arxiv: v1 [math.ct] 12 Oct 2007

Transcription

1 LOCALLY COMPACT OBJECTS IN EXACT CATEGORIES LUIGI PREVIDI arxiv: v1 [math.ct] 12 Oct 2007 Abstract. We identify two categories of locally compact objects on an exact category. They correspond to the well-known constructions of Beilinson s lim A and Kato s category κ(a). We study their mutual relations and find a characterization of Beilinson s category in terms of Kato s. We prove that lim A is an exact category, which gives to this category a very convenient feature when dealing with K-theoretical invariants. It is natural therefore to consider Beilinson s category lim A as the most convenient candidate to the role of the category of locally compact objects over an exact category. 1. Introduction When dealing with the categorical formulation of some infinite-dimensional problems arising from different contexts in Analysis, Topology, Algebraic Geometry and Algebra, it is often natural to use the formalism of ind-pro objects of a certain category. This formalism was introduced by Grothendieck and his school in the early 60 (see [6]) and provided a general framework to address many questions arising in Algebraic Geometry. In the 80s, K. Kato took a further step, and considered iterated categories of ind/pro objects, and was able to express topological concepts in a more general and convenient context than that of a topological space ([8]). In particular, it is a theorem of Kato that locally linearly compact topological vector spaces are just particular ind-pro objects over the category of finite dimensional vector spaces, as well as locally compact totally disconnected abelian groups are ind-pro objects on the category of finite abelian groups (see Example (1)). One can prove that totally disconnected locally compact topological spaces can be constructed in a similar vein (see Theorem (1)). The question of finding an appropriate category-theoretic substitute for the general concept of locally compact, arising from different research areas was addressed in the same period of time by A. Beilinson, in his paper [3]. Precisely, Beilinson deals with the problem of characterizing local compactness over an exact category, while Kato considers general categories. Beilinson s approach can thus be interpreted as the K-theoretical point of view about local compactness, while Kato s construction in the years has proved particularly fruitful when dealing with analytical problems, for it was his construction that allowed M. Kapranov to address the basic problem of creating a convenient framework for Harmonic Analysis over a 2-dimensional local field, overcoming analytical difficulties that appeared insurmountable, in [7]. More recently, three papers have appeared ([11], [4] and [2]) that deal, in different contexts, with the category of locally compact objects of an exact category. In particular, in the first paper the authors use the language and the techinique of iterated ind-pro objects to describe familiar spaces of analytical functions and distributions as particular iterated ind-pro objects over an exact category (such as that of finite-dimensional vector spaces), while the second Date: February 2,

2 paper deals with successive filtrations of exact categories, and in the last paper the authors use explicitly the category of locally compact objects of an exact category to define the concept of n-tate spaces. It thus seems important to give a systematic treatment of local compactness in a category, and to compare the different definitions of local compactness thus far proposed when the ambient category is exact. The aim of this work is to clarify the mutual relation between the two construction of locally compact objects, à la Kato and à la Beilinson, at least when the base category A is an exact category. We give, in Theorem (3) a precise statement characterizing Beilinson s category lim A in terms of Kato s category κ(a). We also prove the exactness of all the categories Ind(A), P ro(a) and all the iterated categories IndP ro(a), P roind(a),..., and finally prove the exactness of lim A, by showing the existence of a closed embedding of lim A into IndPro(A). The exactness of lim A makes it the ideal candidate to the role of the category of locally compact objects of an exact category, and thus for all the questions arising in algebraic K-theory. 2. Locally Compact Objects in a Category Let C be a category. We denote by Ind(C) and Pro(C), respectively, the categories of ind-objects and pro-objects in C. For the definitions and the main properties, see [6], Exposé 1. We also write lim X i, lim X j, for the ind / pro object determined by the functor X : i I j J I C (resp. X : J op C). By Ind s (C) (resp. Pro s (C)), we mean the full subcategory whose objects are the strict ind-objects (resp. pro-objects) in C, namely, inductive (resp. projective) systems, whose structure maps are monomorphisms (resp. epimorphisms). We will also use the following categories: Set 0 = the category of finite sets; P = Compact Hausdorff totally disconnected spaces; L = Locally compact Hausdorff totally disconnected spaces. Theorem 1. 1) The category Pro(Set 0 ) is equivalent to P, via the functor that assigns to each pro-finite set its projective limit. 2) The category L can be identified with the full subcategory of Ind s Pro s (Set 0 ), whose objects can be represented as bifunctors X : I op J Set 0, where I and J are filtering categories, and whose squares are cartesian. Proof. 1) Is elementary. We sketch here a proof of 2). Let thus X be such a bifunctor; X gives a corresponding strict ind-system in the category Pro(Set 0 ), that we denote diagrammaticaly by the sequence (1)... X j+1 X j X j 1... Where, thanks to the first part of the theorem, we have identified each X j with an object of P (in particular, a compact space), that we write also as X j = lim X i,j and each map i I appearing in this ind-system is a monomorphism in P, i.e. an injective map of topological spaces. 2

