Equivalence of Categories and of Their Functor Categories
$begingroup$
Suppose $A, B, C$ are categories. If $A$ and $B$ are equivalent, is it the case that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are equivalent? Also, is it the case that $A^C$ and $B^C$ are equivalent.
I first conjectured that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are equivalent, but then as I tried to prove the conjecture, I started to realize that it might not be the case. So now I'm trying to find a counterexample. So far I have not been able to find one. Maybe I'm stuck with "too complicated" ideas. I strongly believe that there are very simple counterexamples. Please help. (For more detail, I got to the point where I have a cube that I want to be commutative, but I can only show that 4 of its sides are commutative squares. That's when I realize the other two sides may not necessarily commute.)
And of course, there is the second part to the problem that's not just the dual problem. I would like to know about the special case in which $A$ is a preorder and $B$ is a partial order which is the skeleton of $A$. This may have nothing to do with the validity of the statement in question at all, but it is the setting that originated this question.
category-theory adjoint-functors
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose $A, B, C$ are categories. If $A$ and $B$ are equivalent, is it the case that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are equivalent? Also, is it the case that $A^C$ and $B^C$ are equivalent.
I first conjectured that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are equivalent, but then as I tried to prove the conjecture, I started to realize that it might not be the case. So now I'm trying to find a counterexample. So far I have not been able to find one. Maybe I'm stuck with "too complicated" ideas. I strongly believe that there are very simple counterexamples. Please help. (For more detail, I got to the point where I have a cube that I want to be commutative, but I can only show that 4 of its sides are commutative squares. That's when I realize the other two sides may not necessarily commute.)
And of course, there is the second part to the problem that's not just the dual problem. I would like to know about the special case in which $A$ is a preorder and $B$ is a partial order which is the skeleton of $A$. This may have nothing to do with the validity of the statement in question at all, but it is the setting that originated this question.
category-theory adjoint-functors
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Suppose $A, B, C$ are categories. If $A$ and $B$ are equivalent, is it the case that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are equivalent? Also, is it the case that $A^C$ and $B^C$ are equivalent.
I first conjectured that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are equivalent, but then as I tried to prove the conjecture, I started to realize that it might not be the case. So now I'm trying to find a counterexample. So far I have not been able to find one. Maybe I'm stuck with "too complicated" ideas. I strongly believe that there are very simple counterexamples. Please help. (For more detail, I got to the point where I have a cube that I want to be commutative, but I can only show that 4 of its sides are commutative squares. That's when I realize the other two sides may not necessarily commute.)
And of course, there is the second part to the problem that's not just the dual problem. I would like to know about the special case in which $A$ is a preorder and $B$ is a partial order which is the skeleton of $A$. This may have nothing to do with the validity of the statement in question at all, but it is the setting that originated this question.
category-theory adjoint-functors
$endgroup$
Suppose $A, B, C$ are categories. If $A$ and $B$ are equivalent, is it the case that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are equivalent? Also, is it the case that $A^C$ and $B^C$ are equivalent.
I first conjectured that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are equivalent, but then as I tried to prove the conjecture, I started to realize that it might not be the case. So now I'm trying to find a counterexample. So far I have not been able to find one. Maybe I'm stuck with "too complicated" ideas. I strongly believe that there are very simple counterexamples. Please help. (For more detail, I got to the point where I have a cube that I want to be commutative, but I can only show that 4 of its sides are commutative squares. That's when I realize the other two sides may not necessarily commute.)
And of course, there is the second part to the problem that's not just the dual problem. I would like to know about the special case in which $A$ is a preorder and $B$ is a partial order which is the skeleton of $A$. This may have nothing to do with the validity of the statement in question at all, but it is the setting that originated this question.
category-theory adjoint-functors
category-theory adjoint-functors
edited Jan 15 '16 at 16:54
Najib Idrissi
41.6k473140
41.6k473140
asked Jan 5 '14 at 5:14
TunococTunococ
8,2061931
8,2061931
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Maybe I'm missing something, but I would say that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are indeed equivalent.
