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 definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite 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 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.
   • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
   • CommentTimeDec 21st 2014
   • (edited Dec 21st 2014)
   • PermaLink
   Author: Todd_Trimble
   Format: MarkdownItexHere's something I'd never noticed before yesterday: in the category of posets, letting $Down(P)$ denote the internal hom $[P^{op}, \mathbf{2}]$, there is at most one retraction $\pi$ of the yoneda = principal down-set embedding $y: P \to Down(P)$, and this occurs precisely when $\pi \dashv y$ (so that $P$ is a sup-lattice). A "lowbrow" proof might go like this: if $D \subseteq P$ is a down-set, then for all $d \in D$ we have $y(d) \subseteq D$, whence $d = \pi y(d) \leq \pi(D)$, showing that $\pi(D)$ is an upper bound of $D$. On the other hand, if $e$ is any upper bound of $D$, then $D \subseteq y(e)$, whence $\pi(D) \leq \pi y(e) = e$, so that $\pi(D)$ is a least upper bound of $D$. I don't know why exactly, but I found this slightly disconcerting. Offhand, I would have expected *many* retractions are possible. But there's at most one! Slightly more generally: suppose $V$ is a commutative quantale (I'm gearing up to general enriched categories) which we can think of as a small [[cosmos]], and suppose $P$ is a $V$-enriched category. If $f: P^{op} \to V$ is a $V$-functor, then we can use the enriched so-called "co-yoneda" lemma to write $$f = \int^p f(p) \cdot y(p)$$ and now if we suppose $\pi: V^{P^{op}} \to P$ is a $V$-functor retraction of $y$, then we may put $e = y \circ \pi: V^{P^{op}} \to V^{P^{op}}$. The enrichment of $e$ yields a canonical transformation $$f = \int^p f(p) \cdot e y(p) \to e(f)$$ (where the first equation uses $e y = y \pi y = y$) which gives the unit $1 \to y\pi$ of an adjunction $\pi \dashv y$, with counit the retraction isomorphism $\pi y \stackrel{\sim}{\to} 1_P$. So again, there's only one possible retraction. For a while I thought this type of calculation might generalize to a general cosmos $V$. If there is $\pi: V^{C^{op}} \to C$ together with a $V$-natural isomorphism $\pi y_C \to 1_C$, one can indeed manufacture a $V$-natural candidate for a unit $1 \to y_C \pi$ along the above lines, but I wasn't able to see the triangular equations (which come for free in posetal cases like the above). (Not even for the case $V = Set$.) Either this is because I'm blind or stupid here, or in fact in general there is no such adjunction. Which is it? So I'm putting this question to readers here: is there an example of a locally small category $C$ and a functor $F: Set^{C^{op}} \to C$ and an invertible transformation $F y_C \to 1_C$ but where $F$ is *not* left adjoint to $y_C$?

   Here’s something I’d never noticed before yesterday: in the category of posets, letting denote the internal hom , there is at most one retraction of the yoneda = principal down-set embedding , and this occurs precisely when (so that is a sup-lattice).

   A “lowbrow” proof might go like this: if is a down-set, then for all we have , whence , showing that is an upper bound of . On the other hand, if is any upper bound of , then , whence , so that is a least upper bound of .

   I don’t know why exactly, but I found this slightly disconcerting. Offhand, I would have expected many retractions are possible. But there’s at most one!

   Slightly more generally: suppose is a commutative quantale (I’m gearing up to general enriched categories) which we can think of as a small cosmos, and suppose is a -enriched category. If is a -functor, then we can use the enriched so-called “co-yoneda” lemma to write

   and now if we suppose is a -functor retraction of , then we may put . The enrichment of yields a canonical transformation

   (where the first equation uses ) which gives the unit of an adjunction , with counit the retraction isomorphism . So again, there’s only one possible retraction.

   For a while I thought this type of calculation might generalize to a general cosmos . If there is together with a -natural isomorphism , one can indeed manufacture a -natural candidate for a unit along the above lines, but I wasn’t able to see the triangular equations (which come for free in posetal cases like the above). (Not even for the case .) Either this is because I’m blind or stupid here, or in fact in general there is no such adjunction. Which is it?

   So I’m putting this question to readers here: is there an example of a locally small category and a functor and an invertible transformation but where is not left adjoint to ?

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
   • CommentTimeDec 22nd 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Mike Shulman
   Format: MarkdownItexInteresting question! At first I thought I could also generalize your calculation, but now I think I was wrong. I do think I can prove that if such an $F$ exists, then $C$ is "weakly total", in that it has weak colimits (existence but not uniqueness of factorizations) of all the diagrams that a total category would have colimits of, and $F$ assigns those weak colimits. Conversely, if $C$ is weakly total and we can choose those weak colimits functorially in a way that assigns the actual colimit of each representable, then that functorial choice ought to be such an $F$. Can we think of any weakly total category that is not total?

   Interesting question! At first I thought I could also generalize your calculation, but now I think I was wrong.

   I do think I can prove that if such an exists, then is “weakly total”, in that it has weak colimits (existence but not uniqueness of factorizations) of all the diagrams that a total category would have colimits of, and assigns those weak colimits. Conversely, if is weakly total and we can choose those weak colimits functorially in a way that assigns the actual colimit of each representable, then that functorial choice ought to be such an . Can we think of any weakly total category that is not total?