3 Now suppose that every square of the system X ij is cartesian. That is, supposing i i, j j, the corresponding square of sets (2) X i j X i j X ij u X ij is cartesian. In this square the horizontal maps are injections and the vertical ones are surjections. We prove that under this assumption, the maps in the system (1) are open, which implies that the topological space lim lim X i,j is locally compact. i I j J First, one checks that since the above squares are cartesian, the square X j f i j X j π i ρ i X ij u X ij is also cartesian, for every j in J and i in I. Here the map f is the same map that appears in the ind-system (1) between the two ind-spaces, and the vertical maps are just the projections of the limits onto their respective factors. Since f, u are injective and π i, ρ i surjective, it is easy to see that the cartesianity of this diagram means precisely that for every p X ij, we have f(π 1 i (p)) = ρ 1 i (u(p)), which expresses the fact that f sends an open set of the basis (of the inverse limit topology) of X j into an open of the basis of X j, thus f is open and X locally compact. Conversely, suppose that X is a locally compact space. We show that there exists a representation of it as an ind-pro system lim lim X i,j whose squares are cartesian. Indeed, it is a well-known fact from general topology that X can be expressed as a i I j J direct limit X = lim j J X j, where each X j is both open and closed profinite space, and whose structural maps are monomorphisms. Next, for every profinite space X, Let be J = {R R is an equivalence relation on X, is finite, and whose classes are open in X}. Since, suppose, R = h R h, where the union is a disjoint one of open sets, the components X h are also closed. Being X compact, J is nonenpmty, for it contains a (finite) partition of X made of open neighborhoods of X, which determines the equivalence relation R, defined by xry x and y belong to the same open set of the partition. Again, from general fact of general topology (see e.g. [13]), it follows that X = lim X/R, R J which realizes the space X as an inverse limit of discrete sets, and furthermore, if one has an open embedding Y X of profinite spaces, then it is possible to write Y = lim Y/R, R J where J = {R R Jand X is a union of classes of R}; J is then a cofinal subset of J and it is possible to show that the openness of the map Y X implies that for every R R, the corresponding square 3

4 Y/R Y/R is cartesian, which concludes the proof. X/R X/R The previous theorem gives some motivation for the following Definition 1. Given a category C, let be L(C) the full subcategory of IndPro(C) whose objects can be represented as bifunctors X : I op J C, for two filtering categories I and J, and whose square are cartesian. The category L(C) is called the category of locally compact objects of C. Remark 1. Here and in the following we will suppose that I and J are ordered sets. 2. The condition given in the definition, that all the squares be cartesian, can be replaced without any loss of generality by the weaker condition stating that, for all j j, the ladder of cartesian squares, corresponding to the map X j X j, of the pro-objects X j, X j Ob Pro(C) be cartesian only for a cofinal subcategory I I. In fact, one can rework the proof of the first part of the theorem and show that, for the cofinal subcategory I, and for all the objects i I, the corresponding squares of the diagram (2) (where i is to be substituted everywhere with i ), are still cartesian, and the condition that I is cofinal in I makes sure that the relation f(π 1 i (p)) = ρ 1 i (u(p)), which expresses the openness of the map f is still valid. Definition 2. Kato s category. The full subcategory of IndP ro(c) whose objects can be expressed as bifunctors X : I op J C for some directly ordered sets I and J, and such that, for all j j, i i the corresponding squares of the form (2) are both cartesian and cocartesian, is called Kato s category associated with C, and denoted κ(c). Remark 1. In general, one has L(C) κ(c), for all those categories C where a square may be cartesian without being cocartesian: this is the case of the category Set 0. However, if the category C has the property that a square in C is cartesian if and only if is cocartesian, e.g. an abelian category, the case originally considered by Kato, then L(C) = κ(c), which of course implies that in this case Kato s category is the category of the locally compact objects in C. Examples 1. κ(v ect 0 ) = Locally linearly compact topological vector spaces; κ(ab 0 ) = Locally compact totally disconnected topological abelian groups. The proof of the following is elementary. See [8]. Proposition 1. κ(c) embeds fully and faithfully in both IndPro(C)and ProInd(C). 3. Beilinson s category We introduce here, following Beilinson, a different approach to provide local compactness in a category A, provided that A has the structure of an exact category. The resulting category of locally compact objects in A will be called the Beilinson s category associated to A and denoted lim A. We also study its relation with Kato s category, κ(c), when C is exact. 4

