0
$\begingroup$

What is a weighted limit in the $Cat$-category of categories, functors and natural transformations?

I can find the general definition of a weighted limit for enriched categories in Kelly's book or Borceux's handbook. But I get lost when I try to specialize, simplify and beautify it.

I expect an elementary definition in the form: "given $W, F : I \to Cat$, the weighted limit $\{W, F\}$ is the category $C$ and the functors... blah blah... such that there exists a unique... blah blah... such that the following diagram commutes: ... blah blah..."

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Weighted limits in $\mathcal{V}$ considered as a $\mathcal{V}$-enriched category are just hom-objects of the respective $\mathcal{V}$-enriched functor categories. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin May 23 '16 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ Nice remark but I am looking for something more concrete. $\endgroup$ – Bob May 23 '16 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ That is very concrete and elementary. Unless you think that hom-categories are not? $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin May 23 '16 at 23:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bob, Also, the general definition that you refer to defines the weighted limit to be a representation of a certain $\textbf{Cat}$-valued $2$-functor. So you should make sure you understand exactly what a representation is. You should then be able to translate between the "representation" and the "elementary" expressions of the universal property. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Campbell May 24 '16 at 1:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The weighted limit $\{W, F\}$ is the hom-category $Hom(W, F)$ in the 2-category $[I, \mathfrak{Cat}]$. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin May 24 '16 at 7:29
3
$\begingroup$

Is coend-calculus elementary enough to you? If yes, supposing the involved powers exist, there is a canonical isomorphism $$ \{W,F\}\cong \int_c Fc^{Wc} $$ for $F\colon C\to A$, and $W\colon C\to V$, where $A,C\in V\text{-Cat}$. This, together with the fact that $$ \int_c Fc^{Wc} \cong \text{eq}\Big(\prod_{c\in C}Fc^{Wc}\rightrightarrows \prod_{c\to d} Fd^{Wc}\Big) $$ allows you to prove a number of intriguing properties of the weigthed limit $\{W,F\}$ in a completely formal way and it allows you to notice that weigthed limits are all around you:

  1. When $V$ admits a "category of elements" construction, then weighted limits can be reduced to conical ones: if $\Sigma\colon Elts(W)\to C$ is the forgetful functor, then $$ \{W,F\}\cong \varprojlim_{(c,x)\in Elts(W)} F\circ \Sigma. $$
  2. the (ptwise) right Kan extension $\text{Ran}_GF$ is the weighted limit $\{\hom(1,G),F\}$
  3. when weighted limits always exist in $A$, the correspondence $(W,F) \mapsto \{W,F\}$ is a bifunctor: $$ \{\sim,\approx\}\colon \big(V^C \big)^\text{op}\times A^C\longrightarrow A. $$
  4. There is an iso $\{\varinjlim_J W_j, F\}\cong \varprojlim_J \{W_j,F\}$ valid for any small diagram of weights $J\to [C,V]\colon j\mapsto W_j$.
  5. Ends are weighted limits: given $H\colon C^\text{op}\times C\to D$ the hom functor plays the role of a weight $\hom_C(\sim,\approx)\colon C^\text{op}\times C\to V$ so that $$ \{\hom_C,H\}\cong \int_{(c,c')\in C^\text{op}\times C } H(c,c')^{\hom(c,c')}\overset{\text{Fubini}}\cong \int_c \Big( \int_{c'}H(c,c')^{\hom(c,c')}\Big)\stackrel{\text{Yoneda}}{\cong}\int_c H(c,c). $$

This language encodes both an intuition and a set of practical rules of manipulations, and holds in every $V$-category (with sufficient tensors). You are interested in the case when $V=Cat$ though. You have already been advised to read Kelly's "Elementary observations". I advise you to rephrase the universal properties of the weighted limits described in that paper in terms of this characterization. I try to write down the details of a specific example (4.2 in Kelly's elementary obs.): let $V=Cat$, and $C = \{0\to 2\leftarrow 1\}$; let $W,F$ be defined respectively by the diagrams $$ \begin{array}{ccc} && {\bf 1}\\ &(W)&\downarrow\\ {\bf 1} &\to& {\bf 2} \end{array} $$ and $$ \begin{array}{ccc} && A\\ &(F)&\downarrow g\\ B &\underset{f}\to& D \end{array} $$ where ${\bf 2}=\{a\to b\}$, and the two arrows are the canonical "face maps" choosing/avoiding $a$ or $b$. You can have fun showing that there are two maps $$ B\times A\times D^{\bf 2}\rightrightarrows B^{\bf 2}\times A^{\bf 2}\times B\times A\times D^{\bf 2} $$ one induced by $F$- and the other induced by $W$-action on arrows of $C$, so that their equalizer is precisely the category "something in $A$, something in $B$, plus an arrow $fb\to ga$". This is the comma category $(f/g)$, which yes, can also be characterized as a 2-pullback, giving you more intuition about the fact that various notions of "lax" limit can be interpreted as weighted limits.

Additional fun: find the category of elements (i.e. the "Grothendieck construction") of $W$ and see if $(f/g)$ is the limit of $F\Sigma$ over $Elts(W)$ (hint: it is).

Cheers!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Your answer is certainly full of very interesting remarks, but it does not answer my question. What is the universal property satisfied by weighted limits in the $Cat$-category of categories? $\endgroup$ – Bob Jun 2 '16 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ As you maybe know, the bare definition asks that $\{W,F\}$ represents a certain functor. There's nothing different (apart the shape of $W$, in principle) from the old notion of conical limit you're used to. Or rather, I don't understand what you mean by "what is". $\endgroup$ – Fosco Jun 2 '16 at 12:20
  • $\begingroup$ You can also define a conical limit as the representation of a functor, but still there is a more elementary definition that does not involve the notion of representation. In the same way, I would like to see a definition of a weighted limit that does not involve the notion of representation: "given $W, F : I \to Cat$, the weighted limit $\{W, F\}$ is the category $C$ and the functors... blah blah... such that there exists a unique... blah blah... such that the following diagram commutes: ... blah blah..." $\endgroup$ – Bob Jun 2 '16 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ It is possible to state such a result, but I think it's easy to deduce it simply re-reading the universal property you apparently master in full detail. Kelly's "Elementary observations" paper insists especially on the point that the universal property of a weighted co/limit is inherently 2-dimensional, meaning that the formula $\forall\dots \exists!\ldots : \dots$ must be read on 2-dimensional cells, not on 1-cells. $\endgroup$ – Fosco Jun 3 '16 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ (PS: don't take my comment as a way to avoid answering you! I too have to ask thousand of questions like yours, before I grok a new idea. Feel free to ask again what you want, but take some time to go through Kelly's def of 2-dimensional universal prop!) $\endgroup$ – Fosco Jun 3 '16 at 17:40

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.