Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

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 bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar 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-theory subobject 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).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeApr 17th 2013

    Karoubian category

    Added the definitions of Karoubian category and Karoubi envelope that appear in (an exercise in) SGA 4.

    A stupid question: why do they call that difference kernel the image of p? In what sense is it the image?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 17th 2013

    The equaliser of an idempotent and the identity is (as an object) also the coequaliser of the same pair. So you can think of it either as a quotient or as a subobject!

    But doesn’t this article duplicate what is at Cauchy complete category and Karoubi envelope?

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeApr 17th 2013
    • (edited Apr 17th 2013)

    The equaliser of an idempotent and the identity is (as an object) also the coequaliser of the same pair.

    This I do understand; if one can think of Ker(id, p) as the kernel of p then one can also see it as the image, since it is canonically isomorphic to Coker(id, p). What i don't understand is in what sense Ker(id, p) is the kernel of p? (Why is a Karoubi category one where all idempotents "have a kernel"?) I thought the kernel is the object represented by the functor Y -> Ker(Hom(Y,X) -> Hom(Y,X)), or the equaliser Ker(p, 0) when C admits zero morphisms.

    But doesn’t this article duplicate what is at Cauchy complete category and Karoubi envelope?

    Hm... it's strange that there weren't even any links between these two pages. I suppose we will have to do some reorganization.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2013
    • (edited Apr 18th 2013)

    This I do understand; if one can think of Ker(id, p) as the kernel of p then one can also see it as the image, since it is canonically isomorphic to Coker(id, p). What i don’t understand is in what sense Ker(id, p) is the kernel of p? (Why is a Karoubi category one where all idempotents “have a kernel”?) I thought the kernel is the object represented by the functor Y -> Ker(Hom(Y,X) -> Hom(Y,X)), or the equaliser Ker(p, 0) when C admits zero morphisms.

    Oh, I think that’s just a French-ism. It seems to me people close to algebraic geometry like saying ‘kernel’ instead of ‘equaliser’.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2013
    • (edited Apr 18th 2013)

    Hm… it’s strange that there weren’t even any links between these two pages.

    ??? Karoubi envelope links directly to Cauchy complete category, in more than one place. And I see that Cauchy complete category links back to Karoubi envelope as well.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2013

    Oh, I think that’s just a French-ism. It seems to me people close to algebraic geometry like saying ‘kernel’ instead of ‘equaliser’.

    Ah, I see.

    Hm... it's strange that there weren't even any links between these two pages.

    ??? Karoubi envelope links directly to Cauchy complete category, in more than one place. And I see that Cauchy complete category links back to Karoubi envelope as well.

    Sorry, I meant between the pages Karoubian category and Karoubi envelope.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2013

    Of course, linking between pages is the easiest thing in the world. If you see pages that ought to be linked, just put them in (as I just did, cross-linking between Karoubian category and Karoubi envelope).

    While I was at it, I added some more material to Karoubian category (e.g., answering a question about a converse statement).

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthoradeelkh
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2013
    • (edited Apr 18th 2013)

    I added some more material to Karoubian category (e.g., answering a question about a converse statement).

    Thanks!

    Since p:XXp:X\to X is idempotent iff id Xp\id_X - p is idempotent, this is the same as saying every idempotent has a kernel.

    Ah, this was precisely the point I was missing.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 31st 2013

    I moved a bunch of redirects pointing to various synonyms of “idempotent completion” from Karoubian category to idempotent completion. Okay?

    I also made some slight cosmetic edits in the former entry.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2014
    • (edited Mar 9th 2014)

    The entries Karoubian category, , Karoubi envelope, Cauchy completion confuse me quote a lot in the case of AbAb-enriched categories (what is the default case for Karoubian envelope in the practical mathematics). If understood the terminology, the nnLab says that the Cauchy completion is the general case of enriched categories and Karoubi envelope is the default for usual categories. This seems to say that in the case of Ab-enriched categories that the underlying Set-category of the Karoubian completion is the Karoubian completion of the underlying Set-category. But this seems not to be so. Borceux’s monograph’s proof of the existence of completion takes Yoneda embedding, notes that it is Karoubi complete, takes the representables and their split subobjects where one particular splitting is chosen for each such object. So, in the case of a ring viewed as a AbAb-enriched category with one object, one would look just at projective ideals (+with splitting within the ring), while the true Karoubian envelope is the category of finitely generated projectives. Thus the Karoubi completion of AbAb-enriched categories is completion under idempotents and direct sums. AbAb-enriched category does not need to have the direct sums so it is not obvious how the general discussion implies we have to take retracts of finite coproducts ?

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2014
    • (edited Mar 9th 2014)

    Zoran, I expect you’re right that the situation is a bit of a mess, but let me try to summarize what I think you are saying and then propose a remedy:

    • The nLab says that the Karoubi envelope is the Cauchy completion for categories considered qua SetSet-enriched categories, but

    • Usually in mathematics, when the term “Karoubi envelope” comes up, it is understood as pertaining to AbAb-enriched categories, where Cauchy completion means something else (closure under absolute colimits, which includes direct sums and splitting of idempotents).

    I think that sounds right to me, particularly the second point. I think merging idempotent completion into Karoubi envelope is therefore a bad idea; we should have them as separate entries. (I can check once this comment is posted, but I prefer the term idempotent-splitting completion and hope that at least there’s a redirect for that. Edit: yes there is, but the redirect is to Karoubi envelope.)

    Of course Cauchy completion, for which we actually have multiple entries, is the most general (pertaining to all forms of enrichment), and I think deserves a stand-alone entry.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2014
    • (edited Mar 9th 2014)

    I expected the answer from you – and was lucky to get it quickly!

    let me try to summarize what I think you are saying

    Yes, you summarized what I said that I suspected that it was true, but was not sure. Otherwise I would not ask (I am trying to compare many external references, but it is hard to quickly find explicit all what I need in a due comparison).

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2014

    closure under absolute colimits, which includes direct sums and splitting of idempotents

    Not only finite direct sums ?

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2014

    No, I meant only finite direct sums for the AbAb-enriched case.

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 9th 2014

    After googling a little bit, it seems that all the hits I got pointed to Karoubi envelope as a synonym of idempotent-splitting completion (even for AbAb-enriched categories). So what can I say? It would be nice if Karoubi envelope in the literature on AbAb-enriched categories meant the “true Karoubi envelope” as Zoran put it, but for whatever reason people don’t seem to adopt the “true” concept under that name. Does Borceux treat the general enriched case?

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeApr 17th 2014

    Just in case anyone is wondering, the “Anonymous Coward” who performed the last edits at Karoubi envelope was me (it was an accident; I’m on vacation and working from a computer different from my own).

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)