5 3.1. Exact Categories. Definition 3. Let A be an additive category. A sequence (3) 0 a i a j a 0 is called a short exact sequence if it is exact at each term, i.e. ker (i)=0, ker(j)=im(i), and im(j)=a. Equivalently, a short exact sequence of the type (4) is short exact, if and only if ker(j)=coker(i). Definition 4 (Quillen). An exact category is a pair (A, E), where A is an additive category and E is a class of short exact sequences of the type (4), called the admissible short exact sequences, the arrows of which satisfy the following axioms: 1) If a sequence is isomorphic to a sequence in E, then the sequence is in E. 2) For any pair of objects a, a of A, the following short exact sequence is in E: 0 a (id,0) a a pr 2 a 0 3a) If a map a a of A occurs to be the map j of some member of the family E (we shall call such maps the admissible epimorphisms of A), then, for every arrow f : b a of A, there exists a cartesian square b j b a j a f such that the arrow j is an admissible epimorphism. 3b) Dually, If a map a a of A occurs to be the map i of some member of the family E (we shall call such maps the admissible monomorphisms of A), then, for every arrow f : a b of A, there exists a cocartesian square a i a f b i b such that the arrow i is an admissible monomorphism. 4) Let f : b c an arrow whose kernel is in A. If there exists an arrow a b such that the composition a b c is an admissible epimorphism, then f is an admissible epimorphism. Dually for admissible monomorphisms. Examples and Remarks. a) It is possible to prove (see [8]) that the definition given here is equivalent to the one where the axioms 2) and 4) are replaced by the following: 2 ) Id 0 is an admissible epimorphism; 4 ) The composition of two admissible epimorphisms is an admissible epimorphism. b) Any additive category can be made an exact category in a canonical way, by taking E to be the set of the split exact sequences. There are two canonical ways to turn an abelian 5

6 category into an exact category: by taking E to be either the class of split sequences, or the class of all the short exact sequences in the category. When one refers to an abelian category as an exact category, it is usually meant the latter way. c) It should be noticed that the exact structure of an exact category depends on the category A as well as on the choice of the class E. Different choices are possible, as the previous remark shows, bringing to different exact structures on the same category A. The situation here is analog to the concept of a topological space, which is also a pair (X, U), of a set X and a family U of subsets of X, satisfying a certain set of axioms and different choices of the family U will endow X with different structures of a topological space. If A and B are two exact categories, an exact functor F : A B is an additive functor taking admissible sequences into admissible sequences. A fully exact subcategory of an exact category (A, E A ) is a full additive subcategory B A which is closed under extensions, that is, if a a a is an admissible sequence of A, whose objects a, a are in B, then the middle object a is also in B. If this condition is satisfied, then it is possible to endow B with a structure of an exact category, by defining the family E B of admissible short exact sequences as those sequences of E A whose terms are in B. In this way, the inclusion functor B A becomes a fully faithful exact functor. Although a weaker notion than that of an abelian category, it is always possible to fully embed an exact category into an abelian category. As a result, any exact category is equivalent to a full subcategory of an abelian category. We have the following important Theorem 2. Let (A, E) be an exact category. Let F be the additive category of the controvariant functors from A to the abelian category of abelian groups which are left exact, i.e. carry short exact sequences of A of the form (4) into exact sequences 0 Fa Fa Fa. Therefore, F is an abelian category, and the Yoneda functor h embeds A as a full subcategory of F, closed under extensions, in such a way that a short exact sequence is in E if and only if h carries it into an exact sequence of F. The proof of the previous theorem, that we omit, is long but straightforward. See [12]. Notice that the last part of the statement implies that the exactness character of the original category A is preserved in the embedding. The category F of the theorem is called the abelian envelope of the exact category A. As a consequence, and as an example of how the embedding of the previous theorem can be used, we prove that in certain cases, cartesian is equivalent to cocartesian in an exact category. We start with a Definition 5. Let be A an exact category. A square A B C D In which the horizontal arrows are admissible monomorphisms, and the vertical arrows are admissible epimorphisms, will be called an admissible square. Proposition 2. Let be in an exact category A the admissible square 6

7 a b Then: c 1) If the square is cartesian in A, it is cartesian also in the abelian envelope F of A. Viceversa, if the square is cartesian in F and its objects (and consequently its arrows) are in A, then it is cartesian a fortiori in A. 2) The square is cartesian in A if and only if it is cocartesian in A. Proof. We start with a general Lemma 1. In an additive category A, the pair of arrows b f c g d has a pullback b g s f d if and only if s is the kernel object of the arrow b d fp 1 gp 2 c, where p1 and p 2 are the projections of the biproduct b d resp. on b and on d, and, having set m = ker(fp 1 gp 2 ), it is f = p 2 m, g = p 1 m. The proof of the lemma is a straightforward application of the universal property of the pullback (for the if clause), and of the kernel (for the only if part of the statement). See [10]. We now apply the lemma and the theorem to prove the proposition. 1) ( ) Let S be the square d s f d g b f cartesian in A. From the lemma, we can describe the pullback s as the kernel object - in the category A - in the pair (s, m) = ker(fp 1 gp 2 ). But F is abelian, so F has kernels of all of its morphisms. Hence, from the lemma, we have also a pullback of the pair (f, g) in F, which will be described as the kernel (taken now in F) of the arrow fp 1 gp 2, and denoted (s, m ). We prove that these two kernels (one in A, the other in F) are equal. In fact, since f is an epimorphism, fp 1 gp 2 is also an epimorphism. Now let be i 1 the injection in the biproduct b b d. The composition (fp 1 gp 2 )i 1 is equal to f, which is an admissible epi. Hence we are in the hypotheses stated in the axiom 4) of the definition of an exact category. It follows that fp 1 gp 2 is an admissible epimorphism, whose kernel is thus m. From the Quillen s embedding theorem it follows that m is the kernel of fp 1 gp 2 also in F. Therefore, s is the pullback of the pair b f c g d also in F. The converse is clear. Notice that dualizing this part of the proposition we obtain that a square is cocartesian in A if and only if is cocartesian in F. 2) Let be now S cartesian in A. From 1) it follows that S is cartesian in F. But F is abelian, and in an abelian category cartesian is equivalent to cocartesian. Thus, S is cocartesian in F. Now apply 1) again, and obtain that S is cocartesian in A. The same argument, with cartesian and cocartesian exchanged, proves the converse of the implication. 7 c g

