nLab's page for a full subcategory gives the following "invariant definition" for a full subcategory:

A full subcategory-inclusion is a fully faithful functor.

What does it mean for this definition to be invariant under equivalences? I agree that if $A:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{C}$ is a fully faithful functor and $F,G:\mathcal{C}\leftrightarrow\mathcal{D}$ is an equivalence of categories then $FA$ is a fully faithful functor.

However, I think it is not necessarily true that if $B:\mathcal{Y}\to\mathcal{D}$ is a functor such that $GB$ is full and faithful, then $B$ is fully faithful. For example, let $\mathcal{C}$ be the category with 3 objects, $c_1,c_2,c_3$, and 6 non-identity arrows: $f_{12},f_{21},f_{13_1},f_{13_2},f_{23_1},f_{23_2}$, where the first number in the subscript is the domain and the second number is the codomain. Define $f_{13_1}f_{21}=f_{23_1}$ and similar for the other compositions. This is equivalent to the category $\mathcal{D}$ with 2 objects, $d_1,d_2$, and 2 non-identity arrows from $d_1$ to $d_2$. Now consider the subcategory of $\mathcal{C}$ consisting of $f_{13_1}, f_{23_2}$ (and the identity arrows). Its image under $F$ is full, but the original subcategory is not full. (I'd draw this, but I don't know how to draw a diagram with curved arrows on this site.)

So, why does this definition satisfy the "principle of equivalence"? If it only requires preservation under equivalences of categories, then why is this a good definition?


Your example is incorrect. Let us write $\mathcal{X}$ for the subcategory of $\mathcal{C}$ which you describe. You are then claiming that the inclusion functor $i:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{C}$ is not fully faithful, but the composition $Fi:\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D}$ is fully faithful. However, $Fi$ is not full. In particular, for instance, there is a map $Fi(c_1)\to Fi(c_3)$ which is not the image of any map $c_1\to c_3$ under $Fi$.

Note that it is true that a functor is fully faithful iff its composition with an equivalence is fully faithful. This is immediate from the fact that "fully faithful" means "bijection on Hom-sets", and a map is a bijection iff its composition with a bijection is a bijection.

  • $\begingroup$ Which arrow $Fi(c_1)\to Fi(c_3)$ is missing? There are two such arrows; one is the image of $f_{13_1}$ and the other is the image of $f_{23_2}$. $\endgroup$ – alphacapture Sep 9 '18 at 0:26
  • $\begingroup$ The one that is the image of $f_{23_2}$ is missing, since $f_{13_2}$ is not in $\mathcal{X}$. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Sep 9 '18 at 0:27
  • $\begingroup$ I think I am misunderstanding the word "image"; what does it mean? In particular, is the other arrow $Fi(c_1)\to Fi(c_2)$ in the image? $\endgroup$ – alphacapture Sep 9 '18 at 0:29
  • $\begingroup$ I think you are instead misunderstanding the definition of "full". A functor $A:\mathcal{X}\to\mathcal{Y}$ is full if for any objects $x$ and $y$ in $\mathcal{X}$ and any morphism $g:A(x)\to A(y)$, there exists $f:x\to y$ such that $g=A(f)$. In particular, note that $f$ must be a morphism between $x$ and $y$, not just any morphism of $\mathcal{X}$. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Sep 9 '18 at 0:36

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.