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.

Let me recall some definitions first. Let $D$ be a small category and let $J$ be a Grothendieck topology on $D$. A presheaf $F$ on $D$ is called a sheaf when for every covering sieve $\psi \in J(d)$ on some $d \in D$ the natural map $$F(d) \to \lim_{c \to d \in \psi} F(c)$$ is an isomorphism. If $F,G$ are presheaves, then their internal hom is the presheaf $G^F$ defined by $G^F(d) = \hom(F \times \hom(-,d),G)$.

It is not so hard to calculate with elements that if $G$ is a sheaf, then $G^F$ is a sheaf. But I would like to see an abstract proof for this, which uses general principles such as "limits commute with limits". Here is how I would like to start: Let $\psi\in J(d)$. Then $$\lim_{c \to d \in \psi} G^F(c) = \lim_{c \to d \in \psi} \int_a \hom(F(a) \times \hom(a,c),G(a)) = \int_a \lim_{\substack{c \to d \in \psi \\ a \to c}} \hom(F(a),G(a))$$ I am pretty sure that the next step considers the pulled back covering sieve $h^* \phi$ where $h : a \to c$ and uses the sheaf property of $G$ for this sieve.

share|improve this question
"Here is how I would like to start:" ... and I would like to finish this proof. –  Martin Brandenburg Jun 21 '14 at 13:37

2 Answers 2

The shortest abstract nonsense proof I know of goes like this:

  1. $\mathbf{Sh}(\mathcal{C}, J)$ is a reflective subcategory of $\mathbf{Psh}(\mathcal{C})$.
  2. The reflector $\mathbf{Psh}(\mathcal{C}) \to \mathbf{Sh}(\mathcal{C}, J)$ preserves finite products (indeed, finite limits).
  3. A reflective subcategory of a cartesian closed category is an exponential ideal if and only if the reflector preserves finite products.

For the last point, see Proposition 4.3.1 in [Sketches of an elephant, Part A].

If that is too abstract, then here is a slightly different approach. By definition, a sheaf is an object in $\mathbf{Psh}(\mathcal{C})$ that is right orthogonal to the class of $J$-covering sieves $\mathfrak{U} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{C}(-, C)$. Let $\mathcal{M}$ be the class of all morphisms right orthogonal to the class of $J$-covering sieves and let $\mathcal{E}$ be the class of all morphisms left orthogonal to $\mathcal{M}$. Of course, an object that is right orthogonal to $\mathcal{E}$ is still the same thing as a sheaf.

Now, $\mathbf{Sh} (\mathcal{C}, J)$ is an exponential ideal if and only if $\mathcal{E}$ is a product ideal, in the sense that if $f : X \to Y$ is in $\mathcal{E}$ and $Z$ is an object in $\mathcal{E}$, then $f \times \mathrm{id}_Z : X \times Z \to Y \times Z$ is also in $\mathcal{E}$. Indeed, this is just a straightforward exercise in using the exponential adjunction. We are only interested in one direction of the implication, namely the one that says $\mathbf{Sh} (\mathcal{C}, J)$ is an exponential ideal; so (using the comparatively easier fact that $\mathbf{Sh} (\mathcal{C}, J)$ is closed under limits) it suffices to verify the following: if $\mathfrak{U} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{C}(-, C)$ is a $J$-covering sieve, then for any $D$ in $\mathcal{C}$, $\mathfrak{U} \times \mathcal{C}(-, D) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{C}(-, C) \times \mathcal{C}(-, D)$ is in $\mathcal{E}$.

In the end though, one has to do some real work, and this is it. If we assume $\mathcal{C}$ has finite products then the claim is an immediate consequence of the pullback axiom of Grothendieck topologies. Otherwise, let $B$ be an object in $\mathcal{C}$, choose morphisms $B \to C$ and $B \to D$ (i.e. an element of $\mathcal{C}(A, C) \times \mathcal{C}(A, D)$), and let $\mathfrak{V}$ be the sieve consisting of those morphisms $A \to B$ such that the composite $A \to B \to C$ is in $\mathfrak{U}$. Again, by the pullback axiom, $\mathfrak{V}$ is a $J$-covering sieve on $B$. Thus, $\mathfrak{U} \times \mathcal{C}(-, D) \hookrightarrow \mathcal{C}(-, C) \times \mathcal{C}(-, D)$ is the colimit (in $[\mathbb{2}, \mathbf{Psh}(\mathcal{C})]$) of a canonical diagram of $J$-covering sieves. But it is a general fact that $\mathcal{E}$ is closed under colimits, so we are done.

share|improve this answer

What about studying sheaf on an elementary topos? Try for example the fifth chapter of "Sheaves in Geometry and Logic" (which you surely know), Lemma 1 page 224 is what you are looking for.

share|improve this answer
Well it's not . –  Martin Brandenburg Jun 21 '14 at 13:37
Why not? Is it because you cannot understand the proof? –  Lano Jun 21 '14 at 13:40
You want "general principles", but this is not a well defined mathematical object. I assume you want to read an element-free proof, let's say "categorical". This uses adjunctions and closure operator; now we're left with two possibilities: either you are adopting a narrow-minded view, for which sheaves are presheaves with nice glueing properties and hence you are a priori not considering my answer, or you want somebody to do your homework (metaphorically speaking), so that even Zhen's answer is not good for you. –  Lano Jun 21 '14 at 17:02
@MartinBrandenburg, let $\mathcal{E} = \mathrm{Fun}(D^{\mathrm{op}}, \mathrm{Set})$ be the presheaf topos of your small category $D$. Then by Theorem 2 on page 234, the category $\mathrm{Sh}_j\mathcal{E}$ coincides with the category of $J$-sheaves on $D$, so that the second of the two statements of Lemma 1 on page 224 is precisely what you want. Do you understand now? One has to do some translation, but the proof is there. –  Adeel Jun 22 '14 at 8:23
So the problem was that you didn't know that fact, not in the absence of connection. –  Lano Jun 22 '14 at 9:57

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.