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.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeAug 10th 2014
   • (edited Aug 10th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexI am interested in conditions that guarantee that the category of functors between two given categories is locally presentable or accessible. Some (conjectural, possibly wrong) statements that I have in mind: 1) Accessible functors between accessible categories form an accessible category. 2) Accessible functors from an accessible category to a locally presentable category form a locally presentable category. 3) Cocontinuous functors between locally presentable categories form a locally presentable category. 4) Continuous accessible functors between locally presentable categories form a locally presentable category. Which of these have a chance of being true? Is there any place in the literature that considers such statements?

   I am interested in conditions that guarantee that the category of functors between two given categories is locally presentable or accessible.

   Some (conjectural, possibly wrong) statements that I have in mind:

   1) Accessible functors between accessible categories form an accessible category.

   2) Accessible functors from an accessible category to a locally presentable category form a locally presentable category.

   3) Cocontinuous functors between locally presentable categories form a locally presentable category.

   4) Continuous accessible functors between locally presentable categories form a locally presentable category.

   Which of these have a chance of being true? Is there any place in the literature that considers such statements?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
   • CommentTimeAug 10th 2014
   • (edited Aug 11th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Zhen Lin
   Format: MarkdownItexIf you fix the accessibility rank then it's quite straightforward to reduce to the case of the ordinary functor category $[\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{D}]$ where $\mathcal{D}$ is accessible or locally presentable. More precisely, we have the following: 1. $\kappa$-accessible functors from a $\kappa$-accessible category to any accessible category form an accessible category. (It is not so easy to say what the accessibility rank is here.) 2. $\kappa$-accessible functors from a $\kappa$-accessible category to any locally $\lambda$-presentable category form a locally $\lambda$-presentable category. 3. Colimit-preserving functors between locally $\kappa$-presentable categories form a locally $\kappa$-presentable category. 4. Limit-preserving accessible functors between locally $\kappa$-presentable categories form the _opposite_ of a locally $\kappa$-presentable category (namely, the previous one). Indeed, the point is this: given a $\kappa$-accessible category $\mathcal{C} \simeq Ind^\kappa (\mathcal{A})$ ($\mathcal{A}$ essentially small), the category of $\kappa$-accessible functors $\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ (for arbitrary $\mathcal{D}$; here by "$\kappa$-accessible" I mean simply "preserves $\kappa$-filtered colimits") is naturally equivalent to the category of all $\mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{D}$. It should be well known that: 1. If $\mathcal{D}$ is accessible, then so is $[\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{D}]$. 2. If $\mathcal{D}$ is locally $\lambda$-presentable, then so is $[\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{D}]$. 3. Colimit-preserving functors out of a locally $\kappa$-presentable category are $\kappa$-accessible. 4. A right adjoint between locally $\kappa$-presentable categories is $\kappa$-accessible if and only if its left adjoint is strongly $\kappa$-accessible (i.e. preserves $\kappa$-presentable objects as well as $\kappa$-filtered colimits); and every limit-preserving accessible functor between locally presentable categories is a right adjoint. Statements 1 and 2 are proved in [Adamek and Rosický, _Locally presentable and accessible categories_], statement 3 is obvious, and statement 4 is a straightforward exercise. Thus the claims follow.

   If you fix the accessibility rank then it’s quite straightforward to reduce to the case of the ordinary functor category $[\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{D}]$ where $\mathcal{D}$ is accessible or locally presentable. More precisely, we have the following:

   1. $\kappa$-accessible functors from a $\kappa$-accessible category to any accessible category form an accessible category. (It is not so easy to say what the accessibility rank is here.)
   2. $\kappa$-accessible functors from a $\kappa$-accessible category to any locally $\lambda$-presentable category form a locally $\lambda$-presentable category.
   3. Colimit-preserving functors between locally $\kappa$-presentable categories form a locally $\kappa$-presentable category.
   4. Limit-preserving accessible functors between locally $\kappa$-presentable categories form the opposite of a locally $\kappa$-presentable category (namely, the previous one).

