arxiv: v2 [math.ct] 19 Feb 2008

Transcription

1 Understanding the small object argument arxiv: v2 [math.ct] 19 Feb 2008 Richard Garner Department o Mathematics, Uppsala University, Box 480, S Uppsala, Sweden October 14, 2011 Abstract The small object argument is a transinite construction which, starting rom a set o maps in a category, generates a weak actorisation system on that category. As useul as it is, the small object argument has some problematic aspects: it possesses no universal property; it does not converge; and it does not seem to be related to other transinite constructions occurring in categorical algebra. In this paper, we give an algebraic reinement o the small object argument, cast in terms o Grandis and Tholen s natural weak actorisation systems, which rectiies each o these three deiciencies. 1 Introduction The concept o actorisation system provides us with a way o viewing a category C as a compositional product o two subcategories L and R. The two key ingredients are an axiom o actorisation, which airms that any map o C may be written as a map o L ollowed by a map o R, and an axiom o orthogonality, which assures us that this decomposition is unique up to unique isomorphism. From these two basic axioms a very rich theory can be developed, and a very useul one, since most categories arising in mathematical practice will admit at least a ew dierent actorisation systems. However, in those mathematical areas where the primary objects o study are themselves higher-dimensional entities most notably, topology and higher dimensional category theory the notion o actorisation system is requently too strong, Supported by a Research Fellowship o St John s College, Cambridge and a Marie Curie Intra- European Fellowship, Project No

2 since we would like actorisations be unique, not up to isomorphism, but up to something weaker. Thus in a 2-category, we might want uniqueness up-to-equivalence; or in a category o topological spaces, uniqueness up-to-homotopy. The usual way o achieving this is to pass rom actorisation systems to weak actorisation systems. The modiier weak has the amiliar eect o turning an assertion o unique existence into an assertion o mere existence, here in respect to the diagonal ill-ins which are guaranteed to us by the axiom o orthogonality. From this, we would not necessarily expect the actorisations in a weak actorisation system (henceorth w..s.) to be unique up to anything at all: but remarkably, each weak actorisation system generates its own notion o equivalence which respect to which its actorisations are unique. The ramework within which this is most readily expressed is that o Quillen s model categories [20], which consist in a clever interaction o two w..s. s on a category: but we can make do with a single w..s., and or the purposes o this paper, we will. Whilst in many respects, the theory o w..s. s is similar to the theory o actorisation systems (which we will henceorth call strong actorisation systems to avoid ambiguity), there are some puzzling aspects to it: and notable amongst these is the manner in which one typically constructs a w..s. In the case o strong actorisation systems, there is a very elegant theory which, given a suiciently well-behaved category C, can generate a strong actorisation system rom any set o maps J C 2. The R-maps will be the maps which are right orthogonal to each o the maps in J (in a sense which we recall more precisely in Section 2); and the L-maps, those which are let orthogonal to each o the maps in R. The key diiculty is how we should build the actorisations, and or this we are able bring to bear a well-established body o knowledge concerning transinite constructions in categories, on which the deinitive word is [17]. There is a corresponding theory or weak actorisation systems. Again, we suppose ourselves given a well-behaved C and a set o maps J, but this time we take or R the class o maps weakly right orthogonal to J, and or L, the class o maps weakly let orthogonal to R. To obtain a weak actorisation system, we must also have actorisation o maps: and or this, we apply a construction known as the small object argument, introduced by Quillen [20], and irst given in its ull generality by Bousield [6]. The problem lies in divining the precise nature o the small object argument. It is certainly some kind o transinite construction: but it is a transinite construction which does not converge, has no universal property, and does not seem to be an instance o any other known transinite construction. In this paper, we present a modiication o the small object argument which rectiies each o these deiciencies: it is guaranteed to converge; the actorisations it provides are reely generated by the set J, in a suitable sense; and it may be 2

3 construed as an instance o a amiliar ree monoid construction. To make this possible, we must adopt a rather dierent perspective on weak actorisation systems. The deinition o a w..s. speciies classes o maps L and R together with axioms which airm properties: that there exist actorisations, or that there exist certain diagonal ill-ins. But a key tenet o category theory is that anything we speciy in terms o properties should have an equally valid expression in terms o structure: and in the case o w..s. s, a suitable algebraic reormulation is given by Tholen and Grandis notion o natural weak actorisation system [13]. The extra algebraicity provided by natural w..s. s allows us a clearer view o what is actually going on in the small object argument. We now have a unctor rom the category o natural w..s. s on C into CAT which sends each natural w..s. to its category o L-maps; and we can actor this unctor through CAT/C 2. We may view the resultant unctor NWFS(C) CAT/C 2 as being the semantics side o a syntax/semantics adjunction: or which the syntax side is precisely our reinement o the small object argument. Although all our arguments will be cast in terms o natural w..s. s, we will see that there are ramiications or plain w..s. s as well, since our reined version o the small object argument can equally well be applied there, giving rise to actorisations which are less redundant than the original argument, and in many cases can be easily calculated by hand. Acknowledgements. My oremost thanks go to the organisers o CT 07 or providing such a pleasant and stimulating environment within which to present this material. Further thanks go to Clemens Berger, Eugenia Cheng, Je Egger, André Hirschowitz, Martin Hyland, Joachim Kock, Mike Shulman, Carlos Simpson, Walter Tholen, and members o the Stockholm-Uppsala Logic Seminar or useul discussions and comments. 2 Notions o actorisation system In this section, we describe in detail the various sorts o actorisation system mentioned in the Introduction. 2.1 Most amiliar is the notion o strong actorisation system (L, R) on a category C, introduced by Freyd and Kelly in [9]. This is given by two classes o maps L and R in C which are each closed under composition with isomorphisms, and which satisy the axioms o (actorisation) Every map e: X Y in C can be written as e = g, where L and g R; and 3

