Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Username
• Password
• Remember me

• Sign in using OpenID
• Remember me

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
   • (edited Jun 6th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexLet $C$ be a category with an initial object. Then what is the initial object of $Psh(C)$? Is it the representable functor $h_{0_C}(-):=Hom_C(-,0_C)$ or is it the empty presheaf $\emptyset(-)=\emptyset$? What if $C$ has no initial object? Thinking about it in terms of initial objects, it seems like $\emptyset(-)$ should be the initial object, but thinking about it in terms of free cocompletions, the colimit over the empty diagram seems like it should just be the initial object.

   Let $C$ be a category with an initial object. Then what is the initial object of $Psh(C)$? Is it the representable functor $h_{0_C}(-):=Hom_C(-,0_C)$ or is it the empty presheaf $\emptyset(-)=\emptyset$? What if $C$ has no initial object?

   Thinking about it in terms of initial objects, it seems like $\emptyset(-)$ should be the initial object, but thinking about it in terms of free cocompletions, the colimit over the empty diagram seems like it should just be the initial object.

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexIt's the empty presheaf. The key word in "free cocompletion" is *free*, which means that it ignores any colimits that might already exist in $C$, therefore generally destroying the fact that they are colimits.

   It’s the empty presheaf. The key word in “free cocompletion” is free, which means that it ignores any colimits that might already exist in $C$, therefore generally destroying the fact that they are colimits.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
   • (edited Jun 6th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexAh, is there any construction taking a category C to its minimal cocompletion (if that means anything)?

   Ah, is there any construction taking a category C to its minimal cocompletion (if that means anything)?

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexI don't think it means very much. One thing you can do is if C has some specified collection of colimits, then you can look at the subcategory of $[C^{op},Set]$ consisting of those functors which preserve those given colimits (i.e. take them to limits in Set). That's a reflective subcategory, hence cocomplete, and C embeds in it in a way which preserves the specified colimits. (The category of sheaves for a Grothendieck topology on C is a special case of this.) So, for example, if you look at the subcategory of presheaves preserving the initial object of C, in that category the initial object will be the presheaf represented by the initial object of C. I suppose for a "minimal" cocompletion you could look at *all* the colimits which C admits, assuming that C is small.

   I don’t think it means very much. One thing you can do is if C has some specified collection of colimits, then you can look at the subcategory of $[C^{op},Set]$ consisting of those functors which preserve those given colimits (i.e. take them to limits in Set). That’s a reflective subcategory, hence cocomplete, and C embeds in it in a way which preserves the specified colimits. (The category of sheaves for a Grothendieck topology on C is a special case of this.) So, for example, if you look at the subcategory of presheaves preserving the initial object of C, in that category the initial object will be the presheaf represented by the initial object of C. I suppose for a “minimal” cocompletion you could look at all the colimits which C admits, assuming that C is small.

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: FinnLawler
   Format: MarkdownItex> I suppose for a "minimal" cocompletion you could look at all the colimits which C admits, assuming that C is small. Am I right in thinking that the category of presheaves preserving these is the category of sheaves for the canonical topology on $C$?

   I suppose for a “minimal” cocompletion you could look at all the colimits which C admits, assuming that C is small.

   Am I right in thinking that the category of presheaves preserving these is the category of sheaves for the canonical topology on $C$?

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
   • (edited Jun 6th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItex@Mike: Yes, exactly (the last thing you said). Would such a cocompletion be idempotent, or could we not make heads or tails of it without pushing up to a higher universe (which would effectively ruin our plans for idempotence). @FinnLawler: I don't think so. Suppose C is not cocomplete. Then the thing Mike just mentioned will be cocomplete.

   @Mike:

   Yes, exactly (the last thing you said). Would such a cocompletion be idempotent, or could we not make heads or tails of it without pushing up to a higher universe (which would effectively ruin our plans for idempotence).

   @FinnLawler: I don’t think so. Suppose C is not cocomplete. Then the thing Mike just mentioned will be cocomplete.

