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.

$\DeclareMathOperator{\Hom}{Hom}$Let $D_{i}$ be a diagram in a category $C$,with d the limit. We have

(1) $\lim \Hom_{C}(X,D_{i}) \cong \Hom_{C}(X,d)$.

Whenever I see this result used, it is always stated that the isomorphism is natural in $X$. I have never seen a proof so I want to do it from scratch. Here is my strategy:

I take $\lim : C^{I} \rightarrow C$ to be the functor defined on objects in the obvious way, and on arrows $D \rightarrow D'$ to be the unique morphism from d to d', that results from constructing the cone from d to $D_{i}'$.

So LHS of (1) is $\lim \circ \Hom_{C}(-, D_{i}) : C^{op} \rightarrow Set$

Let $\lim \Hom_{C}(X, D_{i}) = S(X)$. Then letting $f : X' \rightarrow X$, I get a square whose top arrow is the iso $\phi : S(X) \rightarrow \Hom_{C}(X,d))$ and whose bottom arrow is the iso $\phi' : S(X') \rightarrow \Hom_{C}(X',d))$. The left arrow is the unique map from $S(X) \rightarrow S(X')$ and the right arrow is just the map between the two corresponding $\Hom_{C}$ functors.

But now I can't get the squares to commute.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

Suppose that $\{D_i, \psi_i^j\}$ is your system, and for $i \leq j$ you have a map $\psi_i^j : D_j \to D_i$, and let $\alpha_i : lim D_i \to D_i$ be the maps of the limit (the ones with the universal property). Then you have for every $X$ an isomorphism:

$$ \begin{array}{cccc} \theta_X : & Hom(X, d) & \to & lim Hom(X,D_i) \\ & \varphi & \mapsto & (\alpha_i \circ \varphi)_{i} \end{array} $$

Let $f:X \to Y$, then you have induced maps $f^* :Hom(Y,d) \to Hom(X,d)$ and

$$ \begin{array}{cccc} \overline{f^*} : & lim Hom(Y,D_i) & \to & lim Hom(X,D_i)\\ & (\varphi_i)_i & \mapsto & (\varphi_i \circ f)_i \end{array} $$

Now for every $ \varphi \in Hom(Y,d) $ we have:

$$ \begin{array}{lcl} \overline{f^*} \circ \theta_Y (\varphi) & = & \overline{f^*} \big( (\alpha_i \circ \varphi)_i \big) \\ & = & (\alpha_i \circ \varphi \circ f)_i \end{array} $$

And in the other hand:

$$ \begin{array}{lcl} \theta_X \circ f^* (\varphi) & = & \theta_X(\varphi \circ f) \\ & = & (\alpha_i \circ \varphi \circ f)_i \end{array} $$

And that's the naturality.

share|improve this answer
    
thanks for your reply. But isn't $limHom(X,D_{i})$ just a set, which $\varphi$ maps to? And you are sending it to the unique cone $\left (\alpha _{i}∘\varphi \right)_{i}$ over $D_{i}$, I assume the $f$ in your first map is a typo. I don't see how this gives an element of the set $limHom(X,D_{i})$. I also don't see how $\overline{f^{*}}$ is a map between the sets you have indicated. I only know one definition of $lim$, and that is the one I used to show it's the right adjoint of the diagonal functor. I seem to be missing something fundamental here. –  Chilango Apr 7 at 23:33
    
Yes, $limHom(X,D_i)$ is just a set which $\varphi$ maps to, and that $f$ was a typo, thanks. $(\alpha_i \circ \varphi)_i$ is an element of $limHom(X,D_i)$ because the limit is a subset of the direct product. For each $i\in I$ you have induced maps $f_i^* : Hom(Y,D_i) \to Hom(X,D_i)$, so you have an induced maps on the limits because of the universal property. –  Marco Armenta Apr 9 at 14:41
    
Nice. Thanks. I was missing something fundamental: the construction of limits in Set, which I have indeed seen before. –  Chilango Apr 9 at 16:50

There are many way to prove this, but I think the easiest (in some sense) is via yoneda embedding and using the definition of limits for a functor $D \colon \mathbf I \to \mathbf C$ as terminal objects in the category of cones over $D$.

We have that for every category $\mathbf C$ there's an embedding $y \colon \mathbf C \to [\mathbf C^\text{op},\mathbf{Set}]$ given by:

  • on objects $y(X) = \hom_{\mathbf C}(-,X)$ is the (contravariant) hom-functor;
  • on morphisms $f \colon X \to Y$ in $\mathbf C$ we have $y(f) = \hom(-,f)$, which is the natural transformation sending every $C \in \mathbf C$ in the function $\hom(C,f) \colon \hom(C,X) \to \hom(C,Y)$.

This functor is a fully faithful embedding, that's a consequence of yoneda lemma.

Using this fact we can prove your claim. Let be $D \colon \mathbf I \to \mathbf C$ be a an $I$-diagram (i.e. a functor with domain $I$).

Fully faithfulness of the functor $y$ implies that every cone diagram of the form ${p_i}_* \colon y(d) \to y(D_i)$ is obtained as the image of a uniquely determinated cone $\langle p_i \colon d \to D_i\rangle_{i \in \mathbf I}$ in $\mathbf C$. That means the for every family ${p_i}_*$ as above there's a cone $\langle p_i \colon d \to D_i\rangle_{i \in \mathbf I}$ such that $y(p_i)={p_i}_*$ for every $i \in \mathbf I$.

In the same way it's easy to see that given $\langle {p_i}_* \colon y(d) \to y(D_i)\rangle$ and $\langle {q_i}_* \colon y(d') \to y(D_i)\rangle_{i \in \mathbf I}$ two cones, induced by the cones $\langle p_i \colon d \to D_i\rangle_{i \in \mathbf I}$ and $\langle q_i \colon d' \to D_i\rangle_{i \in \mathbf I}$ respectivley, and given an $f_* \colon y(d) \to y(d')$ such that ${q_i}_* = {p_i}_* \circ f_*$ then there's a necessarily unique $f \colon d \to d'$ in $\mathbf C$ such that $y(f)=f_*$ and $q_i=p_i \circ f$ for every $i \in \mathbf I$.

This implies that categories of cones over the diagram $D \colon \mathbf I \to \mathbf C$ and the one of the cones over the diagram $y \circ D \colon \mathbf I \to \mathbf {Set}$ are isomorphic via the functor induced by $y$ that sends every cone $\langle p_i \colon d \to D_i\rangle_{i \in \mathbf I}$ in the cone $\langle y(p_i) \colon y(d) \to y(D_i)\rangle_{i \in \mathbf I}$.

In particular this implies that $\langle\pi_i \colon d \to D_i\rangle_{i \in \mathbb I}$ is terminal object in the category of cones over $D$ iff $$y(\pi_i)\colon y(d) \to y(D_i)$$ that is $$\hom_{\mathbf C}(-,\pi_i) \colon \hom_{\mathbf C}(-,d) \to \hom_{\mathbf C}(-,D_i)$$

is a terminal object in the category of cones over the diagram $y \circ D$: that means that the first cone is a limit cone iff the second one is a limit cone.

Hope this helps.

share|improve this answer
    
Yes it did. Thanks for being so thorough. –  Chilango Apr 10 at 1:48

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.