4 (orthogonality) g or all L and g R, where g means that or every commutative square A h C B k D in C, there is a unique map j : B C such that gj = k and j = h. g (2.1) Instead o writing g, we may also say that is let orthogonal to g or that g is right orthogonal to ; moreover, given a class A o maps in C, we write A = { g C 2 g or all g A } and A = { C 2 g or all A } ; and this sets up a Galois connection on the collection o all classes o maps in C. In a strong actorisation system, we have R = L and L = R, so that the classes L and R determine each other. 2.2 We arrive at the notion o a weak actorisation system [6] by making two alterations to the above deinition. One is minor: we require that L and R are closed under retracts in the arrow category C 2, rather than merely closed under isomorphism. The other is more ar-reaching: we replace the orthogonality condition with (weak orthogonality) g or all L and g R, where g means that or every commutative square as in (2.1), there exists a (not necessarily unique) ill-in j: B C such that gj = k and j = h. We now have a Galois connection ( ) ( ) ; and again, the classes L and R o a w..s. determine each other by the equations L = R and R = L. However, the classes L and R need not determine the actorisation o a map, even up to isomorphism, as the ollowing examples show: 2.3 Examples: (i) (Epi, Mono) is a strong actorisation system on Set; but (Mono, Epi) is a weak actorisation system. For the latter, there are two natural choices o actorisation or a map : X Y : the graph actorisation which goes via X Y ; and the cograph actorisation, which goes through X + Y. (ii) There is a weak actorisation system on Cat given by (injective equivalences, isoibrations). A injective equivalence is a unctor which is both injective on objects and an equivalence o categories; whilst an isoibration is a unctor along which all isomorphisms have litings. 4

5 (iii) There is a weak actorisation system (anodyne extensions, Kan ibrations) on SSet = [ op,set], the category o simplicial sets. The Kan ibrations are easy to describe: they are precisely the maps which are weakly right orthogonal to the set o horn inclusions Λ k [n] [n]. The anodyne extensions are the class o maps weakly let orthogonal to all Kan ibrations; more explicitly, they are obtained by closing the set o horn inclusions under countable composition, cobase change, coproduct and retract. 2.4 As we mentioned in the Introduction, Grandis and Tholen s natural weak actorisation systems [13] provide an algebraisation o the notion o weak actorisation system. In order to motivate the deinition, we irst give a similar algebraisation o the notion o strong actorisation system. So suppose that we are given a strong actorisation system (L, R) on a category C, together with or each map o C a choice o actorisation: X Y X λ K ρ Y, where λ L and ρ R. It ollows rom the orthogonality property that this assignation may be extended in a unique way to a unctorial actorisation: which is to say, a unctor F : C 2 C 3 (where 2 and 3 are the ordinals (0 1) and (0 1 2) respectively) which splits the ace map d 1 : C 3 C 2 given by d 1 (X Y g Z) = (X g Z). 2.5 This ace map is induced by the unctor δ 1 : 2 3 picking out the unique arrow 0 2: we have d 1 = C δ 1. There are two other unctors δ 0,δ 2 : 2 3, and homming these into C induces two urther ace maps d 0,d 2 : C 3 C 2, with d 0 (X Y g Z) = (Y g Z) and d 2 (X Y g Z) = (X Y ). Postcomposing our unctorial actorisation F : C 2 C 3 with these induces unctors L,R: C 2 C 2, which send an object o C 2 to λ and ρ respectively. 2.6 There is urther structure in Cat(2,3) which we can make use o: we have natural transormations γ 2,1 : δ 2 δ 1 and γ 1,0 : δ 1 δ 0, and by homming these into C, we induce natural transormations c 2,1 : d 2 d 1 and c 1,0 : d 1 d 0. Postcomposing F : C 2 C 3 with these now gives us natural transormations Φ: L id C 2 and 5

6 Λ: id C 2 R with components X id X X X λ K Φ = λ and Λ = ρ K ρ Y Y idy Y. 2.7 Now, because F : C 2 C 3 arose rom a strong actorisation system, the corresponding Λ : id C 2 R will provide the unit or a relection o C 2 into the ull subcategory o C 2 spanned by the R-maps. To see this, consider a morphism X Y h k W Z g rom to g in C 2, with g an R-map. Then applying orthogonality to the square λ X h W g K k.ρ Z we obtain a map j : K W making both triangles commute; and so the map (h,k): g actors uniquely through Λ as Λ ρ (j,k) g. Thus the subcategory spanned by the R-maps is a ull, replete, relective subcategory o C 2, via the relector Λ: id C 2 R, and so (R,Λ) extends uniquely to an idempotent monad R = (R,Λ,Π) whose category o R-algebras may be identiied with this subcategory. Dually, the pair (L,Φ) may be extended uniquely to an idempotent comonad L = (L,Φ,Σ) whose category o coalgebras is isomorphic to the ull subcategory o C 2 spanned by the L-maps. Thus we have proved: 2.8 Proposition: There is a bijective correspondence between strong actorisation systems (L, R) on a category C or which a choice o actorisation or every map has been made, and unctorial actorisations F : C 2 C 3 or which the corresponding pointed endounctor (R,Λ) underlies an idempotent monad and the corresponding copointed endounctor (L, Φ) underlies an idempotent comonad. 6

7 The notion o natural weak actorisation system now arises by generalising the situation o this Proposition in a very obvious way: by dropping the requirement o idempotency. 2.9 Deinition: [13] A natural weak actorisation system on a category C is given by a unctorial actorisation F : C 2 C 3, together with an extension o the corresponding pointed endounctor (R,Λ) to a monad R = (R,Λ,Π); and an extension o the corresponding copointed endounctor (L,Φ) to a comonad L = (L,Φ,Σ). Observe that we can reconstruct F rom L and R, and thus we may speak simply o a natural weak actorisation system (L,R) Examples: (i) There is a natural w..s. on Set whose underlying unctorial actorisation is the graph actorisation o Examples 2.3(i): X Y X id, X Y π 2 Y. Dually, there is a natural w..s. on Set which actors through X + Y. These examples generalise to any category with products or coproducts, as the case may be. (ii) There is a natural w..s. on Cat whose underlying unctorial actorisation is given by C F D C λ F D F ρ F D, where D F is the comma category whose objects are triples (c,d, : d Fc); λ F is the unctor sending c in C to (id: Fc Fc) in D F; and ρ F is the unctor sending ( : d Fc) in D F to d. There are variations on this theme: we can replace D F with the dual comma category F D; or with the iso-comma category D = F, which is the ull subcategory o D F whose objects are the invertible arrows. These examples generalise to any 2-category with comma objects. (iii) By Proposition 2.8, any strong actorisation system on C gives rise to a natural weak actorisation system on C It is not immediately clear that a natural w..s. deserves the name o weak actorisation system. To show that this is so, we must exhibit suitable analogues o the axioms o actorisation and weak orthogonality; or which we must irst identiy 7

