2
$\begingroup$

Given a locally small category C, and an object $C$, the functor:

\begin{equation} \mbox{Hom}_\textbf{C}(C,-):\textbf{C} \longrightarrow \textbf{Sets} \end{equation}

that sends objects to hom-sets and arrows $f:A\rightarrow B$ to functions: \begin{align} f_*:\mbox{Hom}_\textbf{C}(C,A) &\longrightarrow \mbox{Hom}_\textbf{C}(C,B) \\ g&\longmapsto f\circ g \end{align}

is called the Representable Functor.

I am looking for some intuition of why is that so, past the fact that it is an obvious functor from C to Sets.

| cite | improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is just a name. We also say that $C$ represents the functor $\mathrm{Hom} (C, -)$. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jul 23 '15 at 11:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You should really read Tom Leinster's "Basic Category Theory", because it answers such motivational questions in great detail! $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Jul 23 '15 at 13:04
10
$\begingroup$

First of, a functor $F : \mathscr C → \mathrm{Set}$ is called representable (by $C$) if it's isomorphic (not necessarily equal) to $\mathrm{Hom}(C, -)$ for an object $C$ of $\mathscr C$. As for the term, an abstract functor $F$ is represented by the very concrete action of $\mathrm{Hom}(C, -)$.

Take for example the functor $L : \mathrm{Top} → \mathrm{Set}$ sending a topological space $X$ to the set of all loops in $X$. A loop is just a continuous function $S^1 → X$, so we have that $LX ≅ \mathrm{Hom}(S^1, X)$. In fact, it kind of makes sense to say that a loop is an $S^1$-shaped element of $X$, right? This really generalizes the classical elements of $X$, since those correspond to functions $* → X$, where $*$ is the one-point space. Note in particular that every continuous function $f : X → Y$ extends to these generalized elements: if $l : S^1 → X$ is a loop, then it's image in $Y$ is exactly $f∘l = \mathrm{Hom}(S^1, f)(l)$. Now compare: we have no idea how an arbitrary functor $F: \mathrm{Top} → \mathrm{Set}$ might act. But if $F$ is representable and $F ≅ \mathrm{Hom}(C, -)$, then we know that $FX$ are just $C$-shaped elements of $X$, and that $Ff$ simply maps the $C$-elements of $X$ to $C$-elements of $Y$ in the most obvious way. So you represented something possibly completely abstract with a very simple idea.

For contravariant functors, a somewhat higer-level perspective would be that the Yoneda embedding $C ↦ \mathrm{Hom}(-, C)$ embeds $\mathscr C$ into the functor category $[\mathscr C^\mathrm{op}, \mathrm{Set}]$. Looking at it that way, you could say that a representable contravariant functor $F$ literally is (isomorphic to) the element of $\mathscr C$ it's represented by.

Disclaimer: this is why the term seems very sensible and apt to me, I don't know why it was chosen by the one who named it. For what is worth, I can't find anything in the Mac Lane's book, which sometimes has these kinds of historical comments.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's $C \mapsto \hom(-,C)$ which embeds $\mathscr C$ into $[\mathscr C^{\rm op},\mathsf{Set}]$. $\endgroup$ – Pece Jul 23 '15 at 11:47
  • $\begingroup$ was debating whether to switch to contravariant functors or to the contravariant Yoneda embedding, ended up writing a little bit of both :) $\endgroup$ – user54748 Jul 23 '15 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe it could be a good idea to mention that when a functor is representable, there are usually many ways for it to be represented (different possible isomorphisms $F \cong \hom(-,a)$ corresponding to elements of $F(a)$)? Like when a manifold is orientable, there are two ways (over the integers anyway) to make it oriented? $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Jul 23 '15 at 13:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.