3
$\begingroup$

Let $CAT$ be the category of all small categories and functors between them. One of the category axioms says that for every two objects $A$ and $B$ of a category, the class of morphisms from $A$ to $B$ must be a set, not a proper class. Assume now that $A$ and $B$ are small categories, that is their classes of objects are sets. How can I deduce that the class of functors from $A$ to $B$ is a set and not a proper class?

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

First off, the requirement that $\hom(A,B)$ be a small set isn't always assumed; such categories we call "locally small". But $\mathrm{CAT}$ is locally small, so that's a side issue.

It's actually fairly easy to show that $\hom(A,B)$ is small when $A$ and $B$ are small categories: every element can be described by one or more functions between small sets.

And given any two small sets $X$ and $Y$, basic set theory tells us the class of functions from $X$ to $Y$ is a small set.


For completeness, the encoding I have in mind is to describe a functor $A \to B$ by the two functions describing how it acts on objects of $A$ and how it acts on arrows of $A$.

Other encodings are possible.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I can't understand why natural transformations come into the picture. I mean, if I want to prove that $\mathrm{CAT}$ is locally small, is it sufficient to "count" how many functors are there between two fixed categories, isn't it? $\endgroup$ – bateman Jan 15 '18 at 20:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @bateman: You're right; I had in mind the strict 2-category where $\hom(A,B)$ is the category of functors $A \to B$ and the natural transformations between them. I've corrected my answer. $\endgroup$ – Hurkyl Jan 15 '18 at 20:12
3
$\begingroup$

A functor $F:A\rightarrow B$ $F_O:Ob(A)\rightarrow Ob(B)$ which is an element of $Set(Ob(A),O(B))$ a map which assign to a morphism $f:X\rightarrow Y$ a morphism $F(f):F(X)\rightarrow F(Y)$, it is a map $F_f: Mor(A)\rightarrow Mor(B)$, remark that $Mor(A)$ is a set since it is $\bigcup_{X,Y\in Ob(A)\times Ob(A)}hom(X,Y)$

Thus the set of functors between $A$ and $B$ can be viewed as a subset of $Ob(B)^{Ob(A)}\times Mor(B)^{Mor(A)}$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

"One of the axioms of category theory says..."?? There are many different axiomatizations! While it is certainly the case that "there must be" a hom-class between any two objects, there is not always an axiom saying so -- Here is one axiomatization that says nothing of the kind! First-order axiom-sets in general do not say anything about their own model theory -- that's a separate semantic issue. The elements of the domain of a model of a first-order theory can be literally anything -- it's the interpretation-functions defined on them (by the model) that matter.

$\endgroup$

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.