8 what the L-maps and R-maps are. Now, or a strong actorisation system, we can reconstruct the L- and R-maps rom the associated comonad L and monad R as their respective coalgebras and algebras; and thus it is natural to deine: 2.12 Deinition: Let (L,R) be a natural w..s. on C. We write L-Map or the category o L-coalgebras, and call its objects L-maps; and write R-Map or the category o R-algebras and call its objects R-maps. C. Note that being an L- or R-map is structure on, and not a property o, a map o 2.13 Examples: (i) For the natural w..s. on Set which actors : X Y through X+Y, an R-map structure on g: C D is a splitting or g: that is, a morphism g : Y X with gg = id Y. An L-map structure on : A B exists just when is a monomorphism, and in this case is uniquely determined: thus the comonad L is property-like, though not idempotent. (ii) For the natural w..s. on Cat which actors F : C D through D F, an R- map is a split ibration: that is, a Grothendieck ibration with chosen litings that compose up strictly. An L-map is, roughly speaking, an inclusion o a relective subcategory: more precisely, an L-map structure on a unctor F : C D is given by speciying a unctor F : D C and a natural transormation η: 1 D FF satisying F F = 1 D, F η = id F and ηf = id F. For the n.w..s. which actors through F D instead, the R-algebras are split opibrations and the L-coalgebras, inclusions o corelective subcategories; whilst i we actor through D = F, then R-algebras are split isoibrations, and L-coalgebras are retract equivalences. (iii) I we view a strong actorisation system (L, R) on C as a natural w..s., then the L-maps and R-maps reduce to L-maps and R-maps. In this particular case, being an L- or R-map returns to being a mere property; and this is because the comonad L and monad R are idempotent. Further details on these examples may be ound in [13] With this deinition o L-map and R-map, it is now clear that any natural w..s. (L,R) admits an axiom o actorisation: given a map : C D, we obtain an L-map structure on λ : C K by applying the coree unctor C 2 L-Map, and an R-map structure on ρ : K D by applying the ree unctor C 2 R-Map. 8

9 2.15 More interestingly, we also have an axiom o weak orthogonality. To see this, suppose that we are given a square like (2.1) together with an L-coalgebra structure on and an R-algebra structure on g. Thus we have a coaction morphism e: L and an action morphism m: Rg g, which the (co)algebra axioms orce to be o the ollowing orms: e = A id A A λ and m = K ρ g p C g B s K D idd D. Furthermore, we may view the square (2.1) as a map (h,k): g in C 2 ; and so applying the unctorial actorisation o (L, R) yields an arrow K(h, k): K Kg in C. We now obtain a diagonal ill-in or (2.1) as the composite B s K K(h,) Kg p C. (2.2) Note that this ill-in is canonically determined by the L-map structure on and the R-map structure on g. Indeed, it is reasonable to view an L-map structure as encoding a coherent choice o liting opposite every R-map, and vice versa Example: Let us see how we obtain diagonal ill-ins or the natural w..s. on Cat which actors F : C D through D F. We suppose ourselves given a square o unctors F A H C B K D, with F an L-coalgebra and G an R-algebra. The L-coalgebra structure on F provides us with a unctor F : B A and a natural transormation η: 1 FF. Thus we can deine a unctor HF : B C and a natural transormation G B K HF α D; G C 9

10 indeed, we have GHF = KFF, and so can take α = Kη: K KFF. Now using the R-algebra structure on G, we may actorise this 2-cell as: B K HF α J = G C D, where J is given by reindexing HF along α. It is not hard to see that this unctor J : C D is precisely the ill-in speciied by equation (2.2) above Remark: It ollows rom the observations o 2.14 and 2.15 that any natural w..s. (L,R) on a category C has an underlying plain w..s. For i we deine L to be the class o arrows in C which admit some L-coalgebra structure and R to be the class o arrows admitting some R-algebra structure, then (L, R) will satisy all the axioms required o a w..s., expect possibly or closure under retracts. So we take L and R to be the respective retract-closures o L and R; and now the pair ( L, R) gives a w..s. on C It turns to be very useul to strengthen the notion o natural w..s. slightly. For this, we consider the natural transormations Π: RR R and Σ: L LL associated to a natural w..s. (L, R). We may denote their respective components at C 2 by Kρ π K A id A A Π = ρ ρ ρ and Σ = λ λ λ B idb B K σ Kλ ; again, the arrows written as identities are orced to be so by the (co)monad axioms. Now, these maps σ and π provide us with the components o a natural transormation : LR RL whose component at is given by: = K σ Kλ λ ρ ρ λ Kρ π K. (That this square commutes is a consequence o the (co)monad axioms). We will say that a natural w..s. satisies the distributivity axiom i this natural transormation 10

