Is it true that when the empty family of arrows to an object $E$ in some category is epimorphic, that object $E$ must be the initial object $0$?

This is a claim on page 433 (eq. 22) of Mac Lane and Moerdijk - Sheaves in Geometry and Logic, in the proof of Theorem VIII.2.7.

I can see that the assumptions imply that any map from $E$ to any other object $X$ is necessarily unique. Indeed, assuming that the ambient category has coproducts, the empty family being epimorphic means that the map $e$ from the empty coproduct (i.e. the initial object $0$) is an epimorphism. Now given two maps $f,g: E\to X$, we have $fe=ge$ is the unique map $0\to X$, hence $f=g$ since $e$ is epic.

However I cannot see why there should exist a map $E\to X$ which would make $E$ initial.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (Actually, no need for coproducts: the empty family to $E$ being epimorphic just means that by definition.) Existence is not guaranteed. Cook up a simple counterexample with 2 or 3 objects.. Relevant: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1092122/…. $\endgroup$ – Berci May 29 '16 at 23:48
  • $\begingroup$ Note that the referred claim in MacLane and Moerdijk is not needed for the proof to carry through. All the proof requires is that if $E=0$ then the empty family is epimorphic. The claim is the converse statement, which does not impact the soundness of the proof. $\endgroup$ – Adrien Vakili May 31 '16 at 0:13

This is not true in general. Indeed, your argument can be reversed to show that whenever $E$ is an object with at most one map to every object, then the empty family is epimorphic onto $E$. But there are many categories with objects that have at most one map to every object but do not map to every object (for instance, any nontrivial poset).


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.