Processing math: 100%
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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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.
    • CommentAuthorjoe.hannon
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2014

    In overcategory, it is shown that the forgetful functor aCC reflects limits, and it is mentioned that this is a consequence of the undercategory being the category of algebras for the monad bab. What about the comma category aR, where R:CD and aD? On the one hand, it seems like the diagrammatic proof still goes through and the forgetful functor aRC which takes (aRx)x reflects limits. On the other hand, I cannot see a monad (or even just an endofunctor) for which aR comprises the algebras. Seems like it wants to be the functor xaRx, but this is not an endofunctor. Is there a better way to understand how aRC behaves with respect to limits?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorZhen Lin
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2014
    • (edited Sep 27th 2014)

    To answer the title question: no, the comma category need not be monadic. One can easily contrive an example where C is non-empty but (aR) is empty. (For instance, take C to be the category of non-trivial rings, D the category of all rings, R the inclusion, and a a trivial ring.)

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorjoe.hannon
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2014

    Ok yes, that’s excellent. Thank you. So aR is definitely not monadic. But even in this case, the functor aRC reflects limits (vacuously).

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 29th 2014

    If R doesn’t preserve limits, then I don’t see how to show that (aR)C reflects them.