In fact, if we have an equivalence of categories between $A$ and $B$, that means we have a couple of functors
$$
F: A longrightarrow B qquad text{and} qquad G : B longrightarrow A ,
$$
together with a couple of isomorphisms of functors
$$
varepsilon : FG longrightarrow mathrm{id}_B qquad text{and} qquad eta : mathrm{id}_A longrightarrow GF .
$$
So, I'm lost: why can't you build another equivalence of categories just like this?
$$
F^* : C^B longrightarrow C^A qquad text{and} qquad G^* : C^A longrightarrow C^B ,
$$
where
$$
F^*(phi) = phicirc F qquad text{and} qquad G^* (psi ) = psi circ G quad text{?}
$$
EDIT 1. In the same vein: why
$$
F_*: A^C longrightarrow B^C qquad text{and} qquad G : B^C longrightarrow A^C ,
$$
defined as
$$
F_*(phi ) = Fcirc phi qquad text{and} qquad G_*(psi ) = G circ psi
$$
do NOT define another equivalence of categories? As far as I can see, there is no "cube" that needs to commute anywhere. Am I wrong?
EDIT 2. More details for the first case. I should have defined $F^*$ and $G^*$ on morphisms too. Ok, let's do it like this: for any natural transformation of functors $f:phi_1 longrightarrow phi_2$ (a morphism of $C^B$), define
$$
F^*(f)_a = f_{Fa} : phi_1(Fa) longrightarrow phi_2(Fa) .
$$
And analogously for $G^*$.
Then, the natural isomorphism $eta$ induces another natural isomorphism
$$
eta^* : mathrm{id}_{C^A} longrightarrow F^*G^*
$$
as follows: for any functor $psi : A longrightarrow C$, you've got a natural transformation
$$
eta^*(psi ) : psi longrightarrow psi circ Gcirc F
$$
defined as
$$
eta^*(psi )_a = psi (eta_a) : psi (a) longrightarrow psi (GFa)
$$
This $eta^*(psi)$ is indeed a natural transformation of functors (that is, a morphism of $C^A$): for any $f: a longrightarrow b$ you've got the needed commutative diagram just applying $psi$ to the commutative diagram you obtain from the fact that $eta$ is a natural transformation.
You have to check that also $eta^*$ is a natural transformation and isomorphism. At this point some diagrams are needed. Let's see if I'm able to put here a link to the right pdf file.
EDIT 3. I forgot to tell you: here and there you'll probably need the word "small" for these categories of functors being actual categories. For instance, if I remember correctly (I don't have my Mac Lane with me right now), you'll need $C$ to be small for $A^C$ and $B^C$ to be categories. Otherwise, you invoke some bigger universe and it will do. (I guess.) :-)
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. I had done pretty much the same thing as you showed here and I got stuck right exactly at the last commutativity that you claim "follows from the fact that $f$ is a natural transformation". You reminded me that it's possible, so I re-thought and found that it indeed was just an application of $f$ to the morphism $eta_a$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:40
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Indeed, one has to think twice about the last diagram. :-D
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 8:41
$begingroup$
About the foundational issue, you are right about the requirement that the source category is small. But I don't quite understand why this result would not hold without such assumption, provided the notion of related functor categories can be defined. The proof does not seem to rely on the axiom of choice for sets(?) What I intend to mean is that we should be able to dualize the proof for the case of $A^C$ and $B^C$ without any changes even though now $C$ should be small, not $A$ and $B$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:57
$begingroup$
I'm not an expert on foundational issues and, in fact, I'm prone to shoot first and ask later about these matters :-) . I mean: first, I do the computations you've seen, then I would ask myself if, at any point, I've left the haven of our universe. Sure enough there will be lots of people here that will be able to explain these matters better than myself. Though here the problem, if I remember correctly, is not about the axiom of choice, but about the fact that, by definition of category, the "hom-sets", well, must be that: sets.
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
And, with no smallness here or there, you won't have the "hom-sets" of a big guy like $A^C$ to be "sets", but proper classes. So, $A^C$ won't be a category of our universe. Or something like that, anyway. (You'll excuse my ignorance on those big issues.)