8 As a consequence of this proposition, in order to show that an admissible square is cartesian (or cocartesian, which is thus the same) in an exact category, we can do that just by pretending that our category is abelian. From a well known technique valid in any abelian category (see [10], Thm VIII, 3), we can therefore use for this aim a diagram-chase argument, which is sometimes useful Beilinson s category of an exact category A. We review, from our perspective, the construction of the category lim A of Beilinson, where A is an exact category. Let (A, E) be an exact category. Following Beilinson, we set Π = {(i, j) Z Z i j}, and consider Π as an ordered set with the order induced from Z Z. The category of functors Π A is denoted by A Π. Definition 6. Let be X an object of A Π. We say that X is admissible, whenever for any i j k, the corresponding sequence X ij X ik X jk is in E. We will denote by A Π a the full subcatgegory of A Π of admissible objects. Lemma 2. (A Π,E Π ) can be made into an exact category. Proof. The proof of this lemma it is basically an adaptation of the proof, in [14] of the exactness of the categories S n (A), to which we refer the reader. Claim A Π a is an exact subcategory of A Π, and there is an embedding of A into A Π a. Indeed, it is clear that if we have an admissible short exact sequence of E Π, whose end terms are admissible, also the middle term is admissible. Therefore, A Π a is closed under extensions in A Π, and so it is a (fully) exact subcategory. The embedding of the claim is described on the objects by sending every object of A into the one having X i, 1 = X 1,j = 0. Notice that the category A Π a is a straightforward adaptation of the Waldhausen categories S n (A) when n goes to infinity. See [14], pp Let α be any order-preserving map Z Z, with lim n =. Therefore, for any object X of A Π a, it is possible to define a new object of A Π a, which we call αx, setting:( αx) ij := X α(i),α(j). The assignment X αx is clearly functorial, and in fact extends in the obvious way to an endofunctor of A Π a. Also, if α β, meaning that α(i) β(i) for every i Z, there is an obvious natural transformation of functors αx βx, i.e. an arrow in A Π a. Notice that id is the identity functor. We can now give the definition of the main object of this work, namely, Beilinson s category, lim A. Definition 7. The category lim A, associated with the exact category A, is the localization of the category A Π a with respect to the set of endomorphisms of A Π a of the type αx βx, for every object X in A Π a, and every order-preserving map α, β : Z Z. Remarks. 1) In symbols, we can then write lim A =A Π a [S 1 ] where S := { αx βx, for every α β : Z Z}. The category lim A therefore comes equipped with a functor lim : AΠ a lim A, which is the localization functor. This functor is clearly surjective on (isomorphism classes of) objects of lim A. Proposition 3. The class S of morphisms is a localizing system. 8

9 Proof. We have to check the following (see e.g. [5]): S contains identities and it is closed under compositions; S satisfies the extension conditions and that if f, g : X Y are morphisms in A Π a, the existence of an s S such that sf = sg is equivalent to the existence of an arrow t S with f t = gt. We shall henceforth assume, without loss of generality, that the maps α, β are one-to-one, the more general case of α, β nondecreasing being treated with the obvious modifications. The existence of identities and the closure of S under compositions are trivial. Let be f : X Y an arrow in A Π a and s S an arrow Z Y. We show the existence of a commutative square W g Z t X f Y Notice that since Y can be written as 1Y, Z is of the form αy = Y α(i),α(j), thus being s : αy Y. Hence we can write the following diagram s αx = X α(i),α(j) t f α(i),α(j) Y α(i),α(j) = αy X = X i,j f i,j Y i,j = Y whose commutativity is just a restatement of the fact that f is a natural transformation of the functor X and Y, t being obviously in S. Similarly for the proof of the dual extension condition. Next, let be f, g : X Y given, with s S such that sf = sg. Again, we can write in components and assume that s is of the form s i,j : Y i,j Y α(i),α(j), for which we have for all i, j: s i,j f i,j = s i,j g i,j. It follows that it must be id α. We thus take α 1 id and write the following system, which is easily proved equivalent to the previous one: s t X α 1 (i),α 1 (j) X i,j with the obvious meaning of t. t X i,j g i,j Y i,j 2) Using the previous proposition, we can then describe the category lim A as the category of S-roofs of A Π a (see [5] and [3]) Therefore, a morphism between two objects X Y of lim A (written also lim X ij lim Y ij ) is determined by a pair (f, α), where α is an orderpreserving map Z Z, having lim n α(i) =, and f is a collection of morphisms (of A Π a!): f α : X ij Y α(i),α(j) Natural in i and j, and two such morphisms represent the same morphism in lim A when their equivalence classes are the same. In particular, we obtain a criterion to decide when in components, two morphisms are equal. If f and g are given in components as pairs (f α, α) and (g β, β), with f α and g β morphisms of A, it 9 f i,j