11 : LR RL deines a distributive law o L over R in the sense o [4]. Note that this is a property o a natural w..s., rather than extra structure on it Example: We may check that each o the natural w..s. s given so ar satisies the distributivity axiom There are important results about n.w..s. s that are true only i we restrict to those or which the distributivity axiom holds. Two such results are Theorem 4.14 and Theorem A.1 below; and there is another which allows us to characterise R-maps purely in terms o liting properties against the L-maps, and vice versa. In order that these results should be valid, we henceorth modiy the deinition o natural w..s. to include the requirement that the distributivity axiom should hold. 3 Free and algebraically-ree natural w..s. s 3.1 Our goal is to use the theory o natural w..s. s to give a categorically coherent reormulation o the small object argument. As we stated in the Introduction, this argument provides the means by which, starting rom a set o maps J, one may produce a w..s. coibrantly generated by J: that is, a w..s. (L, R) or which R = J. 3.2 Examples: All the weak actorisation systems o Examples 2.3 are coibrantly generated: For the w..s. (Mono, Epi) on Set, a suitable J is given by the set containing the single map!: 0 1. For the (injective equivalences, isoibrations) w..s. on Cat, a suitable J is given by the single map b : 1 Iso, where Iso is the indiscrete category on the set {a,b}. For the w..s. (anodyne extensions, Kan ibrations) on SSet, a suitable J is given by the set o horn inclusions {Λ k n n }. To give our reormulation o the small object argument, we will need to provide a notion o coibrantly generated natural w..s. However, a careul analysis reveals two candidates or this notion. In this section, we study these candidates and their relationship to each other. 3.3 We begin by orming the entities that we have met so ar into categories. Suppose we are given unctorial actorisations F and F : C 2 C 3 on C. We deine 11

12 a morphism o unctorial actorisations α: F F to be a natural transormation α: F F which upon whiskering with d 1 : C 3 C 2 becomes the identity transormation id C 2 id C 2. To give such a morphism is to give a amily o maps α : K K, natural in, and making diagrams o the ollowing orm commute: λ A λ K α K ρ B. ρ Suppose now that F and F underlie natural w..s. s (L,R) and (L,R ) on C, and consider a morphism o unctorial actorisations α: F F. By whiskering the natural transormation α: F F with the other two ace maps d 0,d 2 : C 3 C 2, we induce natural transormations α l : L L and α r : R R ; and we will say that α: F F is a morphism o natural w..s. s just when α l is a comonad morphism and α r a monad morphism. 3.4 Let us write NWFS(C) or the category o n.w..s. s on C. We may deine a semantics unctor G : NWFS(C) CAT/C 2, which sends a n.w..s. (L,R) to its category o L-coalgebras L-Map, equipped with the orgetul unctor into C 2 ; and sends a morphism α: (L,R) (L,R ) o n.w..s. s to the morphism L-Map (α l ) L -Map U L C 2 U L o CAT/C 2. Here (α l ) is the unctor which sends an L-coalgebra x: X LX to the L -coalgebra X x LX (α l) X L X. Our irst candidate or the notion o coibrantly generated n.w..s. is now: 3.5 Deinition: Let I : J C 2 be an object o CAT/C 2, with J small; and let (L,R) be a n.w..s. on C. We will say that (L,R) is ree on J 1 i we can provide a 1 Here we commit the usual abuse o notation in denoting a category I : J C 2 over C 2 merely by its domain category J. 12

13 morphism J η L-Map I C 2 o CAT/C 2 which exhibits (L,R) as a relection o I along G: which is to say that, or any n.w..s. (L,R ) on C and unctor F : J L -Map over C 2, there is a unique morphism o n.w..s. s α: (L,R) (L,R ) or which F = (α l ) η. 3.6 Remark: There is a dual semantics unctor H: NWFS(C) (CAT/C 2 ) op, which sends a n.w..s. to its category o R-algebras: and a corresponding notion o an n.w..s. being coree on J. However, being coree is signiicantly less common than being ree, primarily because the conditions under which we will construct ree n.w..s. s typically, local presentability or local boundedness are much more prevalent than their duals. 3.7 Whilst Deinition 3.5 is natural rom a categorical perspective, it has an obvious drawback: it provides no analogue o the equation R = J which a coibrantly generated w..s. satisies. Deinition 3.9, our second candidate or the notion o coibrantly generated n.w..s., will rectiy this. Beore we can give it, we will need a preliminary result. 3.8 Proposition: Let C be a category. Then the Galois connection ( ) ( ) induced by the notion o weak orthogonality may be lited to an adjunction U L ( ) CAT/C 2 (CAT/C 2 ) op. ( ) Proo. First we give the unctor ( ) : (CAT/C 2 ) op CAT/C 2. On objects, this sends a category U : A C 2 over C 2 to the ollowing category A over C 2. Its objects are pairs (g,φ), where g is a morphism o C and φ is a coherent choice o liting against every element o A: which is to say, a mapping which to each object a A and square Ua A h C B k D g (3.1) 13

14 in C, assigns a morphism φ(a,h,k): B C making both triangles commute, and subject to the ollowing naturality condition: i we are given a morphism σ: a a o A whose image under U is the morphism A s A Ua B t B, Ua o C 2, then we have φ(a,hs,kt) = φ(a,h,k) t. A morphism o A rom (g,φ) to (g,φ ) is a morphism (u,v): g g o C 2 which respects the choice o litings in φ and φ, in the sense that the equation u φ(a,h,k) = φ (a,uh,vk) holds or all suitable a, h and k. The unctor exhibiting A as a category over C 2 is the evident orgetul unctor. This deines ( ) on objects o CAT/C 2 ; and to extend this deinition to morphisms, we consider a urther category B over C 2 and a unctor F : A B over C 2 : rom which we obtain a map F : B A over C 2 by sending the object (c,φ(,,?)) o B to the object (c,φ(f( ),,?)) o A. We deine the unctor ( ) in the same way as ( ), but with Ua and g swapped around in equation (3.1). It remains only to exhibit the adjointness ( ) ( ) : or which it is easy to see that, given categories U : A C 2 and V : B C 2 over C 2, we may identiy both unctors A B and unctors B A over C 2 with (A, B)-liting operations : that is, unctions ψ which given an object a A, an object b B and a commuting square A h C Ua B k D, V b provide a morphism ψ(a,b,h,k): B C making both triangles commute; and subject to the obvious naturality condition with respect to morphisms o both A and B. In particular, we see rom 2.15 that any any n.w..s. (L,R) comes equipped with a privileged (L-Map, R-Map)-liting operation: which by the above proo, we may view as a privileged morphism lit: R-Map L-Map over C 2. 14