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:07
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Recall that $mathsf{Cat}$ (the category of all small categories) is a $mathsf{Cat}$-enriched category. Thus we have internal hom functors. Let me spell this out explicitly:
You should be able to check that $A mapsto [A,C]$ (this is what you write as $C^A$) is a contravariant $mathsf{Cat}$-endofunctor of $mathsf{Cat}$ , i.e. that we have functors $[B,A] to [[A,C],[B,C]]$, $F mapsto F^*$ which commute with the identity and composition. As such, it preserves equivalences by formal nonsense.
Similarly, $A mapsto [C,A]$ provides a covariant $mathsf{Cat}$-endofunctor of $mathsf{Cat}$, i.e. have functors $[A,B] to [[C,A],[C,B]]$, $F mapsto F_*$ which commute with the identity and composition. Again it follows that equivalences are preserved.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. This is definitely a better way to look at the problem!
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 6 '14 at 9:03
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f627676%2fequivalence-of-categories-and-of-their-functor-categories%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Maybe I'm missing something, but I would say that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are indeed equivalent.
In fact, if we have an equivalence of categories between $A$ and $B$, that means we have a couple of functors
$$
F: A longrightarrow B qquad text{and} qquad G : B longrightarrow A ,
$$
together with a couple of isomorphisms of functors
$$
varepsilon : FG longrightarrow mathrm{id}_B qquad text{and} qquad eta : mathrm{id}_A longrightarrow GF .
$$
So, I'm lost: why can't you build another equivalence of categories just like this?
$$
F^* : C^B longrightarrow C^A qquad text{and} qquad G^* : C^A longrightarrow C^B ,
$$
where
$$
F^*(phi) = phicirc F qquad text{and} qquad G^* (psi ) = psi circ G quad text{?}
$$
EDIT 1. In the same vein: why
$$
F_*: A^C longrightarrow B^C qquad text{and} qquad G : B^C longrightarrow A^C ,
$$
defined as
$$
F_*(phi ) = Fcirc phi qquad text{and} qquad G_*(psi ) = G circ psi
$$
do NOT define another equivalence of categories? As far as I can see, there is no "cube" that needs to commute anywhere. Am I wrong?
EDIT 2. More details for the first case. I should have defined $F^*$ and $G^*$ on morphisms too. Ok, let's do it like this: for any natural transformation of functors $f:phi_1 longrightarrow phi_2$ (a morphism of $C^B$), define
$$
F^*(f)_a = f_{Fa} : phi_1(Fa) longrightarrow phi_2(Fa) .
$$
And analogously for $G^*$.
Then, the natural isomorphism $eta$ induces another natural isomorphism
$$
eta^* : mathrm{id}_{C^A} longrightarrow F^*G^*
$$
as follows: for any functor $psi : A longrightarrow C$, you've got a natural transformation
$$
eta^*(psi ) : psi longrightarrow psi circ Gcirc F
$$
defined as
$$
eta^*(psi )_a = psi (eta_a) : psi (a) longrightarrow psi (GFa)
$$
This $eta^*(psi)$ is indeed a natural transformation of functors (that is, a morphism of $C^A$): for any $f: a longrightarrow b$ you've got the needed commutative diagram just applying $psi$ to the commutative diagram you obtain from the fact that $eta$ is a natural transformation.
You have to check that also $eta^*$ is a natural transformation and isomorphism. At this point some diagrams are needed. Let's see if I'm able to put here a link to the right pdf file.
EDIT 3. I forgot to tell you: here and there you'll probably need the word "small" for these categories of functors being actual categories. For instance, if I remember correctly (I don't have my Mac Lane with me right now), you'll need $C$ to be small for $A^C$ and $B^C$ to be categories. Otherwise, you invoke some bigger universe and it will do. (I guess.) :-)
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. I had done pretty much the same thing as you showed here and I got stuck right exactly at the last commutativity that you claim "follows from the fact that $f$ is a natural transformation". You reminded me that it's possible, so I re-thought and found that it indeed was just an application of $f$ to the morphism $eta_a$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:40
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Indeed, one has to think twice about the last diagram. :-D
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 8:41
$begingroup$
About the foundational issue, you are right about the requirement that the source category is small. But I don't quite understand why this result would not hold without such assumption, provided the notion of related functor categories can be defined. The proof does not seem to rely on the axiom of choice for sets(?) What I intend to mean is that we should be able to dualize the proof for the case of $A^C$ and $B^C$ without any changes even though now $C$ should be small, not $A$ and $B$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:57
$begingroup$
I'm not an expert on foundational issues and, in fact, I'm prone to shoot first and ask later about these matters :-) . I mean: first, I do the computations you've seen, then I would ask myself if, at any point, I've left the haven of our universe. Sure enough there will be lots of people here that will be able to explain these matters better than myself. Though here the problem, if I remember correctly, is not about the axiom of choice, but about the fact that, by definition of category, the "hom-sets", well, must be that: sets.
