22
$\begingroup$

According to Wikipedia,

The collection of all algebraic objects of a given type will usually be a proper class. Examples include the class of all groups, the class of all vector spaces, and many others. In category theory, a category whose collection of objects forms a proper class (or whose collection of morphisms forms a proper class) is called a large category.

I am aware of Russell's Paradox, which explains why not everything is a set, but how can we show the collection of all groups is a proper class?

| cite | improve this question | |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ take the free group on each set $\endgroup$ – uncookedfalcon Nov 1 '12 at 0:02
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ It's too dang big! $\endgroup$ – ncmathsadist Nov 1 '12 at 0:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ When you say "class" you want to say "proper class." Sets are also classes. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 1 '12 at 0:08
34
$\begingroup$

The collection of singletons is not a set. Therefore the collection of all trivial groups is not a set.

If you wish to consider "up to isomorphism", note that for every infinite cardinal $\kappa$ you can consider the free group, or free abelian group with $\kappa$ generators. These are distinct (up to isomorphism, that is), and since the collection of cardinals is not a set the collection of groups cannot be a set either.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 13
    $\begingroup$ In more categorical language, the first paragraph shows that $\text{Grp}$ is not a small category, and the second paragraph shows that $\text{Grp}$ is not even an essentially small category (ncatlab.org/nlab/show/small+category). $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 1 '12 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ @QiaochuYuan: I suppose that they show that $\mathrm{Ab}$ is also neither small nor essentially small. Right? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila♦ Nov 1 '12 at 0:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Yes, and lots of variations. Much more generally, a theorem of Freyd asserts that if a small category has all small colimits, then it is a poset. $\endgroup$ – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 1 '12 at 0:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks, I can see how that'd apply to the other types as a well. If anyone else is reading this: Cantor's paradox proves that the collection of cardinals isn't a set $\endgroup$ – Casebash Nov 1 '12 at 1:59

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.