   Indeed, the point is this: given a $\kappa$-accessible category $\mathcal{C} \simeq Ind^\kappa (\mathcal{A})$ ($\mathcal{A}$ essentially small), the category of $\kappa$-accessible functors $\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ (for arbitrary $\mathcal{D}$; here by “$\kappa$-accessible” I mean simply “preserves $\kappa$-filtered colimits”) is naturally equivalent to the category of all $\mathcal{A} \to \mathcal{D}$. It should be well known that:

   1. If $\mathcal{D}$ is accessible, then so is $[\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{D}]$.
   2. If $\mathcal{D}$ is locally $\lambda$-presentable, then so is $[\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{D}]$.
   3. Colimit-preserving functors out of a locally $\kappa$-presentable category are $\kappa$-accessible.
   4. A right adjoint between locally $\kappa$-presentable categories is $\kappa$-accessible if and only if its left adjoint is strongly $\kappa$-accessible (i.e. preserves $\kappa$-presentable objects as well as $\kappa$-filtered colimits); and every limit-preserving accessible functor between locally presentable categories is a right adjoint.

   Statements 1 and 2 are proved in [Adamek and Rosický, Locally presentable and accessible categories], statement 3 is obvious, and statement 4 is a straightforward exercise. Thus the claims follow.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeAug 10th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexGreat, many thanks for such a comprehensive answer!

   Great, many thanks for such a comprehensive answer!

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorzskoda
   • CommentTimeAug 11th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: zskoda
   Format: MarkdownItex2 is amazingly comprehensive and clear answer!

   2 is amazingly comprehensive and clear answer!

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeAug 11th 2014
   • (edited Aug 11th 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexToo bad though that it's not on the nLab. Somebody should add it.

   Too bad though that it’s not on the nLab. Somebody should add it.

6. • CommentRowNumber6.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeAug 30th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexWhat happens if we don't restrict the accessibility rank in (1) and (2), i.e., take all accessible functors and not just κ-accessible ones for some κ? Is there any chance that the statements still hold?

   What happens if we don’t restrict the accessibility rank in (1) and (2), i.e., take all accessible functors and not just κ-accessible ones for some κ? Is there any chance that the statements still hold?

7. • CommentRowNumber7.
   • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
   • CommentTimeAug 30th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Zhen Lin
   Format: MarkdownItexIt's false in general. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be an accessible category that is _not_ essentially small. Consider the category $\mathcal{A}$ of all accessible functors $\mathcal{C} \to \mathbf{Set}$. This is the same as the smallest full replete subcategory of $[\mathcal{C}, \mathbf{Set}]$ containing all representable functors and closed under small colimits. In particular, $\mathcal{A}$ is accessible if and only if $\mathcal{A}$ locally presentable. I claim $\mathcal{A}$ is not accessible. Indeed, suppose $\mathcal{A}$ has a small generating family, say $\mathcal{G}$. Then for some regular cardinal $\kappa$, every member of $\mathcal{G}$ is $\kappa$-accessible. So consider $\mathcal{C} (X, -)$ for some object $X$ that is _not_ $\kappa$-presentable. (Such an $X$ exists because $\mathcal{C}$ is _not_ essentially small.) Since $\mathcal{G}$ generates, there is a small diagram of $\kappa$-accessible functors whose colimit is $\mathcal{C} (X, -)$. But then $\mathcal{C} (X, -)$ is a retract of a $\kappa$-accessible functor and hence $\kappa$-accessible: a contradiction. That said, $\mathcal{A}$ is [class-locally presentable](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpaa.2012.01.015).

   It’s false in general. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be an accessible category that is not essentially small. Consider the category $\mathcal{A}$ of all accessible functors $\mathcal{C} \to \mathbf{Set}$. This is the same as the smallest full replete subcategory of $[\mathcal{C}, \mathbf{Set}]$ containing all representable functors and closed under small colimits. In particular, $\mathcal{A}$ is accessible if and only if $\mathcal{A}$ locally presentable.

   I claim $\mathcal{A}$ is not accessible. Indeed, suppose $\mathcal{A}$ has a small generating family, say $\mathcal{G}$. Then for some regular cardinal $\kappa$, every member of $\mathcal{G}$ is $\kappa$-accessible. So consider $\mathcal{C} (X, -)$ for some object $X$ that is not $\kappa$-presentable. (Such an $X$ exists because $\mathcal{C}$ is not essentially small.) Since $\mathcal{G}$ generates, there is a small diagram of $\kappa$-accessible functors whose colimit is $\mathcal{C} (X, -)$. But then $\mathcal{C} (X, -)$ is a retract of a $\kappa$-accessible functor and hence $\kappa$-accessible: a contradiction.

