Review of category theory

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Review of category theory"

Transcription

1 Review of category theory Proseminar on stable homotopy theory, University of Pittsburgh Friday 17 th January 2014 Friday 24 th January 2014 Clive Newstead Abstract This talk will be a review of the fundamentals of category theory. Contents 1 Categories, functors and natural transformations Objects and morphisms Universal properties Functors Representable functors The Yoneda Lemma Representations of functors Limits and colimits Categories of (co)cones Having limits Adjunctions Preservation of limits Kan extensions References 17 Please send comments and corrections to cnewstead@cmu.edu.

2 1 Categories, functors and natural transformations 1.1 Objects and morphisms Definition 1.1. A category C is a collection C 0 of objects and a collection C 1 of morphisms such that: ˆ Each morphism f has a domain A and a codomain B, denoted f : A B; ˆ If f : A B and g : B C then there is a morphism g f : A C, and moreover the operation is associative; ˆ Each object A has an identity morphism id A : A A, which satisfies f id A = f and id A g = g for all f : A B and g : C A. Given objects A and B, the collection of morphisms A B is denoted Hom C (A, B). Definition 1.2. A morphism f : A B in a category C is... ˆ... a monomorphism if f x = f y x = y for all x, y : C A, in which case we say f is monic; ˆ... an epimorphism if u f = v f u = v for all u, v : B D, in which case we say f is epic; ˆ... an isomorphism if it has an inverse g : B A, which satisfies g f = id A and f g = id B. If f is an isomorphism then its inverse is unique, since if g and h are two inverses then We denote the inverse of f by f 1. Definition 1.3. g = g id B = g (f h) = (g f) h = id A h = h ˆ An object A in a category C is initial if for each object B there is a unique morphism A B. Typically we make a choice of initial object (which is sometimes canonical) and denote it 0. ˆ An object A in a category C is terminal if for each object C there is a unique morphism C A. Typically we make a choice of terminal object (which is sometimes canonical) and denote it 1. Some examples of categories are: ˆ The category Set of sets and functions between them. In this category, the monomorphisms are the injective functions, the epimorphisms are the surjective functions, and the isomorphisms are the bijections. The empty set is the (only) initial object and singletons are terminal objects. 1

3 ˆ The category Top of topological spaces and continuous maps between them. In this category, the monomorphisms and epimorphisms are the injective and surjective maps and the isomorphisms are the homeomorphisms. Like in Set, the empty space is the initial object and the singleton space is the terminal object. ˆ The category Gp of groups and group homomorphisms between them. In this category, the monomorphisms and epimorphisms are the injective and surjective homomorphisms, and the isomorphisms are the group isomorphisms. The trivial group is both initial and terminal in Gp. ˆ Any poset P = (P, P ) can be viewed as a category whose objects are the elements of P. Given any two objects a, b P, there is a unique morphism a b in P if and only if a P b. Initial objects are P -minimal elements, and terminal objects are P -maximal elements. Only identity morphisms are isomorphisms, since a P b and b P a if and only if a = b. All morphisms are monic and epic because morphisms are determined by their domain and codomain. ˆ Any directed graph G = (V, E) generates a category G, whose objects are the vertices of G and whose morphisms are identities and formal composites of edge relations. ˆ Given a category C there is an opposite category C op. C op has the same objects as C, and a morphism B A in C op is precisely a morphism A B in C. I will typically denote by f : A B the morphism in C op given by the morphism f : A B in C. 1.2 Universal properties Many concepts in category theory are defined by universal properties, which characterise an object up to isomorphism by the way it interacts with other objects. Some examples are given by the following definitions. Definition 1.4. Given objects A and B in a category C, a product of A and B is an object P together with projection morphisms π A : P A and π B : P B such that, whenever f : X A and g : X B, there is a unique morphism u : X P such that π A u = f and π B u = g. This is illustrated in the following diagram: f X u g A P B π A π B We often make a choice of product for a given pair A, B and denote it by A B; and in this case we write u = f, g. Some examples of products include: 2

4 ˆ In Set, Top and Gp, the product of A and B is the usual cartesian product A B (endowed with the appropriate structure in the case of Top and Gp). ˆ In a poset P, p is a product of a and b if and only if it is a (the) greatest lower bound of a and b, i.e. a b = a b. Definition 1.5. Given objects A and B in a category C, a coproduct of A and B is an object C together with inclusion morphisms ι A : A C and ι B : B C such that, whenever f : A Y and g : B Y, there is a unique morphism u : C Y such that u ι A = f and u ι B = g. This is illustrated in the following diagram: ι A ι B A C B f Y u g We often make a choice of product for a given pair A, B and denote it by A + B; and in this case we write u = [f, g]. Some examples of coproducts include: ˆ In Set and Top, the coproduct of A and B is the disjoint union A B, with ι A : A A B and ι B : B A B the canonical inclusion maps. ˆ In Top, the category of pointed topological spaces (topological spaces with a specified basepoint and basepoint-preserving continuous functions), the coproduct of A and B is the wedge union A B, obtained by taking the disjoint union of A and B and identifying their basepoints. ˆ In a poset P, c is a product of a and b if and only if it is a (the) least upper bound of a and b, i.e. a + b = a b. Definition 1.6. Let A, B, C be objects and f : A C and g : B C be morphisms in a category C. The pullback of (f, g) is an object P together with morphisms p A : P A and p B : P B such that f p A = g p B and, whenever q A : Q A and q B : Q B with f q A = g q B, there is a unique morphism u : Q P such that q A = p A u and q B = p B u. This is illustrated in the following diagram: Q u q A P p A A q B p B f B g C 3

5 In Set we can define P = {(a, b) A B : f(a) = g(b)} Definition 1.7. Let A, B, C be objects and f : C A and g : C B be morphisms in a category C. The pushout of (f, g) is an object P together with morphisms p A : A P and p B : B P such that p A f = p B g and, whenever q A : A Q and q B : B Q with q A f = q B g, there is a unique morphism u : P Q such that q A = u p A and q B = u p B. This is illustrated in the following diagram: C g B f p B q B A p A P u q A Q In Set we can define P = A B/ where is the smallest equivalence relation satisfying f(c) g(c) for c C. 1.3 Functors Definition 1.8. Let C and D be categories. A (covariant) functor F : C D is a map of objects and of arrows such that F (id A ) = id F (A) for all objects A C 0 and F (g f) = F (g) F (f) for all composable pairs of morphisms f, g in C. A contravariant functor from C to D is a covariant functor C op D. Some examples of functors are: ˆ Given any category C there is an identity functor id C morphisms to themselves. : C C sending all objects and ˆ The forgetful functor U : Top Set, sending each space to its underlying set and each continuous map to its underlying function. ˆ The discrete topology functor D : Set Top, which sends each set to the discrete space on that set, and each function to the (continuous) map between these spaces. ˆ Given two posets P and Q, a functor F : P Q is precisely an order-preserving map. The collection of small 1 categories and functors between them forms a category, denoted by Cat. 1 A category is small if the collection of all its objects and morphisms is a set. 4

