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.

I have a very stupid question, so sorry in advance. I want to show that a power set functor $2^{-} : (Sets) \rightarrow (Sets)$ does not preserves pullbacks by a counterexample. Here is my logic: we know how to construct pullbacks in $(Sets)$, so suppose $X = \{a,b,c\},\ Y = \{a,b\},\ Z = \{a\}$ and $f:X \rightarrow Z$ is such that $f(x) = a$ and $g:Y \rightarrow Z$ is such that $g(y) = a$. Now the pullback object is $D = \{(x,y) \in X \times Y: f(x)=g(y)\}= X \times Y$. $|X \times Y|=6$, so $|2^{X \times Y}| = 64$.

Now consider $2^{X} = \{\emptyset,\{a\},\{b\},\{c\},\{a,b\},\{a,c\},\{b,c\},\{a,b,c\}\}$, $2^{Y} = \{ \emptyset, \{a\},\{b\}, \{a,b\} \}$ and $2^Z = \{ \emptyset, \{a\}\}$. Note that $2^{f}(\emptyset) = \emptyset$ and $2^{f}(X') = \{a\}$, where $X'$ is a nonempty subset of $X$, and we have the same rule for $2^{g}$ respectively. The pullback $D$ of these guys is $\{ (X',Y'): X' \subset X,\ Y' \subset Y,\ 2^{f}(X') = 2^{g}(Y')\}$. But $2^{f}(\emptyset) \neq 2^{g}(Y')$ for a nonempty $Y'$, so the pullback object will contain $22$ elements, which is less that $64$.

Could you please clarify, does it work?

share|improve this question
    
Seems fine to me. –  Thomas Belulovich Dec 17 '13 at 7:47
    
@ThomasBelulovich Yes, it seems fine, but I was confused with the argument about empty sets ($2^f(\emptyset) = \emptyset$). –  user116307 Dec 17 '13 at 7:51
    
The argument that $2^f(\emptyset) = \emptyset$ is correct. Is there something particular about it that feels weird? –  Thomas Belulovich Dec 17 '13 at 7:57

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

This works. In fact, in general if you are looking at the pullback $\lim D$ of $D = (X \to * \gets Y)$ (where $*$ is the terminal object in Sets), and $\mathcal{P}$ denotes the power set functor, then

$$\mathcal{P}(\lim(D)) \to \lim \mathcal{P}_* D$$

will generally not be an isomorphism. If $X$ and $Y$ are finite, then $|\mathcal{P}(\lim(D))| = 2^{|X| |Y|}$ as you indicated. Meanwhile, the pullback of $\mathcal{P}_* D$ breaks into two fibers over $\mathcal{P}(*) = \{\emptyset, \{*\}\}$.

The lone point in fiber over $\emptyset$ comes from choosing $\emptyset \subset X$ and $\emptyset \subset Y$.

Each point in the fiber over $\{*\}$ comes from choosing a nonempty subset of each of $X$ and $Y$. There are $(2^{|X|}-1)(2^{|Y|}-1)$ ways of doing this.

So you get $1 + (2^{|X|}-1)(2^{|Y|}-1)$ elements in the pullback of $\mathcal{P}_* D$.

(There are more sophisticated ways of getting at this, even when $X,Y,Z$ are not finite, as well)

share|improve this answer
    
With $\mathcal{P}_* D$ you mean the functor composition of $\mathcal{P}$ and $D$? –  magma Dec 17 '13 at 13:57
    
Yes, by $\mathcal{P}_*D$ I mean the diagram $\mathcal{P}(X) \to \mathcal{P}(*) \gets \mathcal{P}(Y)$. –  Thomas Belulovich Dec 17 '13 at 23:56

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.