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.

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

In Borceux and Dejean's paper Cauchy completion in category theory, they conclude the smallness of $\bar{C}$, the full subcategory of $[C^{op},\mathrm{Set}]$ spanned by all the retracts of the representable functors, from the well-poweredness of $[C^{op},\mathrm{Set}]$. (They're assuming $C$ small.)

  1. It suffices to consider the retracts of the functors $C(-,r)$ with $r\in C$, since in a category $B$, if two objects $a,b\in B$ are isomorphic, then $\mathrm{Rct}(a)=\mathrm{Rct}(b)$ (where $\mathrm{Rct}(a)$ is the class of all the retracts of $a$; the same for $b$ with $\mathrm{Rct}(b)$).
  2. In a category $B$, if $a,b\in B$ and $b\in\mathrm{Rct}(a)$, if $r_b, r'_b:a\rightarrow b$ and $i_b,i'_b:b\rightarrow a$ are arrows in $B$ such that $r_bi_b=1$ and $r'_bi'_b=1$, then $i_b$ and $i'_b$ not necessarily represent the same subobject. Consider $3$ and $2$ in $\mathrm{Set}$.
  3. In a category $B$, given $a,b,c\in B$, if $b,c\in\mathrm{Rct}(a)$, and $b$ and $c$ represent the same subobject of $a$ then $b\cong c$. However, because of 2, if $b,c\in\mathrm{Rct}(a)$ and $b\cong c$, then $b$ and $c$ not necessarily represent the same subobject of $a$.

How to count the retracts of representables? Since isomorphism between retracts doesn't imply equality of subobjects, we should count them all, n'est-ce pas ?, but what should we do when we count twice retracts representing the same subobject?

Briefly, I don't see how to conclude the smallness of $\bar{C}$ from the well-poweredness of $[C^{op},\mathrm{Set}]$. How do Borceux and Dejean do that?

share|cite|improve this question
    
If you really want to pedantic, then what they have shown is that the Cauchy completion is essentially small. But that is good enough for most purposes. – Zhen Lin Feb 28 '14 at 22:52
    
You're right: $\bar{C}$ has a small skeleton... – Quique Ruiz Mar 3 '14 at 1:49

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.