6 Definition 1.9. Let C and D be categories and F, G : C D be functors. A natural transformation α : F G is a collection of D-morphisms α A : F (A) G(A), for A C 0, such that for each C-morphism f : A B the following diagram commutes: F (f) F (A) F (B) α A α B G(A) G(B) G(f) We will sometimes indicate that there is a natural transformation F G by declaring that a morphism F (A) G(A) is natural in A. Some examples of natural transformations include: ˆ Given any functor F : C D there is an identity natural transformation id F : F F, defined by (id F ) A = id F (A). ˆ Consider the functor P : Set Set defined by sending a set A to its powerset P(A) and a function f : A B to the direct image map f : P(A) P(B). There is a natural transformation {} : id Set P given by {} A (x) = {x} for all x A. To see that this is natural, let f : A B and x A; then so {} B f = f {} A. ({} B f)(x) = {f(x)} = f ({x}) = (f {} A )(x) ˆ Let Vec k be the category of vector spaces over a field k and linear maps and let : (Vec k ) op Vec k be the dual functor, which sends a space V to its dual V = L(V, k) and a linear map f : V W to its dual f : W V, defined by f (α) = α f. There is a natural transformation θ : id Veck ( ) defined by θ V (v)(α) = α(v) for α V. To see that this is natural, let f : V W, v V and α W ; then (θ W f)(v)(α) = α(f(v)) = (α f)(v) = f (α)(v) = (θ V (v) f )(α) = (f θ V )(v)(α) so θ W f = f θ V. Given categories C, D there is a category [C, D], whose objects are functors C D and whose morphisms are natural transformations. We say a natural transformation α : F G is a natural isomorphism if it is an isomorphism in [C, D]. Definition A functor F : C D is an equivalence of categories if there is a functor G : D C such that G F = id C and F G = id D. We say C and D are equivalent and write C D. 5

7 2 Representable functors 2.1 The Yoneda Lemma Definition 2.1. A category C is locally small if, for any objects A and B, the collection Hom C (A, B) is a set. For example, Set is locally small because given any two sets A, B there is only a set of functions A B. However Cat is not locally small because given any two categories C, D there may be a proper class of functors C D: for instance, for each set A there is a functor ( ) A : Set Set. Definition 2.2. If C is locally small then there is a functor y : C [C op, Set] defined by y(a)(x) = Hom C (X, A), y(a f B) X (X g A) = f g for X C 0 and g : X A. The functor y is called the Yoneda embedding. Theorem 2.3 (Yoneda lemma). Let C be a locally small category, F : C op Set be a functor and A C 0. Then there is a bijection which is natural in A and in F. Hom [C op,set](y(a), F ) = F (A) Proof. Define maps Φ A,F : Hom [C op,set](y(a), F ) F (A) : Ψ A,F by Φ A,F (α) = α A (id A ), Ψ A,F (x) C (C g A) = F (g)(x) We ll drop subscripts which are fixed in our portion of working. Φ and Ψ are an inverse pair. For x F (A) we have Φ(Ψ(x)) = Ψ(x) A (id A ) = F (id A )(x) = id F (A) (x) = x so Φ Ψ = id F (A). For α : y(a) F, C C 0 and g : C A we have Ψ(Φ(α)) C (g) = F (g)(φ(α)) = F (g)(α A (id A )) = α C (g id A ) = α C (g) so Ψ(Φ(α)) = α and Ψ Φ = id Hom[C op,set] (y(a),f ). Φ is natural in A. F : C D: We need the following diagram to commute for all f : A B and all Hom [C op,set](y(a), F ) ( ) f Hom [C op,set](y(b), F ) Φ A Φ B F (A) F (B) F (f) 6

8 Let θ : y(b) F. Then and so the diagram commutes. (F (f) Φ B )(θ) = F (f)(θ B (id B )) = (F (f) θ B )(id B ) = θ A (f) Φ A (θ f) = (θ f) A (id A ) = θ A (f id A ) = θ A (f) Φ is natural in F. We need the following diagram to commute for all A C 0 and all natural transformations η : F G: Hom [C op,set](y(a), F ) η ( ) Hom [C op,set](y(b), F ) Φ F Φ G F (A) η A F (B) Let θ : y(a) F. Then so the diagram commutes. (η A Φ F )(θ) = η A (θ A (id A )) = (η θ) A (id A ) = Φ G (η θ) Corollary 2.4. Let C be locally small and F : C op Set be a functor. For all C-objects A and B, A = B if and only if y(a) = y(b) Proof. Apply the Yoneda Lemma (2.3) to the functor y(b). We see the Yoneda lemma all over the place. For instance, it tells us that for a set A, elements of A correspond naturally with maps { } A. But this is obvious: a A corresponds with the function ǎ : { } A given by ǎ( ) = a. It also tells us (via the above corollary) that, in a poset category P, a = b if and only if c P a c P b for all c P. 2.2 Representations of functors Definition 2.5. Let C be locally small and F : C op Set be a functor. We say F is representable if there is a natural isomorphism θ : y(a) = F for some A C 0. By the Yoneda lemma (2.3) θ corresponds with an element x F (A). The pair (A, x) is called a representation of F. For example, the forgetful functor U : Gp Set is representable by ((Z, +), 1), since every group homomorphism G Z is determined by the image of 1. Proposition 2.6. Suppose F : C op Set is representable and that (A, x) and (B, y) are two representations of F. Then there is a unique isomorphism f : A B in C such that F f(y) = x. 7

9 3 Limits and colimits 3.1 Categories of (co)cones Definition 3.1. Let C and J be categories. A diagram of shape J in C is a functor d : J C. We call J the index category of the diagram. We often identify a diagram with its image. For example, a diagram of shape in a category C is a pair of morphisms P = A f B g C For future reference, we ll call this diagram d : P C. Definition 3.2. Let d : J C be a diagram. A cone over d is an object C together with morphisms ε i : C d(i) for i J 0 such that d(α) ε i = ε j for each α : i j in J. That is, the following diagram commutes for all α: ε i d(i) C d(α) ε j d(j) For example, a cone over the diagram P given above consists of an object Q together with morphisms q A : Q A, q B : Q B and q C : Q C such that the following diagram commutes: Q q A q B q C A f B g C We may omit q C from the picture since q C = f q A = g q B. 8

10 Definition 3.3. Let d : J C be a diagram of shape J in a category C, and let (C, ε i ) and (D, δ i ) be cones over d. A morphism of cones (C, ε i ) (D, δ i ) is a C-morphism m : C D such that δ i m = ε i for all i J 0. Thus the following diagram commutes for all α : i j C ε i d(i) δ i m D d(α) δ j ε j d(j) Given a diagram d : J C there is a category Cone(d) whose objects are cones over d and whose morphisms are morphisms of cones. Definition 3.4. A terminal cone (L, λ i ) over d is called a limit of d, often denoted lim(d). For example, a limit of the diagram d : P C above is a cone A p A P p B B such that, given any other cone A q A Q q B B, there is a unique morphism u : Q P making the following diagram commute: Q u q A P p A A q B p B f B g C That is, a limit of a diagram of shape is precisely a pullback. Other examples of limits include: ˆ A limit of a diagram of shape 0 (the empty category) is a terminal object. ˆ A limit of a diagram of shape is simply an object. ˆ A limit of a diagram of shape is a product (of a pair). ˆ More generally, a limit of a diagram of shape D λ, where D λ is the discrete category with λ-many objects (and only identity morphisms), is a product. 9

