3
$\begingroup$

I'm reading Steve Awodey's lecture notes on category theory, and am confused about the notation for covarian/contravariant representable functors:

For a locally small category $\mathcal{C}$ with objects $A, B$, the covariant representable functor is defined as $\mathcal{C}(A, -): \mathcal{C} \to \texttt{Set}$, where

$$ \begin{align} &\mathcal{C}(A, B) = \{ f \in \mathcal{C}_{1} \mid f: A \to B \} \\ &\mathcal{C}(A, g) : f \mapsto g \circ f \end{align} $$

The contravariant representable functor is defined as $\mathcal{C}(-, B): \mathcal{C}^{op} \to \texttt{Set}$. Here, I'm not sure if the following is correct:

$$ \begin{align} &\mathcal{C}(A, B) = \{ f \in \mathcal{C}^{op}_{1} \mid f: B \to A \} \end{align} $$

If so, how can we differentiate between $\mathcal{C}(A, B)$ for the covariant representable functor and that of the contravariant representable functor?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate of "Good" notation for $\hom$-functors $\endgroup$ – Musa Al-hassy Nov 8 '16 at 4:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\mathcal{C}(-,B)=\mathcal{C}^{\text{op}}(B,-)$ $\endgroup$ – Nex Nov 8 '16 at 5:35
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a difference between $\mathcal{C}(A,g)$ and $\mathcal{C}(B, g)$? Or are they the same (both being composition by $g$)? $\endgroup$ – Tianxiang Xiong Nov 8 '16 at 5:52
4
$\begingroup$

No, $\mathcal{C}(A,B)$ is always the set of maps $A\to B$ in $\mathcal{C}$. The difference is simply whether we consider $A$ or $B$ as the variable; if $A$, then we have $\mathcal{C}(A,B)=[\mathcal{C}(-,B)](A)$, contravariant in $A$; if $B$, then we have $\mathcal{C}(A,B)=[\mathcal{C}(A,-)](B)$, covariant in $B$. It's perhaps least ridiculous to simply recognize that both of these are shadows of the full object, $\mathcal{C}(-,-)$, a functor of two variables $\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}}\times \mathcal{C}\to\mathtt{Set}$. Regardless, $\mathcal{C}(A,B)$ is always the same thing: it's a value of at least three different functors, and which one, if any, the author has in mind can't be determined just from the notation, since the notation only indicates a set.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I think I get it. What I was confused by is the $\mathcal{C}(-, B): \mathcal{C}^{op} \to \texttt{Set}$ notation. I thought it meant that the morphisms are reversed regardless of the variable, but it seems that the morphisms are reversed only when the variable is a morphism (if that makes any sense...). $\endgroup$ – Tianxiang Xiong Nov 8 '16 at 5:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The part about thinking of $\mathcal{C}(A,-)$ and $\mathcal{C}(-, B)$ as shadows of $\mathcal{C}(-, -)$ is very helpful! $\endgroup$ – Tianxiang Xiong Nov 8 '16 at 5:58

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.