Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Often in category theory, a property of a category $\mathcal{D}$ will also hold in the functor category $[\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}]$, perhaps with some smallness conditions on $\mathcal{C}$. The proofs all follow the same pattern: take a natural transformation $\alpha : F \to G$, consider each component $\alpha_C : FC \to GC$ separately — so that we're now working in $\mathcal{D}$ — use the property of $\mathcal{D}$ and then patch the results together at the end.

For instance:

  • If $\mathcal{D}$ has (co)products then so does $[\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}]$.
  • If $\mathcal{D}$ is abelian (or additive, or preadditive, or...) then so is $[\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}]$, provided $\mathcal{C}$ is locally small.

Question: Are there any general results, such as conditions on a given property $\phi$, that ensure that if $\phi$ holds in $\mathcal{D}$ then $\phi$ holds in $[\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}]$.

My thoughts: The answer is inevitably going to have something to do with the 'patching together' part of the proof.

For example, if $\mathcal{D}$ has products and $F, G : \mathcal{C} \rightrightarrows \mathcal{D}$ then we can define the product $F \times G : \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ by $(F \times G)C = FC \times GC$, and then the projection arrows are defined componentwise by $$(\pi_F)_C = \pi_{FC} : FC \times GC \to FC$$ $$(\pi_G)_C = \pi_{GC} : FC \times GC \to GC$$ The fact that $(F \times G, \pi_F, \pi_G)$ defines a product in $[\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}]$ hangs on the fact that the componentwise definition really does yield a natural transformation, rather than just an $\operatorname{ob} \mathcal{C}$-indexed family of arrows.

share|improve this question
    
Being preadditive is a structure, not a property. (Somewhat surprisingly, though, being additive is a property.) –  Qiaochu Yuan Jan 5 '13 at 11:56
    
@QiaochuYuan: I'm just as interested in structure as I am in properties. But the title's already quite long! –  Clive Newstead Jan 5 '13 at 12:00
    
@QiaochuYuan, where can I find definitions of structure and property? And are they universally agreed upon? –  alancalvitti Jan 6 '13 at 4:12
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Cilve, your first instance shows that we have to be careful when moving from $\mathcal{D}$ to $[\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}]$ --- you should easily find categories $\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}$ such that $\mathcal{D}$ is cartesian closed, but the functor category $[\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}]$ is not.

The other examples follow more-or-less from a suitable version of the Yoneda lemma. I will show you how to apply Yoneda lemma to get limits/colimits in a functor category. Let $\mathcal{X}, \mathcal{D}$ be small categories. There exists their cotensor (exponent) $\mathcal{D}^\mathcal{X}$ together with the diagonal functor: $$\mathcal{D} \overset{\Delta}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{D}^\mathcal{X}$$ given as the transposition of the cartesian projection $\pi \colon \mathcal{D} \times \mathcal{X} \rightarrow \mathcal{D}$. The limit functor $\mathit{lim}$ is defined as the right adjoint to the diagonal, and the colimit $\mathit{colim}$ is defined as the left adjoint to the diagonal.

The whole idea is to apply the 2-Yoneda functor to the above diagram. We have $$\hom(-, \mathcal{D}^\mathcal{X}) \approx \hom(-, \mathcal{D})^{\mathcal{X}}$$ by the definition of the cotensor. Therefore the above diagram is mapped to the diagram: $$\hom(-, \mathcal{D}) \rightarrow \hom(-, \mathcal{D})^\mathcal{X}$$ Since adjunctions are equationally defined, they are preserved by any 2-functor, and particularly by 2-Yoneda. This means, that the above transformation has right/left adjoint transformation provided $\Delta$ has. But a transformation that has left/right adjoint, has left/right adjoint on its each componenet $\mathcal{C}$. Thus: $$\hom(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}) \rightarrow \hom(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D})^\mathcal{X}$$ has right/left adjoint if $\mathcal{D}$ has $\mathcal{X}$-indexed limits/colimits.


We may also see what would go wrong if one tried to apply the above strategy to show that cartesian closedness is inherited by functor categories.

Let us recall that a category $\mathcal{D}$ is cartesian closed if for every global element $x \colon 1 \rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ the canonical functor: $$\mathcal{D} \approx \mathcal{D} \times 1 \overset{\mathit{id}\times x}\rightarrow \mathcal{D} \times \mathcal{D} \overset{\times_\mathcal{D}}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{D}$$ has right adjoint, where $\mathcal{D} \times \mathcal{D} \overset{\times_\mathcal{D}}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{D}$ is the internal cartesian product functor in $\mathcal{D}$.

Just like before, we may apply to our diagram the 2-Yoneda functor obtaining: $$\hom(-, \mathcal{D}) \approx \hom(-, \mathcal{D}) \times 1 \overset{\mathit{id}\times \hom(-, x)}\rightarrow \hom(-, \mathcal{D}) \times \hom(-, \mathcal{D}) \overset{\times_{\hom(-, \mathcal{D})}}{\rightarrow} \mathcal{D}$$ and conclude that this transformation has right adjoint iff the former has. However, the terminal object $1$ is not a (2-)generator in $\mathbf{Cat}^{\mathbf{cat}^{op}}$, thus the adjunctions do not give a good characterisation of internally cartesian closed objects in that category. Particularly, $\hom(-, \mathcal{D}) \colon \mathbf{cat}^{op} \rightarrow \mathbf{Cat}$ may not be a cartesian closed (2-)fibration, and one may expect existence of exponents in a fibre $\hom(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D})$ only on "constant" objects induced by global sections $\hom(\mathcal{C}, x) \colon 1 \rightarrow \hom(\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D})$.

share|improve this answer
1  
Yikes, I don't know why I thought that about Cartesian closed categories. I've edited my question, and I'll read the rest of your answer now! –  Clive Newstead Jan 5 '13 at 12:38
    
Finally got round to reading it properly. This is great, thanks a lot! –  Clive Newstead Jan 7 '13 at 13:38
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.