Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

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

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

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 definitions 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 k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nforum 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

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).

nLab > Latest Changes: functor category

Bottom of Page

1 to 20 of 20

  1.  

  1. added text from HoTT wiki

    Anonymous

    diff, v23, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2023
    • (edited Apr 20th 2023)

    In the entry here, the fact that the functor category out of an accessible into a locally presentable category is locally presentable is referenced to Adamek & Rosicky’s book. (This edit originates from discussion in another thread).

    Where in that book is this actually stated? I have trouble locating it…

    diff, v25, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2023
    • (edited Apr 20th 2023)

    Where in that book is this actually stated? I have trouble locating it…

    The highlighted bullet point is Corollary 1.54. I don’t think the statement that “the category of accessible functors from an accessible category into a locally presentable category is accessible” is in the book.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 21st 2023
    • (edited Apr 21st 2023)

    Ah, thanks! I have added that pointer to the entry.

    (Now I see why I didn’t find this: They spell “functor category” with a hyphen.)

    But that discussion and the entry in general could do with much more polishing.

    For instance, weirdly, the single reference that used to be given was the HoTT book, without commentary of what in there the reader is meant to take note of regarding functor categories. Indeed, I don’t see what that could be and have removed that reference (but let’s add it back in if we know why).

    diff, v26, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 27th 2023

    What’s the general statement regarding local presentablity of categories of enriched functors?

    Do we have a statement like: If

    1. the enriching cosmos V\mathbf{V} is locally presentable,

    2. the underlying category of D∈VCat\mathbf{D} \in \mathbf{V}Cat is small

    3. the underlying category of C∈VCat\mathbf{C} \in \mathbf{V}Cat is locally presentable

    then VFunc(D,C)\mathbf{V}Func(\mathbf{D}, \mathbf{C}) is locally presentable??

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 2nd 2023
    • (edited May 2nd 2023)

    Re #5: Since we know VFunc(D,C) is cocomplete, it suffices to show it is accessible.

    Accessibility follows since VFunc(D,C) can be constructed as a PIE-limit.

    Specifically, start with the product ∏ d∈DC\prod_{d\in D}C.

    Next, for every d,e∈Dd,e\in D, use an inserter to equip objects X∈∏ d∈DCX\in \prod_{d\in D}C with morphisms D(d,e)→C(X d,X e)D(d,e)\to C(X_d,X_e).

    Finally, use equifiers to enforce preservation of compositions and units.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2023
    • (edited May 3rd 2023)

    Thanks!

    I admit that I don’t even know the facts that you are tacitly appealing to.

    For example, what’s the statement regarding PIE-limits and accessibility? I see that at accessible weak factorization system in the proof here there is a similar allusion, where it says

    …is locally presentable (being complete and a PIE limit construction…

    We should add pointer there to the actual theorem being invoked.

    I wonder if there are not standard accounts of these matters that we could lazily refer to. Hm, I’ll check out the references suggested at MO:q/53470: “Enriched locally presentable categories”.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2023

    For example, what’s the statement regarding PIE-limits and accessibility?

    The 2-category of accessible 𝒱\mathcal{V}-categories (for nice enough 𝒱\mathcal{V}) is closed under small flexible limits (and thus flexible 2-limits, pseudolimits, bilimits). This is Theorem 5.5 of Lack–Tendas’s Virtual concepts in the theory of accessible categories. The same is true for locally presentable 𝒱\mathcal{V}-categories by a result of Bird (cited in the linked paper).

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2023
    • (edited May 3rd 2023)

    [overlapped with #8 while editing]

    So in

    is an Example 3.4 (this page) which says that for a small 𝒱\mathcal{V}-enriched category 𝒯\mathcal{T} the enriched functor category [𝒯,𝒱][\mathcal{T}, \mathcal{V}] is locally finitely presentable in the sense of the previous Def. 3.2 (which ought to imply that the underlying category is locally enriched in the ordinary sense, if I am reading it right).

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2023

    Re #7: See Chapter 5 in Makkai–Paré, Accessible Categories: The Foundations of Categorical Model Theory, in partcular, Theorem 5.1.6 and Corollary 5.1.8, which shows that PIE-limits of accessible categories are accessible. This is a very powerful tool to show accessibility (and therefore local presentability).

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2023

    Another reference: Adámek–Rosický, Locally presentable and accessible categories, Section 2.H, in particular, Theorem 2.77.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2023
    • (edited May 3rd 2023)

    Thanks varkor, thanks Dmitri! I am in the process of adding this statement to accessible category.

    Just to be pedantic: What we need for the present discussion is not just that AccCatAccCat has all these 2-limits, but also that they can be computed in CatCat. Probably the inclusion of AccCatAccCat into CatCat preserves (these) 2-limits?

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2023

    Re #12: Adámek–Rosický’s formulation answers this too:

    2.77 Limit Theorem. A lax limit of accessible categories is accessible. More precisely, ACC is closed under lax limits in CAT.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2023

    Thanks again! Adding this now.

    By the way, Makkai & Paré say that AccCatAccCat has “all limits”. The mentioning of PIE-limits I see only in Lack & Tendas. (?)

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorvarkor
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2023

    Just to be pedantic: What we need for the present discussion is not just that AccCatAccCat has all these 2-limits, but also that they can be computed in CatCat. Probably the inclusion of AccCatAccCat into CatCat preserves (these) 2-limits?

    Yes, this is also proven in the enriched setting in the paper of Lack and Tendas.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 3rd 2023

    Ah, right, their theorem 5.9. Thanks, adding it now…

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorsegfault
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2023
    • (edited May 18th 2023)

    I have a point of (perhaps pedantic) uncertainty surrounding the notion of “the” functor category. This seems to imply that there is only one, therefore if I were to remove a particular functor from “the” functor category D CD^C it wouldn’t be “the” functor category anymore.

    Which then raises the question of what functors are in D CD^C… all possible ones? (if so what does this mean)?

    I think it is unclear to me whether functors are implict or explicit constructions (as in, do declare which functors “exist”, or do they just exists automatically based on the structure of C and D).

    Sorry if this is the wrong place. (Though it would be cool if this page could be tweaked/added-to so as to clear such confusion.)

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2023
    • (edited May 18th 2023)

    I have adjusted the wording to make it read:

    “the class of objects is the collection of all functors F:C→DF \colon C \to D”.

    Does that help?

    diff, v27, current

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorsegfault
    • CommentTimeMay 18th 2023

    Yes, I think that is a bit clearer.

    One of the sticking points for me was that, since we are dealing with classes (not necessarily sets), I wasn’t sure precisely what “all functors” means (depends on formalism used for classes?), or even if that idea was well-defined.

    |’ve just been thinking about it as “all functors we care about”, which seems okay based on what I’ve learned so far.

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2023

    added pointer to:

    diff, v28, current

1 to 20 of 20

  1.