11 ˆ A limit of a diagram of shape is an equalizer. In Set the equalizer of f, g : A B is the inclusion e : E A of the subset E = {a A : f(a) = g(a)} Dually we have the notions of a cocone under d, a morphism of cocones, the category of cocones (denoted Cocone(d)) and a colimit (denoted colim(d)), summarised by the following diagram: d(i) ε i d(α) λ i λ j colim(d) u C d(j) ε j That is, a colimit is an initial object in the category of cocones. Examples of limits include: ˆ A colimit of a diagram of shape 0 (the empty category) is an initial object. ˆ A colimit of a diagram of shape is simply an object. ˆ A colimit of a diagram of shape is a coproduct (of a pair). ˆ More generally, a colimit of a diagram of shape D λ is a coproduct. ˆ A colimit of a diagram of shape is an coequalizer. In Set the coequalizer of f, g : A B is the quotient map q : B Q where Q is the quotient of B by the smallest equivalence relation identifying f(a) and g(a) for each a A. ˆ A colimit of a diagram of shape is a pushout. ˆ A colimit in Top of a sequence of inclusions of spaces X 0 X 1 X 2 is precisely their union X = n X n, where U X is open in X n if U X n is open for all n. Since they re defined by universal properties, limits and colimits are unique up to isomorphism. Before moving on I will give another example of limits and colimits that give something quite familiar: 10

12 Example 3.5. Let G be a group considered as a category, i.e. G 0 = { } and G 1 is the set of elements of the group considered as morphisms with group multiplication interpreted as composition. (So all morphisms in G are isomorphisms.) A functor ρ : G Set is precisely a group action on the set ρ( ) =: X defined by g x = ρ(g)(x) for g G 1 and x X. Indeed, given g, h G 1 and x X we have (gh) x = ρ(gh)(x) = ρ(g)(ρ(h)(x)) = g (h x) A cone over ρ is a set C equipped with a morphism i : C X such that for all g G 1 we have ρ(g) i = i. A limit, if it exists, will be a morphism λ : 1 X (i.e. an element λ X such that ρ(g)(λ) = λ for all g, i.e. a fixed point for the action. A cocone under ρ is a set Q equipped with a morphism j : X Q such that for all g G 1 we have j ρ(g) = j. The colimit of ρ always exists and is the set X/G of orbits; indeed if q : X X/G is the quotient map then we have [x] = [g x] for any g, which is precisely the statement that q ρ(g) = q. 3.2 Having limits Definition 3.6. A category C... ˆ... has (co)limits of shape J if every diagram d : J C has a (co)limit in C; ˆ... has all finite (co)limits if it has (co)limits of shape J for every finite category J ; ˆ... has all small (co)limits if it has (co)limits of shape J for every small category J ; ˆ... has all (co)limits if it has (co)limits of shape J for every category J. It is useful to find sufficient conditions for having (co)limits of various shapes and sizes. Theorem 3.7. Let C be a category. If C has equalizers and all (small, finite) products then C has all (small, finite) limits. Proof. Let d : J C be a diagram (with J small, finite). Define P = d(j), Q = d(j) j J 0 α:i j and let π j : P d(j) and ρ α : Q d(j) denote the product projections. Define morphisms f, g : P Q by f = π j α : i j, g = d(α) π i α : i j that is, f is the unique morphism P Q with ρ α f = π j for each α : i j, and so on. 11

13 Finally, construct the equalizer L e P f g and define λ i = π i e : L d(i) for each i J 0. Claim. (L, λ i ) = lim(d). First we need to check it is a cone. Well if α : i j in J then d(α) λ i = d(α) π i e = ρ α g e = ρ α f e = π j e = λ j Now suppose (C, ε i ) is another cone over d, so that d(α) ε i = ε j for all α : i j in J. Since P is a product, there is a unique morphism x : C P such that π j x = ε j for each j J 0. But then f x = π j x α : i j = ε j α : i j = d(α) ε i α : i j = d(α) π i x α : i j = d(α) π i α : i j x = g x Since L equalizes f and g there is a unique morphism u : L C such that x u = e. But then for each i J 0. So (L, λ i ) = lim(d). Q ε i u = π i x u = π i e = λ i Theorem 3.8. Suppose C has a terminal object and pullbacks. Then C has all finite limits. Proof. It suffices to show that C has products of pairs of objects and equalizers of pairs of objects. Products of pairs. Let A, B C 0. Let A π A P π B B make the following diagram a pullback: P π A A π B! A B! B 1 where! A,! B are the unique morphisms to the terminal object 1. Any morphisms A f X g B satisfy! A f =! B g =! X, so for any such morphisms there is a unique arrow u : X P such that π A u = f and π B u = g. Thus P is the product of A and B. Equalizers. Let f, g : A B. Form the pullback e E e A id A, f A A B id A, g 12

14 Since the diagram commutes, we have e = π A id A, f e = π A id A, g e = e so f e = g e = g e. Since the diagram is a pullback, e : E A is universal with this property, so E e A is the equalizer of f and g. By the previous theorem, C has all finite limits. Corollary 3.9. Let F : C D be a functor. ˆ If C has and F preserves equalizers and all (small, finite) products then F preserves all (small, finite) limits. ˆ If C has and F preserves terminal objects and pullbacks then F preserves all finite limits. 4 Adjunctions An adjunction is a relation between functors that appears all over the place in category theory and has some important properties. Definition 4.1. Let C and D be locally small categories and F : C D and G : D C be functors. We say F is left-adjoint to G, and G is right-adjoint to F, if for all C-objects A and D-objects B there is a bijection Φ A,B : Hom D (F (A), B) Hom C (A, G(B)) which is natural in A and B. If F is left-adjoint to G we write F G; the relation is called an adjunction. This definition is only valid for locally small categories. If we re willing to abuse what we mean by bijection then this definition also extends to general categories, but we can do better. As such, I will define an adjunction again, and then prove that the two definitions are equivalent. Definition 4.2. Let C and D be categories and F : C D and G : D C be functors. We say F is left-adjoint to G, and G is right-adjoint to F, if there exist natural transformations η : id C G F (called the unit of the adjunction) and ε : F G id D (called the counit of the adjunction) satisfying the following triangular identities: F F η F G F G ηg G F G εf Gε id F F id G G 13

15 where εf is the natural transformation with components (εf ) A = ε F (A) and so on. Theorem 4.3. Definitions 4.1 and 4.2 are equivalent for locally small categories. Proof. ( ). For A C 0 and B D 0, define and η A = Φ A,B (id F A ) : A GF A ε B = Φ 1 A,B (id GB) : F GB B Check that these define components of natural transformations which satisfy the triangular identities. ( ). Define and Φ A,B (F A f B) = A η A GF A Gf GB Ψ A,B (A g GB) = F A F g F GB ε B B Check that these maps are mutually inverse and natural in A and in B. Some examples of adjunctions are as follows: ˆ Let P and Q be posets. Recall that a functor F : P Q is precisely an order-preserving map. Thus a pair of functors P F Q form an adjoint pair F G if and only if (F, G) is a Galois connection, i.e. if for all p P and q Q we have G F (p) Q q if and only if p Q G(q) ˆ The forgetful functor U : Gp Set has a left-adjoint F : Set Gp, which assigns to a set X the free group F X generated by X. This is so because homomorphisms F X G correspond naturally with functions X U G. ˆ The forgetful functor U : Top Set has both a left-adjoint D : Set Top, which endows a set with the discrete topology, and a right-adjoint T : Set Top, which endows a set with the trivial topology. ˆ Let KHaus be the category of compact Hausdorff spaces and continuous maps. The inclusion functor I : KHaus Top has a left-adjoint β : Top KHaus, which is characterised as follows: given a continuous map f : X K with K compact Hausdorff there is a unique map βf : βx K such that X f K = X η X βx βf K where η X is the unit of the adjunction. Thus βx is the Stone-Čech compactification of X. ˆ Given a set A, the functor ( ) A : Set Set has a right-adjoint ( ) A : Set Set. The correspondence between maps B A C and B C A is given by currying and uncurrying; for instance, f : B A C corresponds with f : B C A, where f(b)(a) = f(b, a).e 14