10 is clear that they are equal in lim A if and only if f and g induce the same maps (of A) X i,j Y max(α(i),β(i)),max(α(j),β(j)). See [3]. 4. lim A as a category of locally compact objects Our next goal is to show that lim A embeds as a full subcategory of Kato s category κ(a). When A is exact, we will also provide a characterization of lim A in terms of κ(a). Proposition 4. There is a fully faithful embedding of categories Φ : lim A IndPro(A) Proof. We construct a functor Φ which for every pair of objects X, Y of lim A induces a bijection of the corresponding hom-sets: Hom lim A(X, Y ) = Hom IndPro(A) (ΦX, ΦY ) In order to define Φ on the objects, consider an object X = (X i,j ) i j of lim A. Then define ΦX := lim lim X i,j. j i Next, let f : X Y be a morphism in lim A, written in components as a collection of compatible morphisms of A: f i,j : X i,j Y α(i),α(j), as explained before. We now construct the corresponding morphism in IndPro(A) in the following manner. First, let s define, for all j: X j = lim X i,j and Y α(j) = lim Y i,α(j). Thus, X j, Y α(j) are i i α(j) in Pro(A). Our next step is to construct a morphism between these pro-objects out of f. For this purpose, recall in general how morphisms in Pro(A) generally arise in terms of components (see [6]): If A : I op A and B : J op A are two pro-objects, a morphism A B will be determined when for every j J there exists an i I and a morphism A i B j of objects of A, compatible with both the structure morphisms of A and B. Dually, if C : I A and D : J A are two ind-objects, a morphism C D will be determined when for every i I there exists a j J and a morphism C i D j of objects of A, compatible with both the structure morphisms of C and D. In our case, thus, for all i we look for an i and an arrow X i,j Y i,α(j), with the further conditions i j, i α(j). For such an i given, define then i := α 1 (i ). Hence, get the corresponding morphism (from f α ): f α 1 (i ),j : X i,j = X α 1 (i ),j Y i,α(j). Notice that i α(j) α 1 (i ) j, since α is order-preserving. Thus, for each j we get a morphism of pro-objects: X j Y α(j). Next, we construct a morphism of ind-pro objects: with the same notations as before, we see that for every j we have constructed an index j = α(j) and a morphism (of pro-objects!) X j Y j. Thus, we have obtained a morphism of the corresponding ind-pro objects ΦX and ΦY. We call this morphism Φ(f). It is an easy exercise to check that Φ so defined is in fact a functor. So far, we have established the existence of the functor Φ. We now set about to prove it is an embedding. 1) Φ induces an injection of the Hom-sets. 10

11 Let be f, g : X Y two morphisms in lim A. Therefore, f is determined by the pair (f, α) and g by the pair (g, β). Suppose also that Φf = Φg. We claim that f = g, i.e. that (f, α) and (g, β), are equivalent as roofs. In components, we can write these two morphisms as f i,j : X i,j Y α(i),α(j) and g i,j : X i,j Y β(i),β(j). We have seen how to get from f and g the corresponding morphisms of ind-objects in B = Pro(A). We can also assume that (perhaps after reindexing Y α(j) and Y β(j) by a cofinal subset of j s), for all j, the morphisms between pro-objects, f j : X j Y α(j) and g j : X j Y β(j) induced respectively by f and g must be equal in Ind(B). Therefore, in components this amounts to say that the diagram X j f j g j Y α(j) Y β(j) Y max(α(j),β(j)) with the morphisms starting from Y α(j) and Y β(j) being the obvious structure morphisms, commutes for every j. Next, we express the equality for each such maps f j, g j as morphisms of Pro(A), in terms of A. Let s write δ(j) = max(α(j), β(j)) for convenience. We thus have morphisms, equal in Pro(A) for every j: f j = g j : X j Y δ(j). This amounts to say that: a) For all i there exists an i and a morphism f i,i j : X i,j Y i,δ(j) in A; b) For all i there exists an i 0 and a morphism g i 0,i j : X i0,j Y i,δ(j) in A. Then, we can write i = α 1 (i ) and i 0 = β 1 (i ). We are now then in the dual situation described before, namely, the two maps introduced must descend to equal maps between the corresponding pro-systems. Hence they will be equal after composition with the structure maps of the pro-system in i, i.e. lim X i,j. This imply that, putting all together, when composing with the object (common domain) X min(α 1 (i ),β 1 (i )),j, we must have a commutative i diagram: X α 1 (i ),j X min(α 1 (i ),β 1 (i )),j Y i,max(α(j),β(j)) X β 1 (i ),j 11