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: FinnLawler
   Format: MarkdownItex@Harry: what I mean is that you can think of a covering sieve as specifying a cocone that should become a colimit cocone in the sheaf category. The $J$-covering sieves are already colimits in $C$ iff $J$ is subcanonical. So I'm thinking that the canonical topology will be given by all of the colimit cocones in $C$, and so the category of sheaves will be that cocompletion of $C$ in which all existing colimits in $C$ are still colimits. Mac Lane and Moerdijk say (pp. 489--490) that this is true for locales (i.e the canonical topology is given by $J U = \{ \{U_i \to U\}_i \mid \bigvee_i U_i = U\}$).

   @Harry: what I mean is that you can think of a covering sieve as specifying a cocone that should become a colimit cocone in the sheaf category. The $J$-covering sieves are already colimits in $C$ iff $J$ is subcanonical. So I’m thinking that the canonical topology will be given by all of the colimit cocones in $C$, and so the category of sheaves will be that cocompletion of $C$ in which all existing colimits in $C$ are still colimits. Mac Lane and Moerdijk say (pp. 489–490) that this is true for locales (i.e the canonical topology is given by $J U = \{ \{U_i \to U\}_i \mid \bigvee_i U_i = U\}$).

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorHarry Gindi
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
   • (edited Jun 6th 2010)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Harry Gindi
   Format: MarkdownItexBut wait, isn't the category of sheaves in the canonical topology equivalent to C? I always thought it was, but if I'm wrong, I guess one learns something new every day.

   But wait, isn’t the category of sheaves in the canonical topology equivalent to C?

   I always thought it was, but if I’m wrong, I guess one learns something new every day.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
   • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
   • PermaLink
   Author: FinnLawler
   Format: MarkdownItex> isn't the category of sheaves in the canonical topology equivalent to C? Yes, for C a Grothendieck topos (see [[canonical topology]]). But I don't think this is true for non-cocomplete C.

   isn’t the category of sheaves in the canonical topology equivalent to C?

   Yes, for C a Grothendieck topos (see canonical topology). But I don’t think this is true for non-cocomplete C.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexComing back to the original question: just in case there is any confusion on this point, maybe I can emphasize that checking that the presheaf constant on an initial object is initial is straightforward and elementary: just look at the naturality square $$ \array{ \emptyset &\to& F(x) \\ \downarrow^{Id} && \downarrow \\ \emptyset &\to& F(y) } $$

    Coming back to the original question:

    just in case there is any confusion on this point, maybe I can emphasize that checking that the presheaf constant on an initial object is initial is straightforward and elementary: just look at the naturality square

    $$\array{ \emptyset &\to& F(x) \\ \downarrow^{Id} && \downarrow \\ \emptyset &\to& F(y) }$$
11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJun 6th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: Mike Shulman
    Format: MarkdownItex@Harry: The cocompletion I described only makes sense as stated when C is small. If C is large, then you can either pass to a larger universe, or consider the category of [[small presheaves]] on it; the latter lives in the same universe as C and is its free cocompletion there. I don't know whether you can look at "colimit-preserving small presheaves" to get a possibly-idempotent cocompletion operation; it might be possible. @Finn: Not all colimit-preservation properties can be expressed in terms of sheaf conditions for a topology. In particular, any locally presentable category is the category of presheaves preserving some specified class of colimits on a small category, but of course not every locally presentable category is a topos.

    @Harry: The cocompletion I described only makes sense as stated when C is small. If C is large, then you can either pass to a larger universe, or consider the category of small presheaves on it; the latter lives in the same universe as C and is its free cocompletion there. I don’t know whether you can look at “colimit-preserving small presheaves” to get a possibly-idempotent cocompletion operation; it might be possible.

    @Finn: Not all colimit-preservation properties can be expressed in terms of sheaf conditions for a topology. In particular, any locally presentable category is the category of presheaves preserving some specified class of colimits on a small category, but of course not every locally presentable category is a topos.

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorFinnLawler
    • CommentTimeJun 7th 2010
    • PermaLink
    Author: FinnLawler
    Format: MarkdownItex@Mike: OK, thanks. I'll think about this a bit more.

    @Mike: OK, thanks. I’ll think about this a bit more.