16 4.1 Preservation of limits There are many reasons why knowing that two functors form an adjoint pair is useful. The following result, known colloquially as RAPL, is something which comes up all over the place and is important to know. Theorem 4.4 (Right-adjoints preserve limits). Suppose G : D C is a functor with a left-adjoint F : C D. Let d : J D be a diagram in D and suppose lim(d) exists. Then Gd : J C has a limit in C, and lim(gd) = G(lim(d)). Proof. Write (L, λ i ) = lim(d) and let µ i : F L d(i) be the map corresponding with λ i under the adjunction. Let (C, ε i ) be a cone over Gd in C. Thus for each i J 0 we have a C-morphism ε i : C Gd(i). Then each ε i corresponds under the adjunction with some η i : F C d(i) in D, and by naturality (F C, η i ) forms a cone over d in D. Hence there is a unique morphism u : F C L such that λ i u = η i. But then u corresponds under the adjunction with a unique map v : C GL satisfying µ i v = ε i. So (GL, µ i ) is a limit of Gd in C. Corollary 4.5 (Left-adjoints preserve colimits). Suppose F : C D is a functor with a rightadjoint G : D C. Let d : J C be a diagram in C and suppose colim(d) exists. Then F d : J D has a limit in D, and colim(f d) = F (colim(d)). Some examples are as follows: ˆ We saw above that there is a chain of adjunctions D U T, where U : Top Set is the forgetful functor and D, T : Set Top are the functors endowing a set with the discrete and trivial topologies, respectively. Thus, for example, we now know: Disjoint unions and quotients of discrete spaces are discrete. Products and intersections of trivial spaces are trivial. The underlying set of a product (or disjoint union, or quotient, or intersection, or...) of topological spaces is the product (or disjoint union or...) of their underlying sets. ˆ The adjunction β I tells us that any limit (e.g. product, intersection) of compact Hausdorff spaces is compact Hausdorff. It may not be true that a colimit of compact Hausdorff spaces is compact Hausdorff; for instance, the singleton space 1 is compact Hausdorff, but the disjoint union 1 = N (with the discrete topology) n N is not compact. This is a coproduct in Top because it is so in Set and as a left-adjoint the functor D : Set Top preserves colimits. The coproduct of N-many 1s in KHaus does exist, though: it s the Stone-Čech compatificaton βn of N. 15

17 Theorem 4.6. If d : J Top is a diagram, with J small, let and U : Top Set be a forgetful functor. Then lim(d) and colim(d) both exist, and moreover U(lim(d)) = lim(u d) and U(colim(d)) = colim(u d) That is, the underlying set of a limit or colimit in Top is precisely the limit or colimit of the underlying sets. Proof. U is both a left-adjoint and a right-adjoint since we have the chain of adjunctions D U T, so U preserves both limits and colimits. Thus if a limit or colimit of d exists then its underlying set must be the limit or colimit in Set of Ud. Moreover, these limits and colimits really do exist: they exist in Set since Set has all small limits and colimits (as can readily be seen by Theorem 3.7). We can then endow lim(d) with the coarsest topology making all the cone functions continuous; and colim(d) with the finest topology making all the cocone functions continuous. Proposition 4.7. A category C has limits (resp. colimits) of shape J if and only if the constant functor functor : C [J, C] has a right-adjoint (resp. left-adjoint). colim lim Proof. having a right-adjoint lim would mean that for all C-objects C and all diagrams d : J C there is a natural correspondence C ε d C u lim(d) where C : J C is the constant diagram with value C on objects and id C on morphisms. But this is precisely the assertion that if (C, ε i ) is a cone over d then there is a unique morphism u : C lim(d), and u factors appropriately by naturality of the adjoint correspondence. 4.2 Kan extensions Given any functor p : C C and a category C, there is a functor p : [C, D] [C, D] defined by p (C F p D) = F p : C C F D Definition 4.8. Let p : C C and F : C D be functors. If p : [C, D] [C, D] has a left-adjoint p!, then we say Lan p (F ) = p! (F ) : C D is the left Kan extension of F along p. If p has a right-adjoint p, then we way Ran p (F ) = p (F ) : C D is the right Kan extension of F along p. 16

18 For example, suppose C = 1, the terminal category (with one object and only an identity morphism), that! : J 1 is the unique morphism and that d : J C is a diagram of shape J in C. Then Lan! (d) = lim(d) : 1 C is the (functor picking out the) limit of d in C. Likewise Ran! (d) = colim(d) : 1 C is the (functor picking out the) colimit of d in C. References [1] Steve Awodey. Category Theory. Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford University Press, [2] Julia Goedecke. Part III Category Theory [3] Saunders Mac Lane. Categories for the Working Mathematician. Categories for the Working Mathematician. Springer,

Adjunctions! Everywhere!

Adjunctions! Everywhere! Adjunctions! Everywhere! Carnegie Mellon University Thursday 19 th September 2013 Clive Newstead Abstract What do free groups, existential quantifiers and Stone-Čech compactifications all have in common?

More information

PART I. Abstract algebraic categories

PART I. Abstract algebraic categories PART I Abstract algebraic categories It should be observed first that the whole concept of category is essentially an auxiliary one; our basic concepts are those of a functor and a natural transformation.

More information

CATEGORY THEORY. Cats have been around for 70 years. Eilenberg + Mac Lane =. Cats are about building bridges between different parts of maths.

CATEGORY THEORY. Cats have been around for 70 years. Eilenberg + Mac Lane =. Cats are about building bridges between different parts of maths. CATEGORY THEORY PROFESSOR PETER JOHNSTONE Cats have been around for 70 years. Eilenberg + Mac Lane =. Cats are about building bridges between different parts of maths. Definition 1.1. A category C consists

More information

Category Theory. Travis Dirle. December 12, 2017

Category Theory. Travis Dirle. December 12, 2017 Category Theory 2 Category Theory Travis Dirle December 12, 2017 2 Contents 1 Categories 1 2 Construction on Categories 7 3 Universals and Limits 11 4 Adjoints 23 5 Limits 31 6 Generators and Projectives

More information

GALOIS CATEGORIES MELISSA LYNN

GALOIS CATEGORIES MELISSA LYNN GALOIS CATEGORIES MELISSA LYNN Abstract. In abstract algebra, we considered finite Galois extensions of fields with their Galois groups. Here, we noticed a correspondence between the intermediate fields

More information

Representable presheaves

Representable presheaves Representable presheaves March 15, 2017 A presheaf on a category C is a contravariant functor F on C. In particular, for any object X Ob(C) we have the presheaf (of sets) represented by X, that is Hom

More information

Category Theory (UMV/TK/07)

Category Theory (UMV/TK/07) P. J. Šafárik University, Faculty of Science, Košice Project 2005/NP1-051 11230100466 Basic information Extent: 2 hrs lecture/1 hrs seminar per week. Assessment: Written tests during the semester, written

More information

A Grothendieck site is a small category C equipped with a Grothendieck topology T. A Grothendieck topology T consists of a collection of subfunctors

A Grothendieck site is a small category C equipped with a Grothendieck topology T. A Grothendieck topology T consists of a collection of subfunctors Contents 5 Grothendieck topologies 1 6 Exactness properties 10 7 Geometric morphisms 17 8 Points and Boolean localization 22 5 Grothendieck topologies A Grothendieck site is a small category C equipped

More information

1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations. Discrete categories. A category is discrete when every arrow is an identity.