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
And, with no smallness here or there, you won't have the "hom-sets" of a big guy like $A^C$ to be "sets", but proper classes. So, $A^C$ won't be a category of our universe. Or something like that, anyway. (You'll excuse my ignorance on those big issues.)
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:07
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Maybe I'm missing something, but I would say that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are indeed equivalent.
In fact, if we have an equivalence of categories between $A$ and $B$, that means we have a couple of functors
$$
F: A longrightarrow B qquad text{and} qquad G : B longrightarrow A ,
$$
together with a couple of isomorphisms of functors
$$
varepsilon : FG longrightarrow mathrm{id}_B qquad text{and} qquad eta : mathrm{id}_A longrightarrow GF .
$$
So, I'm lost: why can't you build another equivalence of categories just like this?
$$
F^* : C^B longrightarrow C^A qquad text{and} qquad G^* : C^A longrightarrow C^B ,
$$
where
$$
F^*(phi) = phicirc F qquad text{and} qquad G^* (psi ) = psi circ G quad text{?}
$$
EDIT 1. In the same vein: why
$$
F_*: A^C longrightarrow B^C qquad text{and} qquad G : B^C longrightarrow A^C ,
$$
defined as
$$
F_*(phi ) = Fcirc phi qquad text{and} qquad G_*(psi ) = G circ psi
$$
do NOT define another equivalence of categories? As far as I can see, there is no "cube" that needs to commute anywhere. Am I wrong?
EDIT 2. More details for the first case. I should have defined $F^*$ and $G^*$ on morphisms too. Ok, let's do it like this: for any natural transformation of functors $f:phi_1 longrightarrow phi_2$ (a morphism of $C^B$), define
$$
F^*(f)_a = f_{Fa} : phi_1(Fa) longrightarrow phi_2(Fa) .
$$
And analogously for $G^*$.
Then, the natural isomorphism $eta$ induces another natural isomorphism
$$
eta^* : mathrm{id}_{C^A} longrightarrow F^*G^*
$$
as follows: for any functor $psi : A longrightarrow C$, you've got a natural transformation
$$
eta^*(psi ) : psi longrightarrow psi circ Gcirc F
$$
defined as
$$
eta^*(psi )_a = psi (eta_a) : psi (a) longrightarrow psi (GFa)
$$
This $eta^*(psi)$ is indeed a natural transformation of functors (that is, a morphism of $C^A$): for any $f: a longrightarrow b$ you've got the needed commutative diagram just applying $psi$ to the commutative diagram you obtain from the fact that $eta$ is a natural transformation.
You have to check that also $eta^*$ is a natural transformation and isomorphism. At this point some diagrams are needed. Let's see if I'm able to put here a link to the right pdf file.
EDIT 3. I forgot to tell you: here and there you'll probably need the word "small" for these categories of functors being actual categories. For instance, if I remember correctly (I don't have my Mac Lane with me right now), you'll need $C$ to be small for $A^C$ and $B^C$ to be categories. Otherwise, you invoke some bigger universe and it will do. (I guess.) :-)
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. I had done pretty much the same thing as you showed here and I got stuck right exactly at the last commutativity that you claim "follows from the fact that $f$ is a natural transformation". You reminded me that it's possible, so I re-thought and found that it indeed was just an application of $f$ to the morphism $eta_a$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:40
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Indeed, one has to think twice about the last diagram. :-D
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 8:41
$begingroup$
About the foundational issue, you are right about the requirement that the source category is small. But I don't quite understand why this result would not hold without such assumption, provided the notion of related functor categories can be defined. The proof does not seem to rely on the axiom of choice for sets(?) What I intend to mean is that we should be able to dualize the proof for the case of $A^C$ and $B^C$ without any changes even though now $C$ should be small, not $A$ and $B$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:57
$begingroup$
I'm not an expert on foundational issues and, in fact, I'm prone to shoot first and ask later about these matters :-) . I mean: first, I do the computations you've seen, then I would ask myself if, at any point, I've left the haven of our universe. Sure enough there will be lots of people here that will be able to explain these matters better than myself. Though here the problem, if I remember correctly, is not about the axiom of choice, but about the fact that, by definition of category, the "hom-sets", well, must be that: sets.