12 with the obvious morphisms. Now, a simple computation shows that letting i = min(α 1 (i ), β 1 (i )), then i = max(α(i), β(i)). Therefore the above diagram tells us that the morphisms, induced from f i,j and g i,j : X i,j Y max(α(i),β(i)),max(α(j),β(j)) must be equal. In particular, then, we have the equality of the corresponding roofs, which tells us that f and g are equal in lim A: see [5]. We have thus proved that the functor Φ induces an injection of the Hom-sets. 2) Φ induces a surjective map on the Hom-sets. Surjectivity is proved by reducing, in the category IndP ro(a), a morphism written in the form lim lim X i,j lim lim to the form lim lim X i,j lim lim Y i,j, j i j i j i j i Y i,j perhaps after taking a cofinal subset of the original set of pairs (i, j). We refer to [6], Exposé 1, and [1] for details. This concludes the proof that Φ is an embedding. Our next goal is to show that lim A is a category of locally compact objects of A. This amounts to say that in fact lim A embeds in κ(a), i.e. Kato s category of the exact category A. In other words we show that the functor Φ takes its values in κ(a). Proposition 5. Let be X Ob lim A and i j. Therefore the square corresponding to the A-components of X, i.e. X i,j m 1 Xi,j+1 e 1 X i+1,j is admissible, cartesian and cocartesian. e 2 m 2 X i+1,j+1 Proof. First, from the fact that X is an admissible object we immediately see that being i j j + 1, the sequence X i,j X i,j+1 X j,j+1 is an admissible short exact sequence. Hence m 1 (and similarly m 2 ) is an admissible monomorphism, while the consideration of the admissible short exact sequence X i,i+1 X i,j X i+1,j corresponding to i i + 1 j proves that e 1 and e 2 are admissible epimorphisms. We now show that the square is cartesian and cocartesian. Being e 2 an admissible epimorphism, we are in the hyoptheses of proposition (2). Hence we can prove cartesianity of the square by a diagram-chase argument. For this aim, we complete the square above as follows: X i,j m 1 Xi,j+1 e 1 e 1 e 2 X i+1,j m 2 X i+1,j+1 e 2 X j,j+1 12

13 In this diagram now both (m 1, e 1 ) and (m 2, e 2 ) are admissible short exact sequences. Thus, let be a and b elements of, respectively, X i+1,j and X i,j+1, such that m 2 (a) = e 2 (b). The statement is proved if we can produce a (necessarily unique) preimage of b in X i,j. That is, if and only if b im(m 1 ) = ker(e 1 ). Thus, everything reduces to prove that e 1 (b) = 0. But e 1 = e 2 e 2, so let s consider e 2 (b). It is e 2 (b) = m 2 (a), hence e 2 (b) im(m 2 ) = ker(e 2 ). It follows 0 = e 2 e 2(b) = e 1 (b), as required. Thus, the square is cartesian. Part 2) of proposition (2) shows now that the square is also cocartesian. As a consequence, lim X i,j is an object of κ(a), and thus in fact the embedding Φ takes its values in Kato s category: lim A κ(a). This proves the Corollary 1. lim A embeds fully and faithfully in κ(a). As a consequence, lim A is a category of locally compact objects of A. We now investigate more in detail the relation between lim A and κ(a). It will turn out that lim A is in fact the best candidate category of locally compact objects over an exact category A. We now state the characterization of lim A in terms of κ(a). Theorem 3. If A is an exact category, then lim A identifies with the full subcategory of Kato s category κ(a), whose objects X can be described as bifunctors Π A, such that for all i i and j j the morphism X i,j X i,j is an admissible monomorphism, and the morphism X i,j X i,j is an admissible epimorphism. Proof To fix ideas, let s call P the full subcategory of κ(a) in the statement. Then the previous corollary shows that lim A is embedded in P. We now prove that P lim A. By hypotheses, we are then given an admissible (co-)cartesian square for all i i and j j : X i,j X i,j X i,j X i,j Then, we obtain a short exact sequence X i,j X i,j X i,j X i,j. Now take i = j: Being X j,j = 0 one obtains the short exact sequence X i,j X i,j X j,j which for i j j expresses exactly the ammissibilty of the object X. Thus X is in lim A, and the proof is completed. 5. Exactness of the category of locally compact objects of an exact category In this section we prove that lim A is exact. Proposition 6. If A is exact, Ind(A) and Pro(A) are exact. Proof. Let be, as usual, F the abelian envelope of A. We prove that the embedding A F extends to an embedding Ind(A) Ind(F). In fact, let be X and Y two objects 13