1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transformations. Discrete categories. A category is discrete when every arrow is an identity. MacLane: Categories or Working Mathematician 1 Categories, Functors, and Natural Transormations 1.1 Axioms or Categories 1.2 Categories Discrete categories. A category is discrete when every arrow is an

More information

Lectures on Homological Algebra. Weizhe Zheng

Lectures on Homological Algebra. Weizhe Zheng Lectures on Homological Algebra Weizhe Zheng Morningside Center of Mathematics Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing 100190, China University of the Chinese Academy

More information

Elementary (ha-ha) Aspects of Topos Theory

Elementary (ha-ha) Aspects of Topos Theory Elementary (ha-ha) Aspects of Topos Theory Matt Booth June 3, 2016 Contents 1 Sheaves on topological spaces 1 1.1 Presheaves on spaces......................... 1 1.2 Digression on pointless topology..................

More information

3. Categories and Functors We recall the definition of a category: Definition 3.1. A category C is the data of two collections. The first collection

3. Categories and Functors We recall the definition of a category: Definition 3.1. A category C is the data of two collections. The first collection 3. Categories and Functors We recall the definition of a category: Definition 3.1. A category C is the data of two collections. The first collection is called the objects of C and is denoted Obj(C). Given

More information

Lecture 9: Sheaves. February 11, 2018

Lecture 9: Sheaves. February 11, 2018 Lecture 9: Sheaves February 11, 2018 Recall that a category X is a topos if there exists an equivalence X Shv(C), where C is a small category (which can be assumed to admit finite limits) equipped with

More information

An introduction to toposes. Richard Pettigrew Department of Philosophy University of Bristol

An introduction to toposes. Richard Pettigrew Department of Philosophy University of Bristol n introduction to toposes Richard Pettigrew Department of Philosophy University of Bristol Contents 1 Motivating category theory 1 1.1 The idea behind category theory.................. 1 2 The definition

More information

Universal Properties

Universal Properties A categorical look at undergraduate algebra and topology Julia Goedecke Newnham College 24 February 2017, Archimedeans Julia Goedecke (Newnham) 24/02/2017 1 / 30 1 Maths is Abstraction : more abstraction

More information

Boolean Algebra and Propositional Logic

Boolean Algebra and Propositional Logic Boolean Algebra and Propositional Logic Takahiro Kato September 10, 2015 ABSTRACT. This article provides yet another characterization of Boolean algebras and, using this characterization, establishes a

More information

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 2

FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 2 FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASS 2 RAVI VAKIL CONTENTS 1. Where we were 1 2. Yoneda s lemma 2 3. Limits and colimits 6 4. Adjoints 8 First, some bureaucratic details. We will move to 380-F for Monday

More information

Elements of Category Theory

Elements of Category Theory Elements of Category Theory Robin Cockett Department of Computer Science University of Calgary Alberta, Canada robin@cpsc.ucalgary.ca Estonia, Feb. 2010 Functors and natural transformations Adjoints and

More information

Assume the left square is a pushout. Then the right square is a pushout if and only if the big rectangle is.

Assume the left square is a pushout. Then the right square is a pushout if and only if the big rectangle is. COMMUTATIVE ALGERA LECTURE 2: MORE CATEGORY THEORY VIVEK SHENDE Last time we learned about Yoneda s lemma, and various universal constructions initial and final objects, products and coproducts (which

More information

Boolean Algebras, Boolean Rings and Stone s Representation Theorem

Boolean Algebras, Boolean Rings and Stone s Representation Theorem Boolean Algebras, Boolean Rings and Stone s Representation Theorem Hongtaek Jung December 27, 2017 Abstract This is a part of a supplementary note for a Logic and Set Theory course. The main goal is to

More information

1. Introduction and preliminaries

1. Introduction and preliminaries Quasigroups and Related Systems 23 (2015), 283 295 The categories of actions of a dcpo-monoid on directed complete posets Mojgan Mahmoudi and Halimeh Moghbeli-Damaneh Abstract. In this paper, some categorical

More information

Categories and functors

Categories and functors Lecture 1 Categories and functors Definition 1.1 A category A consists of a collection ob(a) (whose elements are called the objects of A) for each A, B ob(a), a collection A(A, B) (whose elements are called

More information

Maps and Monads for Modal Frames

Maps and Monads for Modal Frames Robert Goldblatt Maps and Monads for Modal Frames Dedicated to the memory of Willem Johannes Blok. Abstract. The category-theoretic nature of general frames for modal logic is explored. A new notion of

More information

1 Categorical Background

1 Categorical Background 1 Categorical Background 1.1 Categories and Functors Definition 1.1.1 A category C is given by a class of objects, often denoted by ob C, and for any two objects A, B of C a proper set of morphisms C(A,

More information

Boolean Algebra and Propositional Logic

Boolean Algebra and Propositional Logic Boolean Algebra and Propositional Logic Takahiro Kato June 23, 2015 This article provides yet another characterization of Boolean algebras and, using this characterization, establishes a more direct connection

More information

Algebraic Geometry

Algebraic Geometry MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 18.726 Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. 18.726: Algebraic Geometry

More information

COMMUTATIVE ALGEBRA LECTURE 1: SOME CATEGORY THEORY

COMMUTATIVE ALGEBRA LECTURE 1: SOME CATEGORY THEORY COMMUTATIVE ALGEBRA LECTURE 1: SOME CATEGORY THEORY VIVEK SHENDE A ring is a set R with two binary operations, an addition + and a multiplication. Always there should be an identity 0 for addition, an

More information

FUNCTORS AND ADJUNCTIONS. 1. Functors

FUNCTORS AND ADJUNCTIONS. 1. Functors FUNCTORS AND ADJUNCTIONS Abstract. Graphs, quivers, natural transformations, adjunctions, Galois connections, Galois theory. 1.1. Graph maps. 1. Functors 1.1.1. Quivers. Quivers generalize directed graphs,

More information

Category Theory. Categories. Definition.

Category Theory. Categories. Definition. Category Theory Category theory is a general mathematical theory of structures, systems of structures and relationships between systems of structures. It provides a unifying and economic mathematical modeling

More information

Exercises on chapter 0

Exercises on chapter 0 Exercises on chapter 0 1. A partially ordered set (poset) is a set X together with a relation such that (a) x x for all x X; (b) x y and y x implies that x = y for all x, y X; (c) x y and y z implies that

More information

C2.7: CATEGORY THEORY

C2.7: CATEGORY THEORY C2.7: CATEGORY THEORY PAVEL SAFRONOV WITH MINOR UPDATES 2019 BY FRANCES KIRWAN Contents Introduction 2 Literature 3 1. Basic definitions 3 1.1. Categories 3 1.2. Set-theoretic issues 4 1.3. Functors 5

More information

arxiv: v1 [math.ct] 28 Oct 2017

arxiv: v1 [math.ct] 28 Oct 2017 BARELY LOCALLY PRESENTABLE CATEGORIES arxiv:1710.10476v1 [math.ct] 28 Oct 2017 L. POSITSELSKI AND J. ROSICKÝ Abstract. We introduce a new class of categories generalizing locally presentable ones. The

More information

Derived Algebraic Geometry IX: Closed Immersions

Derived Algebraic Geometry IX: Closed Immersions Derived Algebraic Geometry I: Closed Immersions November 5, 2011 Contents 1 Unramified Pregeometries and Closed Immersions 4 2 Resolutions of T-Structures 7 3 The Proof of Proposition 1.0.10 14 4 Closed

More information

Category Theory 1 Categories and functors

Category Theory 1 Categories and functors Category Theory 1 Categories and functors This is to accompany the reading of 1 7 October and the lecture of 8 October. mistakes and obscurities to T.Leinster@maths.gla.ac.uk. Please report Some questions

More information

CONTINUITY. 1. Continuity 1.1. Preserving limits and colimits. Suppose that F : J C and R: C D are functors. Consider the limit diagrams.