15 3.9 Deinition: Let I : J C 2 be a category over C 2, and (L,R) a n.w..s. on C. We say that (L,R) is algebraically-ree on J i we can provide a morphism η: J L-Map over C or which the unctor is an isomorphism o categories. R-Map lit L-Map η J (3.2) 3.10 Remark: The terminology we have chosen deliberately recalls the distinction which is made in [17] between the ree and the algebraically-ree monad generated by a pointed endounctor. We will partially justiy this in Section 5, by showing that algebraic-reeness in our sense can be seen as a special case o algebraicreeness in the sense o [17]; and in the Appendix, where we prove the implication algebraically-ree ree or n.w..s. s. However, there are some results o [17] which the author has been unable to ind an analogue o: in particular, he has been unable to produce either positive or negative results about the implication ree algebraically-ree. The corresponding implication does not hold in the theory o monads; and whilst it seems unlikely that it should hold here either, a proo o this act has been elusive. Despite this, we will be able to show in Section 5 that any ree n.w..s. which we come across in mathematical practice will be algebraically-ree Examples: The natural w..s. on Set which actors : X Y through X + Y is algebraically-ree: we let J be the terminal category and let I : J Set 2 pick out the object!: 0 1. It is now easy to see that the category J consists precisely o the R-algebras: morphisms g: C D equipped with a splitting g : D C. However, none o the other natural w..s. s described in Examples 2.10 are ree or algebraically-ree: and this despite being close relatives o plain w..s. s which are coibrantly generated. The problem or these examples is that, although an R-map structure airms the existence o certain litings, it also asserts certain coherence conditions between those litings, which cannot be expressed in the language o orthogonality. A air intuition is that the (algebraically)-ree natural w..s. s are the natural w..s. s which may be speciied by a signature J o liting properties; but subject to no equations between these litings. We may relate the notion o algebraically-ree n.w..s. quite directly to that o coibrantly generated w..s., i we assume the axiom o choice in our metatheory: 15

16 3.12 Proposition : Let C be a category and J a set o maps in C; and let J denote the set J, viewed as a discrete subcategory o C 2. I the algebraically-ree n.w..s. (L,R) on J C 2 exists, then its underlying plain w..s. ( L, R) is the w..s. coibrantly generated by J. Proo. Recall rom 2.17 that the class o maps R consists o those maps in C admitting some R-algebra structure; and that R consists o all retracts o maps in R. We are required to show that R = J ; and since J is easily seen to be closed under retracts, it will suice to show that R = J. Now, since (L,R) is algebraically-ree on J, we have R-Map = J over C 2 ; and so a morphism C 2 will admit an R-algebra structure, and thus lie in R, just when it can be lited through the orgetul unctor J C 2. But an object o J consists o a map o C equipped with a choice o liting against every map in the set J, subject to no urther coherence conditions; and so, i we allow ourselves the axiom o choice, will admit a liting through J just when J. Thus we have that R = J as desired. 4 Constructing ree natural w..s. s 4.1 We now ready to give our analogue o the small object argument, which will be a general apparatus by means o which we can construct ree, and even algebraically-ree, n.w..s. s on a category C. For our argument to work, we will at least require C to be cocomplete: but in order to guarantee the convergence o certain transinite sequences we construct, we must impose some urther smallness property on C. 4.2 Given a regular cardinal α, we say that X C is α-presentable i the representable unctor C(X, ): C Set preserves α-iltered colimits. The irst smallness property we may consider on C is that: (*) For every X C, there is an α X or which X is α X -presentable. This is certainly the case or any category C which is locally presentable in the sense o [10]. However, it does not obtain in categories such as the category o topological spaces, the category o Hausdor topological spaces, or the category o topological groups: and since we would like our argument to be valid in such contexts, we will require a more general notion o smallness. 4.3 Recall that a strong actorisation system (E, M) on C is said to be proper i every E-map is an epimorphism and every M-map a monomorphism; and is said to 16

17 be well-copowered i every object o C possesses, up-to-isomorphism, a mere set o E- quotients. We say that an object X is α-bounded with respect to a proper (E, M) i C(X, ) preserves α-iltered unions o M-subobjects (in the sense o sending them to α-iltered unions o sets). The second smallness property we consider on C supposes some proper, well-copowered (E, M), and says that: ( ) For every X C, there is an α X or which X is α X -bounded with respect to (E, M). Top, Haus and TopGrp all satisy ( ), with M = the subspace inclusions in the irst two cases, and M = the inclusion o subgroups which are also subspaces in the third. We may now state the main result o the paper. 4.4 Theorem: Let C be a cocomplete category satisying either (*) or ( ), and let I : J C 2 be a category over C 2 with J small. Then the ree n.w..s. on J exists, and is algebraically-ree on J. In this section, we will prove reeness: in the next, algebraic-reeness. 4.5 We begin by actorising the semantics unctor G through a pair o intermediate categories. The irst is the category LNWFS(C) o let halves o n.w..s. s. Its objects (F,L) are unctorial actorisations F on C together with an extension o the corresponding (L, Φ) to a comonad L; and its morphisms are maps o unctorial actorisations which respect the comonad structure. There is an obvious unctor G 1 : NWFS(C) LNWFS(C) sending (L,R) to (F,L). The second category we consider is Cmd(C 2 ), the category o comonads on C 2. We have a unctor G 2 : LNWFS(C) Cmd(C 2 ), which sends (F,L) to L; and we have the semantics unctor G 3 : Cmd(C 2 ) CAT/C 2 which sends a comonad to its category o coalgebras, and a comonad morphism γ: C C to γ : C-Coalg C -Coalg. We now have that G = NWFS(C) G 1 LNWFS(C) G 2 Cmd(C 2 ) G 3 CAT/C 2, so that we may give a relection along G by giving a relection along each unctor G 1, G 2 and G 3 in turn. For G 3, we have the ollowing well-known result, which was irst stated at this level o generality by Dubuc [7]; but see also [2]. 4.6 Proposition: Let C be cocomplete, and let U : A C 2 be a small category over C 2. Then A admits a relection along G 3 : Cmd(C 2 ) CAT/C 2. 17