14 in Ind(A). We claim that Hom Ind(A) (X, Y ) = Hom Ind(F) (X, Y ). But this is a consequence of the fact that for any pair of objects of A we have Hom A (X i, Y j ) = Hom F (X i, Y j ), and of the expression of a morphism between ind-objects written in coordinates (see [6]). It follows that the functor Ind(A) Ind(F) is full and faithful. Next, it is easy to show, using the reindexing technique explained in [1], that Ind(F) is an abelian category, whenever F is so. Thus, we have an embedding of Ind(A) into an an abelian category Ind(F). In order to prove that Ind(A) is exact, it is enough to prove that Ind(A) is closed under extensions in Ind(F). Thus, let be X, Z Ind(A) and 0 X Y Z 0 a short exact sequence in Ind(F). We want to prove that Y is isomorphic to an object of Ind(A). Again after applying the reindexing technique, we can write, for all j J 0, where J 0 is an indexing set cofinal w.r.t the domain of Y : J A, the following commutative sequences of diagrams: 0... X j 0 X j Y j Y j Z j Z j where each vertical sequence is a short exact sequence in F. As X j, Z j are in Ob A, and A is exact in F, it follows that Y j is in Ob A, for each such j. Hence, the original object Y : J A has a refinement (obtained by restricting the functor Y to a cofinal subcategory J 0 J) Y 0 : J 0 A, such that 0 X Y 0 Z 0 is exact in Ind(A). But Y 0 = Y in Ind(A) (see [1] or [6]). Thus, Ind(A) is exact. Similarly one proves that Pro(A) is exact. Corollary 2. All the categories obtained by arbitrary iteration from Ind(A) and P ro(a) are exact. In particular, IndPro(A) and ProInd(A) are exact categories. Theorem 4. Let A be an exact category. Then lim A is exact. We shall prove theorem (4) by showing that lim A is closed under extensions in the exact category IndPro(A). This means that if X and Z are objects in lim A and there is an admissible short exact sequence in IndPro(A) given by 0 X Y Z, the object Y is isomorphic to an object of lim A. 14

15 By using the reindexing technique already used above for the objects X, Y, Z of IndPro(A), we can reduce ourselves to consider, in components, these objects such that for all (i, j) we have admissible short exact sequences of A: 0 X i,j Y i,j Z i,j 0 compatible with the structure morphisms induced by the functors represented by X, Y, Z, and for which, whenever we set i i and j j, we have that the squares X i,j X i,j X i,j X i,j and Z i,j Z i,j Z i,j Z i,j are both admissible and cartesian (hence cocartesian) in A. In order to prove theorem (4) it is enough to prove that also the square Y i,j Y i,j Y i,j Y i,j is both admissible and cartesian, for all (i, j) and (i, j ) in Π such that i i and j j. In other words we want to prove that, under our assumptions, admissible cartesian squares are closed under extensions. Let s start by first showing that the square (5) is an admissible one. We want thus to prove that its horizontal arrows are admissible monomorphisms, and its vertical ones admissible epimorphisms. For given i j j, let s write the following commutative diagram: 15

16 X i,j Y i,j Z i,j 0 0 X i,j Y i,j Z i,j 0 0 X j,j Y j,j Z j,j in which the three rows are admissible short exact, and so are the first and the third column. But as we set this diagram in the abelian envelope F, we can thus apply the middle 3 X 3 lemma (see e.g. [10], p. 208), and conclude that in F the middle sequence is also short exact. We thus apply the last part of Quillen s embedding theorem (2), which tells us that this sequence in A is an admissible short exact sequence. This shows in a single shot that in the square (5), the horizontal morphisms are admissible mono, as well as the vertical morphisms are admissible epi. We have thus proved that the square (5) is an admissible square. It is then left to prove that the square (5) is cartesian. This will follow from a diagramchase argument involving an exact sequence of three squares (i.e. exact for the four sequences of the vertexes of the squares), whose first and last squares are cartesian. We therefore state this property as a proposition of homological algebra. Proposition 7. Let be (4) X m 1 Y e 2 T m 2 Z e 1 (5) X e 2 T m 1 Y m2 Z e 1 (6) X m 1 Y e 2 T m 2 Z e 1 16

