Lift uniqueness for connected colimits of the projection functor $Pi : c/C to C$
$begingroup$
I'm currently working through proposition 3.3.8 of Emily Riehl's Category Theory in Context, which proves that the projection functor $Pi: c/C to C$ strictly creates limits and connected colimits (i.e. if the image of a diagram is a (co) limit in $C$, there is a unique lift to a (co) limit on $c/C$). The first remark notes that a diagram $(K,kappa) : J to c/C$ in $c/C$ is a functor $K: J to C$ together with a cone $kappa: c Rightarrow K$, whose image via $Pi$ is the diagram $K$. Hence the idea is to prove that if $K$ is a limit/connected colimit then there is a unique (co) limit cone over $(K,kappa)$ whose image is the (co) limit cone over $K$.
I have understood the case for limits, but there is a subtlety in the connected colimits case which I am failing to understand. The author takes a colimit cone $mu : K Rightarrow p$, and defines an arrow $c xrightarrow{zeta} p in operatorname{obj} c/C$ via $zeta := mu_jkappa_j$ for some $j in operatorname{obj} J$. Immediately after, it is claimed that $zeta$ is independent of the choice of $j$ since $J$ is assumed to be connected. Hence $mu$ together with $zeta$ give a colimit cone over $(K,kappa)$, proving that $K$ has a colimit lift, and moreover it is unique since $zeta$ is determined by $mu$ and $kappa$.
I get the outline of the argument, but I am not yet convinced of why $J$ being connected implies that $zeta = mu_jkappa_j$ for all $j$ objects of $J$, which seems a central step in the proof (both for uniqueness and to define a lift cone in the slice category to begin with).
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
category-theory proof-explanation
asked Dec 28 '18 at 9:00
Guido A.Guido A.
8,1901730
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm currently working through proposition 3.3.8 of Emily Riehl's Category Theory in Context, which proves that the projection functor $Pi: c/C to C$ strictly creates limits and connected colimits (i.e. if the image of a diagram is a (co) limit in $C$, there is a unique lift to a (co) limit on $c/C$). The first remark notes that a diagram $(K,kappa) : J to c/C$ in $c/C$ is a functor $K: J to C$ together with a cone $kappa: c Rightarrow K$, whose image via $Pi$ is the diagram $K$. Hence the idea is to prove that if $K$ is a limit/connected colimit then there is a unique (co) limit cone over $(K,kappa)$ whose image is the (co) limit cone over $K$.
I have understood the case for limits, but there is a subtlety in the connected colimits case which I am failing to understand. The author takes a colimit cone $mu : K Rightarrow p$, and defines an arrow $c xrightarrow{zeta} p in operatorname{obj} c/C$ via $zeta := mu_jkappa_j$ for some $j in operatorname{obj} J$. Immediately after, it is claimed that $zeta$ is independent of the choice of $j$ since $J$ is assumed to be connected. Hence $mu$ together with $zeta$ give a colimit cone over $(K,kappa)$, proving that $K$ has a colimit lift, and moreover it is unique since $zeta$ is determined by $mu$ and $kappa$.
I get the outline of the argument, but I am not yet convinced of why $J$ being connected implies that $zeta = mu_jkappa_j$ for all $j$ objects of $J$, which seems a central step in the proof (both for uniqueness and to define a lift cone in the slice category to begin with).
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
category-theory proof-explanation
asked Dec 28 '18 at 9:00
Guido A.Guido A.
8,1901730
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm currently working through proposition 3.3.8 of Emily Riehl's Category Theory in Context, which proves that the projection functor $Pi: c/C to C$ strictly creates limits and connected colimits (i.e. if the image of a diagram is a (co) limit in $C$, there is a unique lift to a (co) limit on $c/C$). The first remark notes that a diagram $(K,kappa) : J to c/C$ in $c/C$ is a functor $K: J to C$ together with a cone $kappa: c Rightarrow K$, whose image via $Pi$ is the diagram $K$. Hence the idea is to prove that if $K$ is a limit/connected colimit then there is a unique (co) limit cone over $(K,kappa)$ whose image is the (co) limit cone over $K$.
I have understood the case for limits, but there is a subtlety in the connected colimits case which I am failing to understand. The author takes a colimit cone $mu : K Rightarrow p$, and defines an arrow $c xrightarrow{zeta} p in operatorname{obj} c/C$ via $zeta := mu_jkappa_j$ for some $j in operatorname{obj} J$. Immediately after, it is claimed that $zeta$ is independent of the choice of $j$ since $J$ is assumed to be connected. Hence $mu$ together with $zeta$ give a colimit cone over $(K,kappa)$, proving that $K$ has a colimit lift, and moreover it is unique since $zeta$ is determined by $mu$ and $kappa$.
I get the outline of the argument, but I am not yet convinced of why $J$ being connected implies that $zeta = mu_jkappa_j$ for all $j$ objects of $J$, which seems a central step in the proof (both for uniqueness and to define a lift cone in the slice category to begin with).
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
category-theory proof-explanation
asked Dec 28 '18 at 9:00
Guido A.Guido A.
