Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}$ be categories and $D\in\mathcal{D}$ a generator. (This means, that $\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{D}}(C,\_)$ is faithful). The functor category $\operatorname{Fun}(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D})$ posseses then a generator, too. How does it look like?

My idea was taking the constant functor $\equiv D\in\operatorname{Fun}(\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D})$. I am on the right way?

share|cite|improve this question

The claim is false as stated. Consider $\mathcal{D} = \mathbf{Set}$: this is generated by $1$ in a very strong sense. However, if $\mathcal{C} = 2$ is the discrete category on two objects (say $a$ and $b$), then $[2, \mathbf{Set}]$ does not have a generator. Suppose for a contradiction that $G$ generates $[2, \mathbf{Set}]$. Clearly, $G (a)$ and $G (b)$ must be non-empty. However, if $H$ is an object in $[2, \mathbf{Set}]$ such that $H (a) = \emptyset$ and $H (b) = 1$, then there are no morphisms $G \to H$. Hence $G$ is not a generator.

Here is something that is true. If $\mathcal{C}$ is small and $\mathcal{D}$ is cocomplete and has a generator, then $[\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}]$ has a small generating family. The way to see this is to observe that the functor $F \mapsto F c : [\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}] \to \mathcal{D}$ has a left adjoint $c_! : \mathcal{D} \to [\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}]$, and using adjointness, if $G$ is a generator in $\mathcal{D}$, then the family $\{ c_! G : c \in \operatorname{ob} \mathcal{C} \}$ is a small generating family in $[\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}]$.

Moreover, if $\mathcal{D}$ is pointed, then $[\mathcal{C}, \mathcal{D}]$ has a generator: just take the coproduct $\coprod_{c \in \operatorname{ob} \mathcal{C}} c_! G$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you. How can I fix this claim? Does it help, if $\mathcal{D}$ is abelian? – Jack Jul 10 '13 at 10:28
No. You can replace $\mathbf{Set}$ with $\mathbf{Ab}$ in the above and run the same argument. – Zhen Lin Jul 10 '13 at 10:35
Wikipedia says: "Given a small category C and a Grothendieck category A, the functor category Funct(C,A) is a Grothendieck category; if C is preadditive, then the functor category Add(C,A) of all additive functors from C to A is a Grothendieck category as well." So this is wrong? – Jack Jul 10 '13 at 10:39
Hm, sorry – the argument doesn't work with $\mathbf{Ab}$. The first claim in your quote is correct – see my edit. – Zhen Lin Jul 10 '13 at 11:03

Your Answer


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.