18 Proo. Because A is small and C 2 cocomplete (since C is), we can orm the let Kan extension o U along itsel: A C 2 U θ Lan U (U) U C 2, whose deining property is that θ should provide the unit or a representation [C 2, C 2 ](Lan U (U), ) = [A, C 2 ](U,( ) U). In particular, corresponding to the identity transormation id U : U U, we have a natural transormation ǫ: Lan U (U) id C 2; whilst corresponding to the composite natural transormation U θ Lan U (U) U Lan U(U) θ Lan U (U) Lan U (U) U we have a natural transormation : Lan U (U) Lan U (U) Lan U (U). It is now easy to check that ǫ and make Lan U (U) into a comonad on C 2, the so-called density comonad o U. This has the property that comonad morphisms (Lan U (U),ǫ, ) T are in bijection with let coactions o T on U, which in turn are in bijection with litings o U : A C 2 through the category o T-coalgebras: and this is precisely the universal property or Lan U (U) to be a relection o U along G 3. Next, we consider relections along G 2 : LNWFS(C) Cmd(C 2 ). These exist under very mild hypotheses indeed: 4.7 Proposition: I C has pushouts, then G 2 : LNWFS(C) Cmd(C 2 ) has a let adjoint. Proo. Let us say that an endounctor F : C 2 C 2 preserves domains i dom F = dom. Given two such endounctors F and F, we will say that a natural transormation α between them preserves domains i dom α = id dom. Finally, we will say that a comonad (T,ǫ, ) on C 2 preserves domains i T, ǫ and all preserve domains. It is now a simple but instructive exercise to show that LNWFS(C) is isomorphic to the ull subcategory o Cmd(C 2 ) whose objects are the domain-preserving comonads. Thus the Proposition will ollow i we can show this subcategory to be relective. To do this, we irst observe that there is a strong actorisation system on C 2 whose let class P consists o the pushout squares, and whose right class consists D 18

19 o the squares whose domain component is an isomorphism. In act, i we make a choice o pushouts in C, then we obtain a unctorial actorisation o every map into a pushout square ollowed by a square whose domain component is an identity. We can lit the actorisation system (P, D) to one o the same name on [C 2, C 2 ]; and the accompanying unctorial actorisation lits too, allowing us to actor every map o [C 2, C 2 ] as a map whose components are pushouts, ollowed by one whose domain components are identities. Suppose now that we are given a comonad S = (S,ǫ, ) on C 2 : we construct its relection into domain-preserving comonads as ollows. We start by actorising the counit o S as ǫ = S φ = Ŝ ˆǫ = id C 2, where the components o φ are pushout squares, and the domain components o ˆǫ are identities. From this latter act, we deduce that both Ŝ and ˆǫ preserve domains. We now consider the ollowing diagram: S SS φφ ŜŜ φ ˆǫŜ Ŝ idŝ Ŝ. Since φ is in P, and ˆǫŜ in D, we obtain by orthogonality a unique diagonal ill-in ˆ : Ŝ ŜŜ. Since both ˆǫŜ and id Ŝ are domain-preserving, we deduce that ˆ is too. A little calculus with the unique diagonal ill-in property and the comonad axioms or (S,ǫ, ) now yields the comonad axioms or Ŝ = (Ŝ, ˆǫ, ˆ ); and it is immediate that φ: S Ŝ then satisies the necessary axioms or it to lit to a comonad morphism φ: S Ŝ. We claim that this φ provides the desired relection o S into domain-preserving comonads. Indeed, suppose we are given another domain-preserving comonad T = (T, e, D), and a morphism o comonads ψ: S T. Then we have the ollowing commutative square: S ψ T φ e Ŝ ˆǫ id C 2. The map φ is in P, and e is in D: so by orthogonality, we induce a unique natural transormation ˆψ: Ŝ T. The comonad morphism axioms or ˆψ now ollow rom the axioms or ψ and uniqueness o diagonal ill-ins. 19

20 4.8 We have thus reduced the problem o constructing ree n.w..s. s to the problem o constructing relections along G 1 : NWFS(C) LNWFS(C). The key to constructing these will be to exhibit a monoidal structure on LNWFS(C) whose corresponding category o monoids is isomorphic to NWFS(C). We will deduce the existence o this monoidal structure rom a more general result characterising natural w..s. s on C as bialgebra objects in the category o unctorial actorisations on C. Now, usually when one considers bialgebra objects in a category, it is with reerence to a symmetric or braided monoidal structure on that category: but here we will need something slightly more general. 4.9 By a two-old monoidal category [3], we mean a category V equipped with two monoidal structures (,I,α,λ,ρ) and (,,α,λ,ρ ) in such a way that the unctors : V V V and : 1 V, together with the natural transormations α, λ and ρ, are lax monoidal with respect to the (,I) monoidal structure. O course, being lax monoidal is not merely a property o a unctor, but extra structure on it: and in this case, the extra structure amounts to giving maps m:, c: I I I and j : I making (,j,m) into a -monoid and (I,j,c) into a -comonoid; together with a natural amily o maps z A,B,C,D : (A B) (C D) (A C) (B D) obeying six coherence laws. It ollows that and I are oplax monoidal with respect to the (, ) monoidal structure; and in act, we may take this as an alternative deinition o two-old monoidal category Examples: Any braided or symmetric monoidal category is two-old monoidal, with the two monoidal structures coinciding; the maps z A,B,C,D are built rom braidings/symmetries and associativity isomorphisms: c.. [16]. I V is a cocomplete symmetric monoidal category, then the unctor category [X X, V] has a two-old monoidal structure. The irst monoidal structure (,I) is given by matrix multiplication, whilst the second structure (, ) is given pointwise. Similarly, i V is a cocomplete symmetric monoidal category, then the unctor category [N, V] has a two-old monoidal structure on it. The irst monoidal structure (, I) is the substitution tensor product, with unit given by I(n) = 0 20