CONTINUITY. 1. Continuity 1.1. Preserving limits and colimits. Suppose that F : J C and R: C D are functors. Consider the limit diagrams. CONTINUITY Abstract. Continuity, tensor products, complete lattices, the Tarski Fixed Point Theorem, existence of adjoints, Freyd s Adjoint Functor Theorem 1. Continuity 1.1. Preserving limits and colimits.

More information

SECTION 2: THE COMPACT-OPEN TOPOLOGY AND LOOP SPACES

SECTION 2: THE COMPACT-OPEN TOPOLOGY AND LOOP SPACES SECTION 2: THE COMPACT-OPEN TOPOLOGY AND LOOP SPACES In this section we will give the important constructions of loop spaces and reduced suspensions associated to pointed spaces. For this purpose there

More information

Coreflections in Algebraic Quantum Logic

Coreflections in Algebraic Quantum Logic Coreflections in Algebraic Quantum Logic Bart Jacobs Jorik Mandemaker Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands Abstract Various generalizations of Boolean algebras are being studied in algebraic quantum

More information

Postulated colimits and left exactness of Kan-extensions

Postulated colimits and left exactness of Kan-extensions Postulated colimits and left exactness of Kan-extensions Anders Kock If A is a small category and E a Grothendieck topos, the Kan extension LanF of a flat functor F : A E along any functor A D preserves

More information

Limit Preservation from Naturality

Limit Preservation from Naturality CTCS 2004 Preliminary Version Limit Preservation from Naturality Mario Caccamo 1 The Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute Cambridge, UK Glynn Winskel 2 University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory Cambridge,

More information

GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS

GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS GENERALIZED ABSTRACT NONSENSE: CATEGORY THEORY AND ADJUNCTIONS CHRIS HENDERSON Abstract. This paper will move through the basics o category theory, eventually deining natural transormations and adjunctions

More information

Adjunctions, the Stone-Čech compactification, the compact-open topology, the theorems of Ascoli and Arzela

Adjunctions, the Stone-Čech compactification, the compact-open topology, the theorems of Ascoli and Arzela Adjunctions, the Stone-Čech compactification, the compact-open topology, the theorems of Ascoli and Arzela John Terilla Fall 2014 Contents 1 Adjoint functors 2 2 Example: Product-Hom adjunction in Set

More information

Categories and Modules

Categories and Modules Categories and odules Takahiro Kato arch 2, 205 BSTRCT odules (also known as profunctors or distributors) and morphisms among them subsume categories and functors and provide more general and abstract

More information

The Ordinary RO(C 2 )-graded Cohomology of a Point

The Ordinary RO(C 2 )-graded Cohomology of a Point The Ordinary RO(C 2 )-graded Cohomology of a Point Tiago uerreiro May 27, 2015 Abstract This paper consists of an extended abstract of the Master Thesis of the author. Here, we outline the most important

More information

An Algebraic View of the Relation between Largest Common Subtrees and Smallest Common Supertrees

An Algebraic View of the Relation between Largest Common Subtrees and Smallest Common Supertrees An Algebraic View of the Relation between Largest Common Subtrees and Smallest Common Supertrees Francesc Rosselló 1, Gabriel Valiente 2 1 Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Research Institute

More information

Topos Theory. Lectures 21 and 22: Classifying toposes. Olivia Caramello. Topos Theory. Olivia Caramello. The notion of classifying topos

Topos Theory. Lectures 21 and 22: Classifying toposes. Olivia Caramello. Topos Theory. Olivia Caramello. The notion of classifying topos Lectures 21 and 22: toposes of 2 / 30 Toposes as mathematical universes of Recall that every Grothendieck topos E is an elementary topos. Thus, given the fact that arbitrary colimits exist in E, we can

More information

ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY COURSE NOTES, LECTURE 9: SCHEMES AND THEIR MODULES.

ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY COURSE NOTES, LECTURE 9: SCHEMES AND THEIR MODULES. ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY COURSE NOTES, LECTURE 9: SCHEMES AND THEIR MODULES. ANDREW SALCH 1. Affine schemes. About notation: I am in the habit of writing f (U) instead of f 1 (U) for the preimage of a subset

More information

Topos Theory. Lectures 17-20: The interpretation of logic in categories. Olivia Caramello. Topos Theory. Olivia Caramello.

Topos Theory. Lectures 17-20: The interpretation of logic in categories. Olivia Caramello. Topos Theory. Olivia Caramello. logic s Lectures 17-20: logic in 2 / 40 logic s Interpreting first-order logic in In Logic, first-order s are a wide class of formal s used for talking about structures of any kind (where the restriction

More information

Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra

Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 214 (2010) 1384 1398 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpaa Homotopy theory of

More information

LIMITS AND COLIMITS. m : M X. in a category G of structured sets of some sort call them gadgets the image subset

LIMITS AND COLIMITS. m : M X. in a category G of structured sets of some sort call them gadgets the image subset 5 LIMITS ND COLIMITS In this chapter we irst briely discuss some topics namely subobjects and pullbacks relating to the deinitions that we already have. This is partly in order to see how these are used,

More information

RUDIMENTARY CATEGORY THEORY NOTES

RUDIMENTARY CATEGORY THEORY NOTES RUDIMENTARY CATEGORY THEORY NOTES GREG STEVENSON Contents 1. Categories 1 2. First examples 3 3. Properties of morphisms 5 4. Functors 6 5. Natural transformations 9 6. Equivalences 12 7. Adjunctions 14

More information

LECTURE 1: SOME GENERALITIES; 1 DIMENSIONAL EXAMPLES

LECTURE 1: SOME GENERALITIES; 1 DIMENSIONAL EXAMPLES LECTURE 1: SOME GENERALITIES; 1 DIMENSIONAL EAMPLES VIVEK SHENDE Historically, sheaves come from topology and analysis; subsequently they have played a fundamental role in algebraic geometry and certain

More information

Amalgamable diagram shapes

Amalgamable diagram shapes Amalgamable diagram shapes Ruiyuan hen Abstract A category has the amalgamation property (AP) if every pushout diagram has a cocone, and the joint embedding property (JEP) if every finite coproduct diagram

More information

EXAMPLES AND EXERCISES IN BASIC CATEGORY THEORY

EXAMPLES AND EXERCISES IN BASIC CATEGORY THEORY EXAMPLES AND EXERCISES IN BASIC CATEGORY THEORY 1. Categories 1.1. Generalities. I ve tried to be as consistent as possible. In particular, throughout the text below, categories will be denoted by capital

More information

MATH 8253 ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY WEEK 12

MATH 8253 ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY WEEK 12 MATH 8253 ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY WEEK 2 CİHAN BAHRAN 3.2.. Let Y be a Noetherian scheme. Show that any Y -scheme X of finite type is Noetherian. Moreover, if Y is of finite dimension, then so is X. Write f

More information

University of Oxford, Michaelis November 16, Categorical Semantics and Topos Theory Homotopy type theor

University of Oxford, Michaelis November 16, Categorical Semantics and Topos Theory Homotopy type theor Categorical Semantics and Topos Theory Homotopy type theory Seminar University of Oxford, Michaelis 2011 November 16, 2011 References Johnstone, P.T.: Sketches of an Elephant. A Topos-Theory Compendium.

