of a set Λ that is Reflexive: λ = λ Symmetric: If λ = µ, then µ = λ Transitive: If λ = µ and µ = ν, then λ = ν for any λ, µ, ν 2 Λ. Definition: Equivalence Classes We can partition the set Λ into subsets of elements that are equivalent to one another. These subsets are called equivalence classes. Write [λ] for the equivalence class of element λ 2 Λ. Jai Adam Schrem Direct Systems and Direct Limit Groups Notation and Definitions Definition: Directed Set Equip set Λ with reflexive and transitive binary relation `≤' that `compares' elements pairwise. If the upper bound property 8λ, µ 2 Λ, 9ν 2 Λ such that λ ≤ ν and µ ≤ ν is satisfied, we say the set Λ with binary relation `≤' is directed. Example: N directed by divisibility Equip N with the binary relation of divisibility, notated by `j'. Letting a; b; c 2 N, we can easily see Reflexivity: Clearly aja Transitivity: If ajb and bjc then ajc Upper bound property: For any a; b 2 N we can compute the lowest common multiple, say m, so that ajm and bjm. Jai Adam Schrem Direct Systems and Direct Limit Groups Direct System of Groups Let Λ with binary relation ≤ be a directed set, with λ, µ, ν 2 Λ.
    [Show full text]
  • A Short Introduction to Category Theory
    A SHORT INTRODUCTION TO CATEGORY THEORY September 4, 2019 Contents 1. Category theory 1 1.1. Definition of a category 1 1.2. Natural transformations 3 1.3. Epimorphisms and monomorphisms 5 1.4. Yoneda Lemma 6 1.5. Limits and colimits 7 1.6. Free objects 9 References 9 1. Category theory 1.1. Definition of a category. Definition 1.1.1. A category C is the following data (1) a class ob(C), whose elements are called objects; (2) for any pair of objects A; B of C a set HomC(A; B), called set of morphisms; (3) for any three objects A; B; C of C a function HomC(A; B) × HomC(B; C) −! HomC(A; C) (f; g) −! g ◦ f; called composition of morphisms; which satisfy the following axioms (i) the sets of morphisms are all disjoints, so any morphism f determines his domain and his target; (ii) the composition is associative; (iii) for any object A of C there exists a morphism idA 2 Hom(A; A), called identity morphism, such that for any object B of C and any morphisms f 2 Hom(A; B) and g 2 Hom(C; A) we have f ◦ idA = f and idA ◦ g = g. Remark 1.1.2. The above definition is the definition of what is called a locally small category. For a general category we should admit that the set of morphisms is not a set. If the class of object is in fact a set then the category is called small. For a general category we should admit that morphisms form a class.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflective Subcategories and Dense Subcategories
    RENDICONTI del SEMINARIO MATEMATICO della UNIVERSITÀ DI PADOVA LUCIANO STRAMACCIA Reflective subcategories and dense subcategories Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico della Università di Padova, tome 67 (1982), p. 191-198 <http://www.numdam.org/item?id=RSMUP_1982__67__191_0> © Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico della Università di Padova, 1982, tous droits réservés. L’accès aux archives de la revue « Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico della Università di Padova » (http://rendiconti.math.unipd.it/) implique l’accord avec les conditions générales d’utilisation (http://www.numdam.org/conditions). Toute utilisation commerciale ou impression systématique est constitutive d’une infraction pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit conte- nir la présente mention de copyright. Article numérisé dans le cadre du programme Numérisation de documents anciens mathématiques http://www.numdam.org/ Reflective Subcategories and Dense Subcategories. LUCIANO STRAMACCIA (*) Introduction. In [M], S. Mardesic defined the notion of a dense subcategory ~ c C, generalizing the situation one has in the Shape Theory of topological spaces, where K = HCW (= the homotopy category of CW-compleges) and C = HTOP ( = the homotopy category of topolo- gical spaces). In [G], E. Giuli observed that « dense subcategories » are a generalization of « reflective subcategories » and characterized (epi-) dense subcategories of TOP. In this paper we prove that the concepts of density and reflectivity are symmetric with respect to the passage to pro-categories; this means that, if K c C, then K is dense in C if and only if pro-K is reflective in pro-C. In order to do this we establish two necessary and sufficient condi- tions for K being dense in C.
    [Show full text]