   That said, $\mathcal{A}$ is class-locally presentable.

8. • CommentRowNumber8.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeAug 31st 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItexThanks a lot, the concept of class-locally presentable categories does clarify things quite a bit. And apparently there are also class-combinatorial model categories, of which there are several interesting examples.

   Thanks a lot, the concept of class-locally presentable categories does clarify things quite a bit. And apparently there are also class-combinatorial model categories, of which there are several interesting examples.

9. • CommentRowNumber9.
   • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
   • CommentTimeAug 31st 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Dmitri Pavlov
   Format: MarkdownItex@Urs: It seems to me that the above writeup by Zhen Lin could be incorporated (by me, for example) in one of the nLab pages without much difficulty, as long as the original author does not object to it. The only question is in which article this material should go, one possible choice is <http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/functor+category#properties>.

   @Urs: It seems to me that the above writeup by Zhen Lin could be incorporated (by me, for example) in one of the nLab pages without much difficulty, as long as the original author does not object to it. The only question is in which article this material should go, one possible choice is http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/functor+category#properties.

10. • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeAug 31st 2014
    • PermaLink
    Author: Zhen Lin
    Format: MarkdownItexI have no objections.

    I have no objections.

11. • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2014
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItex> The only question is in which article this material should go, one possible choice is <http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/functor+category#properties>. That sounds good.

    The only question is in which article this material should go, one possible choice is http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/functor+category#properties.

    That sounds good.

12. • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2014
    • PermaLink
    Author: Dmitri Pavlov
    Format: MarkdownItexI added the material in this thread to <http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/functor+category#accessibility_and_local_presentability>. While editing, I formulated some statements that could describe what happens for the case of a [[class-accessible category]] and [[class-locally presentable category]], though I am hesitant to say more in the article because my knowledge of class-accessible and class-locally presentable categories is too shallow, so I place them here instead. * Accessible functors between accessible categories form an [[class-accessible category]]. * (Strongly?) class-accessible functors between class-accessible categories form an [[class-accessible category]]. * Accessible functors from an accessible category to a locally presentable category form a [[class-locally presentable category]]. * (Strongly?) class-accessible functors from a class-accessible category to a class-locally presentable category form a [[class-locally presentable category]].

    I added the material in this thread to http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/functor+category#accessibility_and_local_presentability.

    While editing, I formulated some statements that could describe what happens for the case of a class-accessible category and class-locally presentable category, though I am hesitant to say more in the article because my knowledge of class-accessible and class-locally presentable categories is too shallow, so I place them here instead.

    • Accessible functors between accessible categories form an class-accessible category.

    • (Strongly?) class-accessible functors between class-accessible categories form an class-accessible category.

    • Accessible functors from an accessible category to a locally presentable category form a class-locally presentable category.

    • (Strongly?) class-accessible functors from a class-accessible category to a class-locally presentable category form a class-locally presentable category.

13. • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2014
    • (edited Sep 1st 2014)
    • PermaLink
    Author: Urs
    Format: MarkdownItexThanks. I have added some more hyperlinks to keywords (minimum at _[[class-locally presentable category]]_) and have made it a subsection of the Properties-section.

    Thanks. I have added some more hyperlinks to keywords (minimum at class-locally presentable category) and have made it a subsection of the Properties-section.

14. • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2014
    • PermaLink
    Author: Zhen Lin
    Format: MarkdownItexI cannot comment on class-accessibility. > In general, accessible functors between accessible categories do not form an accessible category due to set-theoretical size issues. I am not inclined to call these issues "set-theoretical". That seems to suggest that adding set-theoretic axioms (e.g. Vopěnka's principle) would solve the problem, but this is very different.

    I cannot comment on class-accessibility.

    In general, accessible functors between accessible categories do not form an accessible category due to set-theoretical size issues.

    I am not inclined to call these issues “set-theoretical”. That seems to suggest that adding set-theoretic axioms (e.g. Vopěnka’s principle) would solve the problem, but this is very different.

15. • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorDmitri Pavlov
    • CommentTimeSep 1st 2014
    • PermaLink
    Author: Dmitri Pavlov
    Format: MarkdownItexI deleted “set-theoretical” from the description.

    I deleted “set-theoretical” from the description.