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
And, with no smallness here or there, you won't have the "hom-sets" of a big guy like $A^C$ to be "sets", but proper classes. So, $A^C$ won't be a category of our universe. Or something like that, anyway. (You'll excuse my ignorance on those big issues.)
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:07
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Maybe I'm missing something, but I would say that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are indeed equivalent.
In fact, if we have an equivalence of categories between $A$ and $B$, that means we have a couple of functors
$$
F: A longrightarrow B qquad text{and} qquad G : B longrightarrow A ,
$$
together with a couple of isomorphisms of functors
$$
varepsilon : FG longrightarrow mathrm{id}_B qquad text{and} qquad eta : mathrm{id}_A longrightarrow GF .
$$
So, I'm lost: why can't you build another equivalence of categories just like this?
$$
F^* : C^B longrightarrow C^A qquad text{and} qquad G^* : C^A longrightarrow C^B ,
$$
where
$$
F^*(phi) = phicirc F qquad text{and} qquad G^* (psi ) = psi circ G quad text{?}
$$
EDIT 1. In the same vein: why
$$
F_*: A^C longrightarrow B^C qquad text{and} qquad G : B^C longrightarrow A^C ,
$$
defined as
$$
F_*(phi ) = Fcirc phi qquad text{and} qquad G_*(psi ) = G circ psi
$$
do NOT define another equivalence of categories? As far as I can see, there is no "cube" that needs to commute anywhere. Am I wrong?
EDIT 2. More details for the first case. I should have defined $F^*$ and $G^*$ on morphisms too. Ok, let's do it like this: for any natural transformation of functors $f:phi_1 longrightarrow phi_2$ (a morphism of $C^B$), define
$$
F^*(f)_a = f_{Fa} : phi_1(Fa) longrightarrow phi_2(Fa) .
$$
And analogously for $G^*$.
Then, the natural isomorphism $eta$ induces another natural isomorphism
$$
eta^* : mathrm{id}_{C^A} longrightarrow F^*G^*
$$
as follows: for any functor $psi : A longrightarrow C$, you've got a natural transformation
$$
eta^*(psi ) : psi longrightarrow psi circ Gcirc F
$$
defined as
$$
eta^*(psi )_a = psi (eta_a) : psi (a) longrightarrow psi (GFa)
$$
This $eta^*(psi)$ is indeed a natural transformation of functors (that is, a morphism of $C^A$): for any $f: a longrightarrow b$ you've got the needed commutative diagram just applying $psi$ to the commutative diagram you obtain from the fact that $eta$ is a natural transformation.
You have to check that also $eta^*$ is a natural transformation and isomorphism. At this point some diagrams are needed. Let's see if I'm able to put here a link to the right pdf file.
EDIT 3. I forgot to tell you: here and there you'll probably need the word "small" for these categories of functors being actual categories. For instance, if I remember correctly (I don't have my Mac Lane with me right now), you'll need $C$ to be small for $A^C$ and $B^C$ to be categories. Otherwise, you invoke some bigger universe and it will do. (I guess.) :-)
$endgroup$
Maybe I'm missing something, but I would say that $C^A$ and $C^B$ are indeed equivalent.