21 or n 1 and I(1) = I; and binary tensor given by (F G)(n) = F(m) G(k 1 ) G(k m ). m,k 1,...,k m k 1 + +k m=n The second monoidal structure (, ) is again given pointwise. Further examples and applications to topology may be ound in [3, 8] A two-old monoidal category (V,, I,, ) provides a suitable environment to deine a notion o bialgebra. Indeed, because the -monoidal structure is lax monoidal with respect to the -structure, it lits to the category Mon (V) o -monoids in V. Thus we deine the category o (, )-bialgebras to be Bialg, (V) := Comon (Mon (V)). Now, because the -monoidal structure is also oplax monoidal with respect to the -monoidal structure, it lits to the category o -comonoids in V; and thus we obtain an alternative deinition o bialgebra by setting Bialg, (V) := Mon (Comon (V)). However, it is not hard to see that these two constructions yield isomorphic results. Indeed, to give an object o either Bialg(V) or Bialg (V) is to give an object A o V; maps η: I A and µ: A A A making it into a -monoid; and maps ǫ: A and δ: A A A making it into a -comonoid; all subject to the commutativity o the ollowing our diagrams: c I η A A A µ ǫ ǫ A ǫ η A ǫ I I η η A A, A A m, µ I j, A (4.1) (A A) (A A) za,a,a,a (A A) (A A) µ µ A A. Likewise, to give a morphism o either Bialg(V) or Bialg (V) is to give a map : A B o V which is both a monoid morphism and a comonoid morphism. We 21

22 may summarise this by saying that, in the ollowing diamond o orgetul unctors Bialg, (V) Comon (V) Mon (V), (4.2) each west-pointing arrow orgets monoid structure, and each east-pointing arrow orgets comonoid structure Examples: V I view a braided or symmetric monoidal category as a two-old monoidal category, then a bialgebra in our sense is precisely a bialgebra in the usual sense. In the two-old monoidal category [X X, V], a -monoid is a V-category with object set X; an -comonoid is an X X-indexed amily o comonoids in V; and a (, )-bialgebra is a comonoidal V-category with object set X: which we may view either as a comonoid in V-Cat, or as a V-category whose homsets are comonoids and whose unit and composition maps are comonoid morphisms. A bialgebra in the two-old monoidal category [N, V] is what is sometimes called a Hop operad: namely, an operad in V whose objects o n-ary operations are comonoids; and whose substitution maps are morphisms o comonoids. Bialgebras in two-old monoidal categories play a central role in recent work [19] o François Lamarche Let us write FF(C) or the category o unctorial actorisations on C, and let us write RNWFS(C) or the category dual to LNWFS(C): so its objects are pairs (F,R) o a unctorial actorisation F on C together with an extension o the corresponding (R,Λ) to a monad Theorem: There is a two-old monoidal structure on FF(C) such that the diamond o orgetul unctors (4.2) is, up-to-isomorphism, the diamond o orgetul 22

23 unctors NWFS(C) LNWFS(C) RNWFS(C) FF(C). Proo. We begin by exhibiting two strict monoidal structures on FF(C). We do this by describing two dierent categories which are both isomorphic to FF(C), and which both admit obvious strict monoidal structures: then by transport o structure, we induce the required monoidal structures on FF(C). The irst category we consider is the category o domain-preserving copointed endounctors and copointed endounctor maps on C 2. It is easy to see that this category is isomorphic to FF(C); and that it has a strict monoidal structure (, ) on it, with unit = (id idc 2 : id C 2 id C 2) and tensor product (Φ: L id C 2) (Φ : L id C 2) = (ΦΦ : LL id C 2). When we transport this along the isomorphism with FF(C), we obtain the ollowing monoidal structure. The unit is the unctorial actorisation X Y X Y id Y Y and the tensor product F F o two unctorial actorisations F,F : C 2 C 3 is given by X λ λ Y X K ρ ρ λ λ Y. Furthermore, to give a -comonoid structure on some F FF(C) is to give a comonoid structure on the corresponding copointed (L, Φ); but this is precisely to extend it to a comonad on C 2. Thus we may identiy Comon (FF(C)) with LNWFS(C). The second category we consider is the category o codomain-preserving pointed endounctors on C 2. Again, this is isomorphic to FF(C), and again, it has a strict monoidal structure given by composition. When we transport this back to FF(C), we obtain the monoidal structure whose unit I is the unctorial actorisation X Y X id X X Y ; 23

24 and whose tensor product F F is the unctorial actorisation X Y X λ ρ λ K ρ ρ ρ Y. To make F FF(C) into a monoid with respect to this monoidal structure is now to give an extension o the corresponding (R,Λ) to a monad; and so we have Mon (FF(C)) = RNWFS(C) as required. We next show that these two monoidal structures on FF(C) can be made into a two-old monoidal structure. Since I is initial and terminal in FF(C), or this we need only give the amily o interchange maps z A,B,C,D : (A B) (C D) (A C) (B D): and this we do explicitly. The actorisation (A B) (C D) sends a map : X Y to X λa (λ B (ρ C D )) λ C (λ D ) K A (λ B (ρ C D )) ρb (ρ C D ) ρ A (λ B (ρ C D )) Y, where ρ C D abbreviates the map ρ D ρc (λ D ); whilst (A C) (B D) sends to X λa (ρ C (λ B D )) λ C (λ B D ) K A (ρ C (λ B D )) ρb (ρ D ) ρa (ρ C (λ B D )) Y, where λ B D abbreviates the map λ B (ρ D ) λd. To give z A,B,C,D we must thereore give suitable maps K A (λ B (ρ C D )) K A (ρ C (λ B D )). For this, we consider the ollowing square: K C (λ D ) K C (id X,λ B (ρ D )) K C (λ B D ) λ B (ρ C D ) ρ C (λ B D ) K B (ρ C D ) K B (ρ C (λ D ),id Y ) KB (ρ D ). This square commutes, with both sides equal to K C (λ D ) ρc (λ D ) K D λb (ρ D ) K B (ρ D ), and so we may view it as a morphism λ B (ρ C D ) ρ C (λ B D ) in C 2 : applying K A to which yields the required map K A (λ B (ρ C D )) K A (ρ C (λ B D )) in C. The (extensive) remaining details are let to the reader. 24