More information

INTRODUCTION TO PART V: CATEGORIES OF CORRESPONDENCES

INTRODUCTION TO PART V: CATEGORIES OF CORRESPONDENCES INTRODUCTION TO PART V: CATEGORIES OF CORRESPONDENCES 1. Why correspondences? This part introduces one of the two main innovations in this book the (, 2)-category of correspondences as a way to encode

More information

SJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK

SJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK SJÄLVSTÄNDIGA ARBETEN I MATEMATIK MATEMATISKA INSTITUTIONEN, STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET Equivariant Sheaves on Topological Categories av Johan Lindberg 2015 - No 7 MATEMATISKA INSTITUTIONEN, STOCKHOLMS UNIVERSITET,

More information

Commutative Algebra Lecture 3: Lattices and Categories (Sept. 13, 2013)

Commutative Algebra Lecture 3: Lattices and Categories (Sept. 13, 2013) Commutative Algebra Lecture 3: Lattices and Categories (Sept. 13, 2013) Navid Alaei September 17, 2013 1 Lattice Basics There are, in general, two equivalent approaches to defining a lattice; one is rather

More information

Compactness in Toposes

Compactness in Toposes Algant Master Thesis Compactness in Toposes Candidate: Mauro Mantegazza Advisor: Dr. Jaap van Oosten Coadvisors: Prof. Sandra Mantovani Prof. Ronald van Luijk Università degli Studi di Milano Universiteit

More information

An introduction to locally finitely presentable categories

An introduction to locally finitely presentable categories An introduction to locally finitely presentable categories MARU SARAZOLA A document born out of my attempt to understand the notion of locally finitely presentable category, and my annoyance at constantly

More information

GENERALIZED COVERING SPACES AND THE GALOIS FUNDAMENTAL GROUP

GENERALIZED COVERING SPACES AND THE GALOIS FUNDAMENTAL GROUP GENERALIZED COVERING SPACES AND THE GALOIS FUNDAMENTAL GROUP CHRISTIAN KLEVDAL Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. A Category of Covers 2 3. Uniform Spaces and Topological Groups 6 4. Galois Theory of Semicovers

More information

Exact Categories in Functional Analysis

Exact Categories in Functional Analysis Script Exact Categories in Functional Analysis Leonhard Frerick and Dennis Sieg June 22, 2010 ii To Susanne Dierolf. iii iv Contents 1 Basic Notions 1 1.1 Categories............................. 1 1.2

More information

A brief Introduction to Category Theory

A brief Introduction to Category Theory A brief Introduction to Category Theory Dirk Hofmann CIDMA, Department of Mathematics, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal Office: 11.3.10, dirk@ua.pt, http://sweet.ua.pt/dirk/ October 9, 2017

More information

Notes about Filters. Samuel Mimram. December 6, 2012

Notes about Filters. Samuel Mimram. December 6, 2012 Notes about Filters Samuel Mimram December 6, 2012 1 Filters and ultrafilters Definition 1. A filter F on a poset (L, ) is a subset of L which is upwardclosed and downward-directed (= is a filter-base):

More information

1 Notations and Statement of the Main Results

1 Notations and Statement of the Main Results An introduction to algebraic fundamental groups 1 Notations and Statement of the Main Results Throughout the talk, all schemes are locally Noetherian. All maps are of locally finite type. There two main

More information

INVERSE LIMITS AND PROFINITE GROUPS

INVERSE LIMITS AND PROFINITE GROUPS INVERSE LIMITS AND PROFINITE GROUPS BRIAN OSSERMAN We discuss the inverse limit construction, and consider the special case of inverse limits of finite groups, which should best be considered as topological

More information

sset(x, Y ) n = sset(x [n], Y ).

sset(x, Y ) n = sset(x [n], Y ). 1. Symmetric monoidal categories and enriched categories In practice, categories come in nature with more structure than just sets of morphisms. This extra structure is central to all of category theory,

More information

Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009

Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009 MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu 18.726 Algebraic Geometry Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. 18.726: Algebraic Geometry

More information

Elmendorf s Theorem via Model Categories

Elmendorf s Theorem via Model Categories Elmendorf s Theorem via Model Categories Marc Stephan January 29, 2010 1 Introduction In [2], working in the category of compactly generated spaces U, Elmendorf relates the equivariant homotopy theory

More information

Joseph Muscat Categories. 1 December 2012

Joseph Muscat Categories. 1 December 2012 Joseph Muscat 2015 1 Categories joseph.muscat@um.edu.mt 1 December 2012 1 Objects and Morphisms category is a class o objects with morphisms : (a way o comparing/substituting/mapping/processing to ) such

More information

Homotopy Theory of Topological Spaces and Simplicial Sets

Homotopy Theory of Topological Spaces and Simplicial Sets Homotopy Theory of Topological Spaces and Simplicial Sets Jacobien Carstens May 1, 2007 Bachelorthesis Supervision: prof. Jesper Grodal KdV Institute for mathematics Faculty of Natural Sciences, Mathematics

More information

Derived Algebraic Geometry III: Commutative Algebra

Derived Algebraic Geometry III: Commutative Algebra Derived Algebraic Geometry III: Commutative Algebra May 1, 2009 Contents 1 -Operads 4 1.1 Basic Definitions........................................... 5 1.2 Fibrations of -Operads.......................................

More information

LOCALIZATIONS, COLOCALIZATIONS AND NON ADDITIVE -OBJECTS

LOCALIZATIONS, COLOCALIZATIONS AND NON ADDITIVE -OBJECTS LOCALIZATIONS, COLOCALIZATIONS AND NON ADDITIVE -OBJECTS GEORGE CIPRIAN MODOI Abstract. Given two arbitrary categories, a pair of adjoint functors between them induces three pairs of full subcategories,

More information

Notas de Aula Grupos Profinitos. Martino Garonzi. Universidade de Brasília. Primeiro semestre 2018

Notas de Aula Grupos Profinitos. Martino Garonzi. Universidade de Brasília. Primeiro semestre 2018 Notas de Aula Grupos Profinitos Martino Garonzi Universidade de Brasília Primeiro semestre 2018 1 Le risposte uccidono le domande. 2 Contents 1 Topology 4 2 Profinite spaces 6 3 Topological groups 10 4

More information

Math 440 Problem Set 2

Math 440 Problem Set 2 Math 440 Problem Set 2 Problem 4, p. 52. Let X R 3 be the union of n lines through the origin. Compute π 1 (R 3 X). Solution: R 3 X deformation retracts to S 2 with 2n points removed. Choose one of them.

More information

Derived Categories. Mistuo Hoshino

Derived Categories. Mistuo Hoshino Derived Categories Mistuo Hoshino Contents 01. Cochain complexes 02. Mapping cones 03. Homotopy categories 04. Quasi-isomorphisms 05. Mapping cylinders 06. Triangulated categories 07. Épaisse subcategories

More information

The Adjoint Functor Theorem.