8,1901730
$endgroup$
I'm currently working through proposition 3.3.8 of Emily Riehl's Category Theory in Context, which proves that the projection functor $Pi: c/C to C$ strictly creates limits and connected colimits (i.e. if the image of a diagram is a (co) limit in $C$, there is a unique lift to a (co) limit on $c/C$). The first remark notes that a diagram $(K,kappa) : J to c/C$ in $c/C$ is a functor $K: J to C$ together with a cone $kappa: c Rightarrow K$, whose image via $Pi$ is the diagram $K$. Hence the idea is to prove that if $K$ is a limit/connected colimit then there is a unique (co) limit cone over $(K,kappa)$ whose image is the (co) limit cone over $K$.
I have understood the case for limits, but there is a subtlety in the connected colimits case which I am failing to understand. The author takes a colimit cone $mu : K Rightarrow p$, and defines an arrow $c xrightarrow{zeta} p in operatorname{obj} c/C$ via $zeta := mu_jkappa_j$ for some $j in operatorname{obj} J$. Immediately after, it is claimed that $zeta$ is independent of the choice of $j$ since $J$ is assumed to be connected. Hence $mu$ together with $zeta$ give a colimit cone over $(K,kappa)$, proving that $K$ has a colimit lift, and moreover it is unique since $zeta$ is determined by $mu$ and $kappa$.
I get the outline of the argument, but I am not yet convinced of why $J$ being connected implies that $zeta = mu_jkappa_j$ for all $j$ objects of $J$, which seems a central step in the proof (both for uniqueness and to define a lift cone in the slice category to begin with).
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
category-theory proof-explanation
category-theory proof-explanation
asked Dec 28 '18 at 9:00
Guido A.Guido A.
8,1901730
asked Dec 28 '18 at 9:00
Guido A.Guido A.
8,1901730
edited Dec 28 '18 at 11:08
Guido A.
asked Dec 28 '18 at 9:00
Guido A.Guido A.
8,1901730
asked Dec 28 '18 at 9:00
Guido A.Guido A.
8,1901730
asked Dec 28 '18 at 9:00
Guido A.Guido A.
8,1901730
8,1901730
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Pick any projection of the cone $kappa$, i.e. $kappa_j : c to Kj$. Then for any other projection $kappa_i : c to Ki$, we have either $kappa_j=Kfcirckappa_i$ or $kappa_i=Kgcirckappa_j$ by connectedness. For the colimiting cocone, we have the opposite: given the coprojection $mu_j : Kjto p$ we have $mu_i=mu_jcirc Kf$ or $mu_j=mu_icirc Kg$ respectively. In the first case, we have $mu_jcirckappa_j = mu_icirc Kfcirckappa_i = mu_icirckappa_i$ and similarly for the second case.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:12
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.7k11437
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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%2f3054697%2flift-uniqueness-for-connected-colimits-of-the-projection-functor-pi-c-c-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Pick any projection of the cone $kappa$, i.e. $kappa_j : c to Kj$. Then for any other projection $kappa_i : c to Ki$, we have either $kappa_j=Kfcirckappa_i$ or $kappa_i=Kgcirckappa_j$ by connectedness. For the colimiting cocone, we have the opposite: given the coprojection $mu_j : Kjto p$ we have $mu_i=mu_jcirc Kf$ or $mu_j=mu_icirc Kg$ respectively. In the first case, we have $mu_jcirckappa_j = mu_icirc Kfcirckappa_i = mu_icirckappa_i$ and similarly for the second case.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:12
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.7k11437
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pick any projection of the cone $kappa$, i.e. $kappa_j : c to Kj$. Then for any other projection $kappa_i : c to Ki$, we have either $kappa_j=Kfcirckappa_i$ or $kappa_i=Kgcirckappa_j$ by connectedness. For the colimiting cocone, we have the opposite: given the coprojection $mu_j : Kjto p$ we have $mu_i=mu_jcirc Kf$ or $mu_j=mu_icirc Kg$ respectively. In the first case, we have $mu_jcirckappa_j = mu_icirc Kfcirckappa_i = mu_icirckappa_i$ and similarly for the second case.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:12
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.7k11437
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Pick any projection of the cone $kappa$, i.e. $kappa_j : c to Kj$. Then for any other projection $kappa_i : c to Ki$, we have either $kappa_j=Kfcirckappa_i$ or $kappa_i=Kgcirckappa_j$ by connectedness. For the colimiting cocone, we have the opposite: given the coprojection $mu_j : Kjto p$ we have $mu_i=mu_jcirc Kf$ or $mu_j=mu_icirc Kg$ respectively. In the first case, we have $mu_jcirckappa_j = mu_icirc Kfcirckappa_i = mu_icirckappa_i$ and similarly for the second case.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:12
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.7k11437
$endgroup$
Pick any projection of the cone $kappa$, i.e. $kappa_j : c to Kj$. Then for any other projection $kappa_i : c to Ki$, we have either $kappa_j=Kfcirckappa_i$ or $kappa_i=Kgcirckappa_j$ by connectedness. For the colimiting cocone, we have the opposite: given the coprojection $mu_j : Kjto p$ we have $mu_i=mu_jcirc Kf$ or $mu_j=mu_icirc Kg$ respectively. In the first case, we have $mu_jcirckappa_j = mu_icirc Kfcirckappa_i = mu_icirckappa_i$ and similarly for the second case.
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:12
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.7k11437
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:12
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.7k11437
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:12
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.7k11437
answered Dec 28 '18 at 19:12
Derek ElkinsDerek Elkins
17.7k11437
17.7k11437
add a comment |
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%2f3054697%2flift-uniqueness-for-connected-colimits-of-the-projection-functor-pi-c-c-to%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
