Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Category of elements

In category theory, a branch of mathematics, the category of elements of a presheaf is a category associated to that presheaf whose objects are the elements of sets in the presheaf. It and its generalization are also known as the Grothendieck construction (named after Alexander Grothendieck) especially in the theory of descent, in the theory of stacks, and in fibred category theory.[1]

The Grothendieck construction is an instance of straightening (or rather unstraightening).

Significance

In categorical logic, the construction is used to model the relationship between a type theory and a logic over that type theory, and allows for the translation of concepts from indexed category theory into fibred category theory, such as Lawvere's concept of hyperdoctrine.

The category of elements of a simplicial set is fundamental in simplicial homotopy theory, a branch of algebraic topology. More generally, the category of elements plays a key role in the proof that every weighted colimit[clarification needed] can be expressed as an ordinary colimit, which is in turn necessary for the basic results in theory of pointwise left Kan extensions, and the characterization of the presheaf category as the free cocompletion of a category.[citation needed] See also Density theorem (category theory) for an example usage.

Motivation

If is a family of sets indexed by another set, one can form the disjoint union or coproduct

,

which is the set of all ordered pairs such that . The disjoint union set is naturally equipped with a "projection" map

From the projection it is possible to reconstruct the original family of sets up to a canonical bijection, as for each via the bijection . In this context, for , the preimage of the singleton set is called the "fiber" of over , and any set equipped with a choice of function is said to be "fibered" over . In this way, the disjoint union construction provides a way of viewing any family of sets indexed by as a set "fibered" over , and conversely, for any set fibered over , we can view it as the disjoint union of the fibers of . Jacobs has referred to these two perspectives as "display indexing" and "pointwise indexing".[2]

The Grothendieck construction generalizes this to categories. For each category , family of categories indexed by the objects of in a functorial way, the Grothendieck construction returns a new category fibered over by a functor whose fibers are the categories .

Construction

Let be a category and let be a set-valued functor. The category el(F) of elements of F (also denoted C F) is the category whose:

An equivalent definition is that the category of elements of is the comma category ∗↓F, where is a singleton (a set with one element).

The category of elements of F is naturally equipped with a projection functor Π: ∫C FC that sends an object (A, a) to A, and an arrow (A,a)→(B,b) to its underlying arrow in C.

For small C, this construction can be extended into a functor C from Ĉ to Cat, the category of small categories. Using the Yoneda lemma one can show that C PyP, where y:CĈ is the Yoneda embedding.[citation needed] This isomorphism is natural in P and thus the functor C is naturally isomorphic to y↓–:ĈCat.

For some applications, it is important to generalize the construction to even a contravariant pseudofunctor (the covariant case is similar). Namely, given , define the category , where

  • an object is a pair consisting of an object in and an object in ,
  • a morphism consists of in and in ,
  • the composition of above and consists of and ; i.e.,
[3]

Perhaps it is psychologically helpful to think of as the pullback along (i.e., ) and then is the pullback of along .

Note here the associativity of the composition is a consequence of the fact that the isomorphisms are coherent.

Examples

Group

If is a group, then it can be viewed as a category, with one object and all morphisms invertible. Let be a functor whose value at the sole object of is the category a category representing the group in the same way. The requirement that be a functor is then equivalent to specifying a group homomorphism where denotes the group of automorphisms of Finally, the Grothendieck construction, results in a category with one object, which can again be viewed as a group, and in this case, the resulting group is (isomorphic to) the semidirect product

Representable functor

Given a category C and a fixed object * in it, take , the contravariant functor represented by *. Then the category associated to it by the Grothendieck construction is exactly the comma category .[4] Indeed, if is an object in , then . If is a morphism in , then . But is supposed to be a morphism in , which is a hom-set; in particular, a set. Thus, is the identity and thus ; i.e., is a map over *.

Twisted arrows

Given a category C, take to be the hom-functor

where denotes a product of categories. Then the category of elements for is known as the category of twisted arrows in C.[5] The opposite of it is known as the twisted diagonal of C.

Homotopy colimit

Let be a functor (thought of as a diagram) and the category of elements for . The nerve of is a simplicial set that is isomorphic to the homotopy colimit of by Thomason's homotopy colimit theorem:

Sometimes, this is taken as a definition of a homotopy colimit.[6]

More generally, if is a simplicial diagram, then taking the above colimit for each , one also gets the homotopy colimit of X as well.

As a cartesian fibration

Let be the forgetful functor and the category associated to a contravariant pseudofunctor on by the Grothendieck construction. A key property is that is a cartesian fibration (or that is a category fibered over ), meaning each morphism in with target lifts to a cartesian morphism with target .[3] Indeed, we simply let and The required lifting property then holds trivially.

Next, if is a natural transformation (between contravariant pseudofunctors), then induces a functor

that sends cartesian morphisms to cartesian morphisms. Indeed, for objects, we let through . As for a morphism , we let where . Now, if is an arbitrary cartesian morphism, then since are isomorphic, we see that is invertible and thus is invertible. It follows that has the required lifting property to be a cartesian morphism, completing the proof of the claim.

Formulation in ∞-categories

Using the language of ∞-categories, the Grothendieck construction can be stated in the following succint way. Namely, it says there is an equivalence of ∞-categories:

between the functor category and the (2, 1)-category of cartesian fibrations (or fibered categories) over .[7] Moreover, the equivalence is given by sending the pseudofunctor to the category of pairs for (see above) and the opposite direction by taking fibers; i.e., is mapped to the pseudofunctor .

In more details, given a cartesian fibration , define the contravariant pseudofunctor as follows.[8] For an object , . Next, since is a cartesian fibration, for each morphism and each object in , there is an object in as well as a cartesian morphism in . By the axiom of choice, for each , we thus choose in as well as a cartesian morphism . To simplify the notation, we shall let . We now make

a functor; i.e., it also sends morphisms. If is a morphism in , since is cartesian, there is a unique morphism , which we denote by , such that . By the uniqueness of choices, we have . Thus, is a functor. Hence, is defined. Finally, we show is a contravariant pseudofunctor. Roughly, this is because, even though we made a choice using the axiom of choice, different choices differ by unique isomorphisms. Consequently, the isomorphisms will be coherent.

Notes

  1. ^ Mac Lane, Saunders; Moerdijk, Ieke (1994). Sheaves in geometry and logic: a first introduction to topos theory (2., corr. print ed.). New York: Springer. ISBN 9780387977102.
  2. ^ Jacobs, Bart (1999). Categorical logic and type theory. Amsterdam Lausanne New York [etc.]: Elsevier. ISBN 0444501703.
  3. ^ a b Vistoli 2008, § 3.1.3.
  4. ^ Vistoli 2008, just before § 3.4.1.
  5. ^ Remark 8.1.0.3 in https://kerodon.net/tag/03JB
  6. ^ Example 2.7. in Jardine, John F. (2015). Local homotopy theory. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. New York: Springer-Verlag. section 9.2. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-2300-7. ISBN 978-1-4939-2299-4. MR 3309296.
  7. ^ Khan 2023, Theorem 3.1.5.
  8. ^ Vistoli 2008, Proposition 3.11.

References

Further reading