The Adjoint Functor Theorem. The Adjoint Functor Theorem. Kevin Buzzard February 7, 2012 Last modified 17/06/2002. 1 Introduction. The existence of free groups is immediate from the Adjoint Functor Theorem. Whilst I ve long believed

More information

Direct Limits. Mathematics 683, Fall 2013

Direct Limits. Mathematics 683, Fall 2013 Direct Limits Mathematics 683, Fall 2013 In this note we define direct limits and prove their basic properties. This notion is important in various places in algebra. In particular, in algebraic geometry

More information

in path component sheaves, and the diagrams

in path component sheaves, and the diagrams Cocycle categories Cocycles J.F. Jardine I will be using the injective model structure on the category s Pre(C) of simplicial presheaves on a small Grothendieck site C. You can think in terms of simplicial

More information

Basic categorial constructions

Basic categorial constructions November 9, 2010) Basic categorial constructions Paul Garrett garrett@math.umn.edu http://www.math.umn.edu/ garrett/ 1. Categories and functors 2. Standard boring) examples 3. Initial and final objects

More information

9 Direct products, direct sums, and free abelian groups

9 Direct products, direct sums, and free abelian groups 9 Direct products, direct sums, and free abelian groups 9.1 Definition. A direct product of a family of groups {G i } i I is a group i I G i defined as follows. As a set i I G i is the cartesian product

More information

GENERAL ABSTRACT NONSENSE

GENERAL ABSTRACT NONSENSE GENERAL ABSTRACT NONSENSE MARCELLO DELGADO Abstract. In this paper, we seek to understand limits, a uniying notion that brings together the ideas o pullbacks, products, and equalizers. To do this, we will

More information

UNIVERSAL DERIVED EQUIVALENCES OF POSETS

UNIVERSAL DERIVED EQUIVALENCES OF POSETS UNIVERSAL DERIVED EQUIVALENCES OF POSETS SEFI LADKANI Abstract. By using only combinatorial data on two posets X and Y, we construct a set of so-called formulas. A formula produces simultaneously, for

More information

ON THE HOMOTOPY THEORY OF ENRICHED CATEGORIES

ON THE HOMOTOPY THEORY OF ENRICHED CATEGORIES ON THE HOMOTOPY THEORY OF ENRICHED CATEGORIES CLEMENS BERGER AND IEKE MOERDIJK Abstract. We give sufficient conditions for the existence of a Quillen model structure on small categories enriched in a given

More information

An algebraic approach to Gelfand Duality

An algebraic approach to Gelfand Duality An algebraic approach to Gelfand Duality Guram Bezhanishvili New Mexico State University Joint work with Patrick J Morandi and Bruce Olberding Stone = zero-dimensional compact Hausdorff spaces and continuous

More information

Pointless Topology. Seminar in Analysis, WS 2013/14. Georg Lehner ( ) May 3, 2015

Pointless Topology. Seminar in Analysis, WS 2013/14. Georg Lehner ( ) May 3, 2015 Pointless Topology Seminar in Analysis, WS 2013/14 Georg Lehner (1125178) May 3, 2015 Starting with the motivating example of Stone s representation theorem that allows one to represent Boolean algebras

More information

arxiv:math/ v1 [math.at] 6 Oct 2004

arxiv:math/ v1 [math.at] 6 Oct 2004 arxiv:math/0410162v1 [math.at] 6 Oct 2004 EQUIVARIANT UNIVERSAL COEFFICIENT AND KÜNNETH SPECTRAL SEQUENCES L. GAUNCE LEWIS, JR. AND MICHAEL A. MANDELL Abstract. We construct hyper-homology spectral sequences

More information

CATEGORICAL GROTHENDIECK RINGS AND PICARD GROUPS. Contents. 1. The ring K(R) and the group Pic(R)

CATEGORICAL GROTHENDIECK RINGS AND PICARD GROUPS. Contents. 1. The ring K(R) and the group Pic(R) CATEGORICAL GROTHENDIECK RINGS AND PICARD GROUPS J. P. MAY Contents 1. The ring K(R) and the group Pic(R) 1 2. Symmetric monoidal categories, K(C), and Pic(C) 2 3. The unit endomorphism ring R(C ) 5 4.

More information

MTH 428/528. Introduction to Topology II. Elements of Algebraic Topology. Bernard Badzioch

MTH 428/528. Introduction to Topology II. Elements of Algebraic Topology. Bernard Badzioch MTH 428/528 Introduction to Topology II Elements of Algebraic Topology Bernard Badzioch 2016.12.12 Contents 1. Some Motivation.......................................................... 3 2. Categories

More information

Some glances at topos theory. Francis Borceux

Some glances at topos theory. Francis Borceux Some glances at topos theory Francis Borceux Como, 2018 2 Francis Borceux francis.borceux@uclouvain.be Contents 1 Localic toposes 7 1.1 Sheaves on a topological space.................... 7 1.2 Sheaves

More information

FINITE SPECTRA CARY MALKIEWICH

FINITE SPECTRA CARY MALKIEWICH FINITE SPECTRA CARY MALKIEWICH These notes were written in 2014-2015 to help me understand how the different notions of finiteness for spectra are related. I am usually surprised that the basics are not

More information

1 The Hyland-Schalke functor G Rel. 2 Weakenings

1 The Hyland-Schalke functor G Rel. 2 Weakenings 1 The Hyland-Schalke functor G Rel Let G denote an appropriate category of games and strategies, and let Rel denote the category of sets and relations. It is known (Hyland, Schalke, 1996) that the following

More information

A 2-CATEGORIES COMPANION

A 2-CATEGORIES COMPANION A 2-CATEGORIES COMPANION STEPHEN LACK Abstract. This paper is a rather informal guide to some of the basic theory of 2-categories and bicategories, including notions of limit and colimit, 2-dimensional

More information

Equivalence of the Combinatorial Definition (Lecture 11)

Equivalence of the Combinatorial Definition (Lecture 11) Equivalence of the Combinatorial Definition (Lecture 11) September 26, 2014 Our goal in this lecture is to complete the proof of our first main theorem by proving the following: Theorem 1. The map of simplicial

More information

Adjoints, naturality, exactness, small Yoneda lemma. 1. Hom(X, ) is left exact

Adjoints, naturality, exactness, small Yoneda lemma. 1. Hom(X, ) is left exact (April 8, 2010) Adjoints, naturality, exactness, small Yoneda lemma Paul Garrett garrett@math.umn.edu http://www.math.umn.edu/ garrett/ The best way to understand or remember left-exactness or right-exactness

More information

Locally cartesian closed categories

Locally cartesian closed categories Locally cartesian closed categories Clive Newstead 80-814 Categorical Logic, Carnegie Mellon University Wednesday 1st March 2017 Abstract Cartesian closed categories provide a natural setting for the interpretation

More information

CALCULATION OF FUNDAMENTAL GROUPS OF SPACES

CALCULATION OF FUNDAMENTAL GROUPS OF SPACES CALCULATION OF FUNDAMENTAL GROUPS OF SPACES PETER ROBICHEAUX Abstract. We develop theory, particularly that of covering spaces and the van Kampen Theorem, in order to calculate the fundamental groups of

More information

Notes on Ordered Sets

Notes on Ordered Sets Notes on Ordered Sets Mariusz Wodzicki September 10, 2013 1 Vocabulary 1.1 Definitions Definition 1.1 A binary relation on a set S is said to be a partial order if it is reflexive, x x, weakly antisymmetric,

More information

Modules over a Ringed Space

Modules over a Ringed Space Modules over a Ringed Space Daniel Murfet October 5, 2006 In these notes we collect some useful facts about sheaves of modules on a ringed space that are either left as exercises in [Har77] or omitted

More information

CHAPTER 1. AFFINE ALGEBRAIC VARIETIES

CHAPTER 1. AFFINE ALGEBRAIC VARIETIES CHAPTER 1. AFFINE ALGEBRAIC VARIETIES During this first part of the course, we will establish a correspondence between various geometric notions and algebraic ones. Some references for this part of the

More information