In fact, if we have an equivalence of categories between $A$ and $B$, that means we have a couple of functors
$$
F: A longrightarrow B qquad text{and} qquad G : B longrightarrow A ,
$$
together with a couple of isomorphisms of functors
$$
varepsilon : FG longrightarrow mathrm{id}_B qquad text{and} qquad eta : mathrm{id}_A longrightarrow GF .
$$
So, I'm lost: why can't you build another equivalence of categories just like this?
$$
F^* : C^B longrightarrow C^A qquad text{and} qquad G^* : C^A longrightarrow C^B ,
$$
where
$$
F^*(phi) = phicirc F qquad text{and} qquad G^* (psi ) = psi circ G quad text{?}
$$
EDIT 1. In the same vein: why
$$
F_*: A^C longrightarrow B^C qquad text{and} qquad G : B^C longrightarrow A^C ,
$$
defined as
$$
F_*(phi ) = Fcirc phi qquad text{and} qquad G_*(psi ) = G circ psi
$$
do NOT define another equivalence of categories? As far as I can see, there is no "cube" that needs to commute anywhere. Am I wrong?
EDIT 2. More details for the first case. I should have defined $F^*$ and $G^*$ on morphisms too. Ok, let's do it like this: for any natural transformation of functors $f:phi_1 longrightarrow phi_2$ (a morphism of $C^B$), define
$$
F^*(f)_a = f_{Fa} : phi_1(Fa) longrightarrow phi_2(Fa) .
$$
And analogously for $G^*$.
Then, the natural isomorphism $eta$ induces another natural isomorphism
$$
eta^* : mathrm{id}_{C^A} longrightarrow F^*G^*
$$
as follows: for any functor $psi : A longrightarrow C$, you've got a natural transformation
$$
eta^*(psi ) : psi longrightarrow psi circ Gcirc F
$$
defined as
$$
eta^*(psi )_a = psi (eta_a) : psi (a) longrightarrow psi (GFa)
$$
This $eta^*(psi)$ is indeed a natural transformation of functors (that is, a morphism of $C^A$): for any $f: a longrightarrow b$ you've got the needed commutative diagram just applying $psi$ to the commutative diagram you obtain from the fact that $eta$ is a natural transformation.
You have to check that also $eta^*$ is a natural transformation and isomorphism. At this point some diagrams are needed. Let's see if I'm able to put here a link to the right pdf file.
EDIT 3. I forgot to tell you: here and there you'll probably need the word "small" for these categories of functors being actual categories. For instance, if I remember correctly (I don't have my Mac Lane with me right now), you'll need $C$ to be small for $A^C$ and $B^C$ to be categories. Otherwise, you invoke some bigger universe and it will do. (I guess.) :-)
edited Jan 5 '14 at 10:13
answered Jan 5 '14 at 5:37
d.t.d.t.
14.1k23074
14.1k23074
1
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. I had done pretty much the same thing as you showed here and I got stuck right exactly at the last commutativity that you claim "follows from the fact that $f$ is a natural transformation". You reminded me that it's possible, so I re-thought and found that it indeed was just an application of $f$ to the morphism $eta_a$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:40
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Indeed, one has to think twice about the last diagram. :-D
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 8:41
$begingroup$
About the foundational issue, you are right about the requirement that the source category is small. But I don't quite understand why this result would not hold without such assumption, provided the notion of related functor categories can be defined. The proof does not seem to rely on the axiom of choice for sets(?) What I intend to mean is that we should be able to dualize the proof for the case of $A^C$ and $B^C$ without any changes even though now $C$ should be small, not $A$ and $B$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:57
$begingroup$
I'm not an expert on foundational issues and, in fact, I'm prone to shoot first and ask later about these matters :-) . I mean: first, I do the computations you've seen, then I would ask myself if, at any point, I've left the haven of our universe. Sure enough there will be lots of people here that will be able to explain these matters better than myself. Though here the problem, if I remember correctly, is not about the axiom of choice, but about the fact that, by definition of category, the "hom-sets", well, must be that: sets.
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
And, with no smallness here or there, you won't have the "hom-sets" of a big guy like $A^C$ to be "sets", but proper classes. So, $A^C$ won't be a category of our universe. Or something like that, anyway. (You'll excuse my ignorance on those big issues.)