25 Thus we have a two-old monoidal structure (, ) on FF(C): and to complete the proo, we must show that the corresponding bialgebras are precisely n.w..s. s on C. But to equip a unctorial actorisation with both a -monoid and an -comonoid structure is to give extensions o the corresponding (R,Λ) to a monad R, and the corresponding (L,Φ) to a comonad L; and it is now a short calculation to show that the bialgebra axioms (4.1) will hold just when the distributivity axiom holds or (L,R) This Theorem implies that an object X LNWFS(C) will admit a relection along the unctor G 1 : NWFS(C) LNWFS(C) just when the ree -monoid on X exists. But since the unit I o the monoidal structure on LWNFS(C) is also an initial object, to construct the ree monoid on X is equally well to construct the ree monoid on the pointed object!: I X. In order to do this, we may employ a standard transinite construction: which we now describe I On denotes the category o all small ordinals, then a transinite sequence in a category V is a unctor X : On V, whose value at an ordinal α we denote by X α, and whose value at the unique morphism α β (or α β) we denote by X α,β : X α X β. We say that a transinite sequence X : On V converges at an ordinal γ i the maps X α,β are isomorphisms or all β α γ. Let V now be a cocomplete monoidal category. Given a pointed object t: I T in V, we may orm a transinite sequence X : On V which we call the ree monoid sequence or (T,t). We build this sequence, together with a amily o maps σ α : T X α X α +, by the ollowing transinite induction: X 0 = I, X 1 = T, X 0,1 = t, and σ 0 = ρ T : T I T; For a successor ordinal β = α +, we give X β and σ β : T X β X β + by the ollowing coequaliser diagram: σ α X β t X β T X α T X β σ β Xβ +, T t X α T T X α T σ α and give X β,β + by the composite σ β (t X β ); For a non-zero limit ordinal γ, we give X γ by colim α<γ X α, with connecting maps X α,γ given by the injections into the colimit. We give X γ + and σ γ by 25

26 the ollowing coequaliser diagram: colim X α + = X γ colim σ α t X γ colim(t X α ) can T colim X α = T X γ σγ X γ + where can is the map induced by the cocone T X α T colim X α. We give X γ,γ + by the composite σ γ (t X γ ). The ollowing is now Theorem 23.3 o [17] Proposition: Let V be a cocomplete monoidal category in which each unctor ( ) X : V V preserves connected colimits; and let t: I T be a pointed object o V. I the ree monoid sequence or (T,t) converges at stage γ, then X γ is the ree monoid on (T,t), with the universal map given by X 1,γ : T X γ. In act, this result is a mild generalisation o [17], since we require ( ) X to preserve only connected colimits, rather than all colimits; but it is trivial to check that this does not aect the argument in any way. In order to apply this result, we observe that: 4.18 Proposition: I C is a cocomplete category, then LNWFS(C) is also cocomplete; and moreover, each unctor ( ) X : LNWFS(C) LNWFS(C) preserves connected colimits. Proo. We irst note that the category FF(C) may be obtained by taking the category [C 2, C], slicing this over the object cod: C 2 C; and then coslicing this under the object υ: dom cod given by υ = or all C 2. Consequently, FF(C) will be cocomplete whenever C is. But by Theorem 4.14, the unctor U : LNWFS(C) FF(C) is a orgetul unctor rom a category o comonoids, and as such creates colimits, so that LNWFS(C) is also cocomplete. In order to see that each unctor ( ) X : LNWFS(C) LNWFS(C) preserves connected colimits, we consider the composite V := LNWFS(C) U FF(C) d 0 ( ) [C 2, C 2 ], where we recall that postcomposing with d 0 sends a unctorial actorisation F : C 2 C 3 to the corresponding endounctor R: C 2 C 2. It is easy to see that d 0 ( ) creates connected colimits; and since U creates all colimits, we conclude that V creates connected colimits. 26

27 Now observe that V sends the monoidal structure on LNWFS(C) to the compositional monoidal structure on [C 2, C 2 ], so that we have the ollowing commutative diagram: LNWFS(C) ( ) X LNWFS(C) V [C 2, C 2 ] V ( ) V X [C2, C 2 ]. We wish to show that ( ) X preserves connected colimits: but because V creates them, it suices to show that the composite around the top preserves connected colimits; and this ollows rom the act that both unctors V and ( ) V X around the bottom preserve connected colimits. Thus the ree monoid on X LNWFS(C) will exist whenever the ree monoid sequence or!: I X converges. Suicient conditions or convergence are given by Theorem 15.6 o [17], which when adapted to the present situation becomes: 4.19 Proposition: Let V be a cocomplete monoidal category, and let t: I T be a pointed object o V. I the unctor T ( ): V V preserves either λ-iltered colimits; or λ-indexed unions o M-subobjects or some proper, well-copowered (E, M) on V, then the ree monoid sequence or (T,t) converges There is a problem i we apply this result with V = LNWFS(C), since the second o the two smallness criteria requires a proper, well-copowered (E, M) on V; and even i we have such an (E, M) on the category C, we will not, in general, be able to lit it to LNWFS(C). In order to resolve this problem, we consider again the composite V := LNWFS(C) U FF(C) d 0 ( ) [C 2, C 2 ]. We saw above that this preserves both connected colimits and monoidal structure; and so takes the ree monoid sequence on!: I X in LNWFS(C) to the ree monad sequence on the underlying pointed endounctor Λ: id C 2 R o X. Moreover, V relects isomorphisms: hence the convergence o the latter sequence guarantees the convergence o the ormer. Thus, it will suice to apply Proposition 4.19 or V = [C 2, C 2 ], which avoids the problem described above, since any proper, well-copowered (E, M) on C can be lited without trouble to [C 2, C 2 ]. In act, it will suice to lit to C 2, since when we instantiate Proposition 4.19 at V = [C 2, C 2 ], the requirement that T ( ): [C 2, C 2 ] [C 2, C 2 ] should preserve λ-iltered colimits or unions may be saely reduced to the requirement that T : C 2 C 2 should preserve the same. 27