17 three admissible squares and suppose also that squares (4) and (6)are cartesian in A. Suppose that we have admissible short exact sequences: (7) (8) X f X g X Y f Y g Y T f T g T Z f Z g Z such that all the resulting diagrams are commutative. Therefore the square (5) is cartesian. Proof. We shall use a diagram-chase argument, as we are in the hypotheses of the proposition (2). Thus, we can think of the above as a diagram of abelian groups, for which we are given elements y Y and t T, such that e 1 (y) = m 2 (t) in Z, and the claim is that there exists a unique element a X, such that e 2 (a) = t and m 1 (a) = y. Let be x a preimage of t through e 2. Let s put ỹ = m 1 ( x). Then we have e 1 (ỹ y) = 0. Consider now g( x) X. Then m (g( x)) Y, and we have: e 2g (y ỹ) = g e 1 (y ỹ) = 0. Now, e 2g (y ỹ) = 0, so that we obtain e 2g (y) = e 2g (ỹ). From the last equality we thus get: e 2 g (y) = e 2 g (ỹ) = e 2 m 1 (g( x)) = m 2 e 2 (g( x)) = m 2g e 2 ( x) = m 2g (t). In particular, the last equality implies that the element g (y) Y and the element g (t) T, are such that e 2 (g (y)) = m 2 (g (t)) in Z. But (6) is a cartesian square: then there exists a unique element x X such that: (9) m 1 (x ) = g (y) and e 2 (x ) = g (t). Now, g is onto: then we get a preimage of x via g in X: x = g(x). Hence, m 1 (x) Y and g m 1 (x) = m 1g(x) = m 1 (x ) = g (y). Then, g (m 1 (x) y) = 0, which yields: m 1 (x) y ker g = im(f ). Let thus be y Y such that f (y ) = m 1 (x) y. Consider now e 1 (y ) Z. We claim that e 1 (y ) has a preimage in T, via m 2. In fact, consider the chain of equalities: f e 1(y ) = e 1 f (y ) = e 1 (m 1 (x) y) = e 1 m 1 (x) e 1 (y) = m 2 e 2 (x) e 1 (y) = m 2 e 2 (x) m 2 (t). We therefore get: (10) f e 1(y ) = m 2 (e 2 (x) t). From it, we see that f e 1 (y ) is in the image of m 2. Consider next g (e 2 (x) t) = g e 2 (x) g (t) = e 2 (x ) g (t) = 0, from (9). It follows: e 2 (x) t ker g = imf. We thus get an element t T such that f (t ) = e 2 (x) t. We now compute m 2 (t ). We want to prove that m 2 (t ) = e 1 (y ). Since f ins injective, it is sufficient to show that f m 2 (t ) = f e 1 (y ). From (10) we obtain: f m 2(t ) = m 2 f (t ) = m 2 (e 2 (x) t) = f e 1(y ). It follows indeed that m 2(t ) = e 1(y ). So, we have found a pair of elements t and y, such that m 2(t ) = e 1(y ). Applying now the cartesianity of square (4) we therefore obtain a unique element x X for which m 1 (x ) = y and e 2 (x ) = t. Finally, we consider the element f(x ) = x 0 X. We have: m 1 (x 0 ) = m 1 f(x ) = f m 1 (x ) = f (y ) = m 1 (x) y. As a consequence we can write: y = m 1 (x) m 1 (x 0 ) = 17

18 m 1 (x x 0 ). We have thus found an element in X which is sent to y by m 1. If this element is sent to t by e 2, the proof of the proposition is completed. Thus, let s calculate e 2 (x x 0 ). It is: e 2 (x x 0 ) = e 2 x e 2 x 0 = e 2 (x) e 2 f(x ) = e 2 (x) f e 2 (x ). Now, m 2 e 2 (x x 0 ) = m 2 e 2 (x) m 2 f e 2 (x ) = m 2 e 2 (x) f m 2 e 2 (x ) = m 2 e 2 (x) f e 1 m 1 (x ) = m 2 e 2 (x) f e 1 (y ) = m 2 e 2 (x) e 1 f (y ) = m 2 e 2 (x) m 2 e 2 (x) + m 2 (t), where the last equality comes from (10). Hence, m 2 (e 2 (x x 0 )) = m 2 (t). Being m 2 injective, it follows e 2 (x x 0 ) = t, and we are done. References [1] M. Artin, B. Mazur, Étale Homotopy, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 100, Springer-Verlag (1969). [2] S. Arkhipov - K. Kremnizer, 2-gerbes and 2-Tate spaces, arxiv: (2007). [3] A. Beilinson, How to glue perverse sheaves in: K-Theory, Arithmetic and Geometry, Yu. I. Manin (Ed.), Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1289, pp , Springer-Verlag, New York (1987). [4] A. Deitmar, Harmonic Analysis over adelic spaces, arxiv: (2007). [5] S. I Gelfand, Yu. I. Manin, Methods of Homological Algebra, Second Edition, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin - Heidelberg (2003). [6] A. Grothendieck et al. Séminaire de géometrie algébrique IV: Théorie des topos et cohomologie étale des schemas. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 269, Springer-Verlag, Berlin - Heidelberg (1972). [7] M. Kapranov, Double affine Hecke algebras and 2-dimensional local fields. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (2001), no. 1, [8] K. Kato, Existence theorem for higher local fields, in: Geometry and Topology Monographs Vol 3: Invitation to higher local fields, I. Fesenko and M. Kurihara, (Eds.), pp , University of Warwick (2000). [9] B. Keller Derived categories and their uses. Handbook of algebra, Vol. 1, , North- Holland, Amsterdam (1996). [10] S. Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician, Second Edition, GTM Springer Vol. 5, Springer-Verlag, New York (1998). [11] D. V. Osipov - A. N. Parshin, Harmonic analysis on local fields and adelic spaces I, arxiv: (2007). [12] D. Quillen, Higher Algebraic K-Theory I, in: Higher K-Theories, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 341, pp , Springer-Verlag, New York (1973). [13] L. Ribes - P. Zalesskii, Profinite Groups, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg (2000). [14] F. Waldhausen, Algebraic K-Theory of Generalized Free Products, Part I, Annals of Mathematics 2nd Ser., vol 108, No. 2 (Sep. 1978), pp Department Of Mathematics Yale University New Haven, CT luigi.previdi@yale.edu 18