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:07
|
show 1 more comment
1
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. I had done pretty much the same thing as you showed here and I got stuck right exactly at the last commutativity that you claim "follows from the fact that $f$ is a natural transformation". You reminded me that it's possible, so I re-thought and found that it indeed was just an application of $f$ to the morphism $eta_a$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:40
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Indeed, one has to think twice about the last diagram. :-D
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 8:41
$begingroup$
About the foundational issue, you are right about the requirement that the source category is small. But I don't quite understand why this result would not hold without such assumption, provided the notion of related functor categories can be defined. The proof does not seem to rely on the axiom of choice for sets(?) What I intend to mean is that we should be able to dualize the proof for the case of $A^C$ and $B^C$ without any changes even though now $C$ should be small, not $A$ and $B$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:57
$begingroup$
I'm not an expert on foundational issues and, in fact, I'm prone to shoot first and ask later about these matters :-) . I mean: first, I do the computations you've seen, then I would ask myself if, at any point, I've left the haven of our universe. Sure enough there will be lots of people here that will be able to explain these matters better than myself. Though here the problem, if I remember correctly, is not about the axiom of choice, but about the fact that, by definition of category, the "hom-sets", well, must be that: sets.
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:05
1
$begingroup$
And, with no smallness here or there, you won't have the "hom-sets" of a big guy like $A^C$ to be "sets", but proper classes. So, $A^C$ won't be a category of our universe. Or something like that, anyway. (You'll excuse my ignorance on those big issues.)
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:07
1
1
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. I had done pretty much the same thing as you showed here and I got stuck right exactly at the last commutativity that you claim "follows from the fact that $f$ is a natural transformation". You reminded me that it's possible, so I re-thought and found that it indeed was just an application of $f$ to the morphism $eta_a$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:40
$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. I had done pretty much the same thing as you showed here and I got stuck right exactly at the last commutativity that you claim "follows from the fact that $f$ is a natural transformation". You reminded me that it's possible, so I re-thought and found that it indeed was just an application of $f$ to the morphism $eta_a$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:40
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Indeed, one has to think twice about the last diagram. :-D
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 8:41
$begingroup$
You're welcome. Indeed, one has to think twice about the last diagram. :-D
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 8:41
$begingroup$
About the foundational issue, you are right about the requirement that the source category is small. But I don't quite understand why this result would not hold without such assumption, provided the notion of related functor categories can be defined. The proof does not seem to rely on the axiom of choice for sets(?) What I intend to mean is that we should be able to dualize the proof for the case of $A^C$ and $B^C$ without any changes even though now $C$ should be small, not $A$ and $B$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:57
$begingroup$
About the foundational issue, you are right about the requirement that the source category is small. But I don't quite understand why this result would not hold without such assumption, provided the notion of related functor categories can be defined. The proof does not seem to rely on the axiom of choice for sets(?) What I intend to mean is that we should be able to dualize the proof for the case of $A^C$ and $B^C$ without any changes even though now $C$ should be small, not $A$ and $B$.
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 5 '14 at 8:57
$begingroup$
I'm not an expert on foundational issues and, in fact, I'm prone to shoot first and ask later about these matters :-) . I mean: first, I do the computations you've seen, then I would ask myself if, at any point, I've left the haven of our universe. Sure enough there will be lots of people here that will be able to explain these matters better than myself. Though here the problem, if I remember correctly, is not about the axiom of choice, but about the fact that, by definition of category, the "hom-sets", well, must be that: sets.
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:05
$begingroup$
I'm not an expert on foundational issues and, in fact, I'm prone to shoot first and ask later about these matters :-) . I mean: first, I do the computations you've seen, then I would ask myself if, at any point, I've left the haven of our universe. Sure enough there will be lots of people here that will be able to explain these matters better than myself. Though here the problem, if I remember correctly, is not about the axiom of choice, but about the fact that, by definition of category, the "hom-sets", well, must be that: sets.
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:05
1
1
$begingroup$
And, with no smallness here or there, you won't have the "hom-sets" of a big guy like $A^C$ to be "sets", but proper classes. So, $A^C$ won't be a category of our universe. Or something like that, anyway. (You'll excuse my ignorance on those big issues.)
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:07
$begingroup$
And, with no smallness here or there, you won't have the "hom-sets" of a big guy like $A^C$ to be "sets", but proper classes. So, $A^C$ won't be a category of our universe. Or something like that, anyway. (You'll excuse my ignorance on those big issues.)
$endgroup$
– d.t.
