Here in the paper by Rosicky Adamek, Reflections in locally presentable categories on the page 90 in the proof theorem on the page 89, I do not follow the 3rd line there:

... and hence is reflective in $\cal H'\ ?$

From which line in the last paragraph on the page 89 and from that 3rd line on the page 90

(...thus is reflective in $\mathbf{Set}^M)$

this follows and why technically do we need this ?

I've read those two paragraphs on pages 89 and 90 many times but I've failed to understand them well enough.

The snippet:

enter image description here


Let us reformulate the statement of the theorem, to introduce a name for the subcategory that we will want to consider.

Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a locally presentable category and let $\alpha$ be a regular cardinal. Then each full subcategory $\mathcal{A}$ of $\mathcal{H}$, that is closed under limits and $\alpha$-filtered colimits, is reflective in $\mathcal{H}$.

As they already mention, every locally presentable category $\mathcal{H}$ is equivalent to a full reflective subcategory $\mathcal{H'}$ of some presheaf category $\mathbf{Set}^M$, where $\mathcal{H'}$ is closed under $\beta$-filtered colimits in $\mathbf{Set}^M$. That is, we have the following picture: $$ \mathcal{A} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{H} \simeq \mathcal{H'} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{Set}^M. $$ In particular, the composed inclusion $\mathcal{A} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{Set}^M$ makes it so that we can see $\mathcal{A}$ as a full subcategory of $\mathbf{Set}^M$ that is closed under $(\alpha + \beta)$-filtered colimits. Then they claim that proving that this inclusion makes $\mathcal{A}$ into a reflective subcategory of $\mathbf{Set}^M$ is enough.

Indeed it is, denote by $i: \mathcal{A} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{H}$ and $j: \mathcal{H} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{Set}^M$ the inclusions. Then the fact that $\mathcal{A}$ is reflective in $\mathbf{Set}^M$ means that we have an adjoint $F \dashv ji$. So we have natural bijections between the hom-sets as follows (for objects $A$ in $\mathcal{A}$ and $H$ in $\mathcal{H}$): $$ \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{A}(Fj(H), A) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{Set}^M}(j(H), ji(A)) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{H}(H, i(A)) $$ The first bijection is just the adjunction $F \dashv ji$, and the second bijection is just the fact that the inclusion $j$ is full and faithful. We thus see that $Fj \dashv i$, and so we can conclude that $\mathcal{A}$ is a reflective subcategory of $\mathcal{H}$.

  • $\begingroup$ You explanationm has helped. I do not however understand some points yet. Why $j$ from $\cal H$ is an inclusion into $\mathbf{Set}^M$: $$j: \mathcal{H} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{Set}^M$$ when we have only $\cal H\cong H'$ which equivalence might not be an inclusion. $\endgroup$ – user3357120 Jul 13 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ Also I do not follow why this natural bijection exists $$ \operatorname{Hom}_\mathcal{A}(Fj(H), A) \cong \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{Set}^M}(j(H), ji(A))$$ $\endgroup$ – user3357120 Jul 13 at 16:56
  • $\begingroup$ @user3357120 You are right that an equivalence might not be an inclusion. So if we are being very precise, we could take $\mathcal{A'}$ to be the full subcategory of $\mathcal{H'}$ where the objects are the image of $\mathcal{A} \hookrightarrow \mathcal{H} \simeq \mathcal{H'}$. Note that by construction then $\mathcal{A'} \simeq \mathcal{A}$. We can repeat what I wrote with $\mathcal{A'}$ and $\mathcal{H'}$ in the role of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{H}$ respectively... $\endgroup$ – Mark Kamsma Jul 13 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ ... Then we can conclude that $\mathcal{A'}$ is a reflective subcategory of $\mathcal{H'}$, and thus that $\mathcal{A}$ is a reflective subcategory of $\mathcal{H}$ because they are equivalent categories. This is essentially just saying that equivalent categories can considered to be equal. Taking that viewpoint often simplifies things, and is what I did in my answer. $\endgroup$ – Mark Kamsma Jul 13 at 17:35
  • $\begingroup$ @user3357120 For your second question: this is just the adjunction $F \dashv ji$. I will edit my answer to explain the two bijections. $\endgroup$ – Mark Kamsma Jul 13 at 17:36

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.