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 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

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: subobject classifier

Bottom of Page

1 to 20 of 20

  1.  
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 26th 2011

    at subobject classifier I have cleaned up the statement of the definition and then indicated the proof that in locally small categories subobject classifiers precisely represent the subobject-presheaf.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2016

    I added the following section because I had to search around to find some hints about when subobject classifiers don’t exist. What I added is derived from mathoverflow: Is there a finitely complete category with terminal object but NO subobject classifier?, though I didn’t add the other examples which seem mostly to do with factoring. Would it be worthwhile for someone more competent to distill that info and add it?

    Categories without subobject classifiers

    Having a subobject classifier is a vary strong property of a category and “most” categories don’t have one.

    For example, catgories with a terminal object can’t have one if there are no morphism out of the terminal object.

    • Any top bounded partial order.

    • In RingRing, the category of rings, there are no morphisms out of the terminal object the zero ring.

    (also I’m surprised the is no nLab page on the category of rings. I find it mentioned in passing at ring.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorRodMcGuire
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2016

    I added the following section because I had to search around to find some hints about when subobject classifiers don’t exist. What I added is derived from mathoverflow: Is there a finitely complete category with terminal object but NO subobject classifier?, though I didn’t add the other examples which seem mostly to do with factoring. Would it be worthwhile for someone more competent to distill that info and add it?

    Categories without subobject classifiers

    Having a subobject classifier is a vary strong property of a category and “most” categories don’t have one.

    For example, catgories with a terminal object can’t have one if there are no morphism out of the terminal object.

    • Any top bounded partial order.

    • In RingRing, the category of rings, there are no morphisms out of the terminal object the zero ring.

    (also I’m surprised the is no nLab page on the category of rings. I find it mentioned in passing at ring.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2016

    Thanks. I edited it to say no nonidentity morphisms out of the terminal object.

    The category of rings page is called Ring, like most pages on particular categories. I added a redirect.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorjesse
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2016
    • (edited Oct 6th 2016)

    I added the example of abelian categories to the list. (I vaguely recall there being a slicker proof than showing that all small products of Ω\Omega with itself embed into Ω\Omega and invoking “size issues”, but I can’t recall it right now.)

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2016

    @Jesse perhaps via the notion of AT category?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 6th 2016

    Are there any interesting categories that aren’t toposes but have a subobject classifier? I suppose one could take any full subcategory of a topos closed under finite limits and containing the subobject classifier, but not closed under exponentials, such as the category of all finite or countable sets. But are there any examples that don’t occur this way?

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2016

    Mike, I think pointed sets have a subobject classifier (the obvious one with two elements).

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2016

    There are some properties of categories with a subobject classifier which rule out lots of categories; for example:

    • Such categories are balanced (mono + epi = iso). This is another way of ruling out RingRing or any poset, and also examples like PosPos, CatCat, TopTop, CMonCMon, and many others.

    • All monos are “kernels”, i.e., all are equalizers of pairs f,g:X⇉Ωf, g: X \rightrightarrows \Omega where f=(X→1→tΩ)f = (X \to 1 \stackrel{t}{\to} \Omega). This rules out GrpGrp without bringing in size considerations.

    • Every morphism has a unique epi-mono factorization.

    • Since Ω\Omega is internally a cartesian closed poset, all subobject orders are cartesian closed posets, and so in particular are distributive lattices if joins exist. This rules out AbAb for instance.

    Then there’s this curious little chestnut:

    • The subobject classifier has a Hopfian property, that every mono Ω→Ω\Omega \to \Omega is an iso and in fact an involution (famous exercise from Johnstone’s Topos Theory).
    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2016
    • (edited Oct 7th 2016)

    Returning to the issue of abelian categories, I think we can exploit distributivity of subobject lattices to generally rule these out.

    Take any object AA, so that we have three subobjects i 1:A→A⊕Ai_1: A \to A \oplus A, i 2:A→A⊕Ai_2: A \to A \oplus A, and Δ:A→A⊕A\Delta: A \to A \oplus A. Then i 1∨i 2=⊤i_1 \vee i_2 = \top, whereas i 1∧Δ=⊥=i 2∧Δi_1 \wedge \Delta = \bot = i_2 \wedge \Delta. Under distributivity we have

    Δ=Δ∧⊤=Δ∧(i 1∨i 2)=(Δ∧i 1)∨(Δ∧i 2)=⊥∨⊥=⊥\Delta = \Delta \wedge \top = \Delta \wedge (i_1 \vee i_2) = (\Delta \wedge i_1) \vee (\Delta \wedge i_2) = \bot \vee \bot = \bot

    but Δ=⊥\Delta = \bot forces A=0A = 0. So only the trivial abelian category can have a subobject classifier.

    This probably rules out categories with biproducts generally, although some fine detail may have escaped me.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2016
    • (edited Oct 7th 2016)

    The category of classes in ZF(C) has a subobject classifier. Presumably the same is true for other boolean models of algebraic set theory.

    More generally, the class of pretoposes described in my IHES talk have a subobject classifier.

    Needless to say, all these are not locally small. (EDIT: actually, not all of them. The example constructed in my paper in Studia Logica is locally small, but it’s a topos. There are plenty more examples of that type, too)

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2016

    I’ve now added a bunch of material to subobject classifier.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeOct 7th 2016

    Thanks. I didn’t realize that a subobject classifier was an internal cartesian closed poset even if the ambient category isn’t a Heyting category. Interesting.

  14. Added weak subobject classifiers to generalisations section

    Anonymous

    diff, v50, current

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthormattecapu
    • CommentTimeMar 10th 2021

    Added definition of s.o. classifier for sheaf topoi

    Matteo Capucci

    diff, v51, current

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorThomas Holder
    • CommentTimeMay 4th 2022

    Added a reference to the paper

    • Peter Johnstone, Collapsed Toposes and Cartesian Closed Varieties , JA 129 (1990) pp.446-480.

    where he discusses subobject classifiers in varieties.

    diff, v54, current

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorSeth Chaiken
    • CommentTimeAug 7th 2022

    In the first definition,

    there is a unique morphism χ U:X→Ω such that there is a pullback diagram of the following form:

    I think it’s more clear to say: there is a unique morphism χ U:X→Ω such that the following is a pullback diagram:

    (Also the period after the diagram should be removed, since the sentence was ended by the colon.)

    The earlier wording confused me because all the data has already been given (the morphism Ω →* is unique since * is terminal, I don’t suggest adding this). I asked myself “what else is there which the property asserts exists” to finish specifying the diagram.

    This is my first comment, I hope it’s helpful. Seth

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeAug 7th 2022

    Okay, thanks. I have now (here) adjusted the wording and beautified the typesetting a little.

    diff, v55, current

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 5th 2023

    cross-links with boolean domain

    diff, v58, current

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2023

    fixing the pdf link for

    • William Lawvere, Quantifiers and sheaves, Actes Congrès intern. Math. 1 (1970) 329-334 [pdf]

    here and elsewhere

    diff, v59, current

1 to 20 of 20

  1.