Jan 5 '14 at 9:07
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Recall that $mathsf{Cat}$ (the category of all small categories) is a $mathsf{Cat}$-enriched category. Thus we have internal hom functors. Let me spell this out explicitly:
You should be able to check that $A mapsto [A,C]$ (this is what you write as $C^A$) is a contravariant $mathsf{Cat}$-endofunctor of $mathsf{Cat}$ , i.e. that we have functors $[B,A] to [[A,C],[B,C]]$, $F mapsto F^*$ which commute with the identity and composition. As such, it preserves equivalences by formal nonsense.
Similarly, $A mapsto [C,A]$ provides a covariant $mathsf{Cat}$-endofunctor of $mathsf{Cat}$, i.e. have functors $[A,B] to [[C,A],[C,B]]$, $F mapsto F_*$ which commute with the identity and composition. Again it follows that equivalences are preserved.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. This is definitely a better way to look at the problem!
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 6 '14 at 9:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Recall that $mathsf{Cat}$ (the category of all small categories) is a $mathsf{Cat}$-enriched category. Thus we have internal hom functors. Let me spell this out explicitly:
You should be able to check that $A mapsto [A,C]$ (this is what you write as $C^A$) is a contravariant $mathsf{Cat}$-endofunctor of $mathsf{Cat}$ , i.e. that we have functors $[B,A] to [[A,C],[B,C]]$, $F mapsto F^*$ which commute with the identity and composition. As such, it preserves equivalences by formal nonsense.
Similarly, $A mapsto [C,A]$ provides a covariant $mathsf{Cat}$-endofunctor of $mathsf{Cat}$, i.e. have functors $[A,B] to [[C,A],[C,B]]$, $F mapsto F_*$ which commute with the identity and composition. Again it follows that equivalences are preserved.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thank you. This is definitely a better way to look at the problem!
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 6 '14 at 9:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Recall that $mathsf{Cat}$ (the category of all small categories) is a $mathsf{Cat}$-enriched category. Thus we have internal hom functors. Let me spell this out explicitly:
You should be able to check that $A mapsto [A,C]$ (this is what you write as $C^A$) is a contravariant $mathsf{Cat}$-endofunctor of $mathsf{Cat}$ , i.e. that we have functors $[B,A] to [[A,C],[B,C]]$, $F mapsto F^*$ which commute with the identity and composition. As such, it preserves equivalences by formal nonsense.
Similarly, $A mapsto [C,A]$ provides a covariant $mathsf{Cat}$-endofunctor of $mathsf{Cat}$, i.e. have functors $[A,B] to [[C,A],[C,B]]$, $F mapsto F_*$ which commute with the identity and composition. Again it follows that equivalences are preserved.
$endgroup$
Recall that $mathsf{Cat}$ (the category of all small categories) is a $mathsf{Cat}$-enriched category. Thus we have internal hom functors. Let me spell this out explicitly:
You should be able to check that $A mapsto [A,C]$ (this is what you write as $C^A$) is a contravariant $mathsf{Cat}$-endofunctor of $mathsf{Cat}$ , i.e. that we have functors $[B,A] to [[A,C],[B,C]]$, $F mapsto F^*$ which commute with the identity and composition. As such, it preserves equivalences by formal nonsense.
Similarly, $A mapsto [C,A]$ provides a covariant $mathsf{Cat}$-endofunctor of $mathsf{Cat}$, i.e. have functors $[A,B] to [[C,A],[C,B]]$, $F mapsto F_*$ which commute with the identity and composition. Again it follows that equivalences are preserved.
answered Jan 5 '14 at 10:17
Martin BrandenburgMartin Brandenburg
108k13162333
108k13162333
$begingroup$
Thank you. This is definitely a better way to look at the problem!
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 6 '14 at 9:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thank you. This is definitely a better way to look at the problem!
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 6 '14 at 9:03
$begingroup$
Thank you. This is definitely a better way to look at the problem!
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 6 '14 at 9:03
$begingroup$
Thank you. This is definitely a better way to look at the problem!
$endgroup$
– Tunococ
Jan 6 '14 at 9:03
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f627676%2fequivalence-of-categories-and-of-their-functor-categories%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown