Everything I'm talking about is contained in the following:

  • Carboni & Celia Magno, The free exact category on a left exact one;

  • Carboni, Some free constructions in realizability and proof theory.

If $C$ is a finitely complete category, it can be embedded into an exact category $Ex(C)$, in such a way that this embedding $C\hookrightarrow Ex(C)$ preserves finte limits and is initial among all the possible finite limit preserving functors $C \to D$ where $D$ is an exact category.

The category $Ex(C)$ is defined as follows [$(1)-(2)-(2')-(3)-(4)$].

$(1)$ An object is a pseudo-equivalence relation $R \to X\times X$ in $C$. A pseudo equivalence relation is almost an equivalence relation, with the only difference that it is not required to be a monomorphism (in particular, if a pseudo-equivalence relation has a regular epi-mono factorization then its image is an equivalence relation).

$(2)$ An arrow between two pseudo-equivalence relations is an arrow of $C$ between their supports that agrees with the pseudo-equivalence relations. For instance, if $R \to X\times X$ and $S \to Y\times Y$ are pseudo-equivalence relations and $f$ is an arrow $X\to Y$, then $f$ is an arrow of $Ex(C)$ iff:

for every arrow $x=\langle x_1,x_2\rangle \colon I \to X\times X$, if $x$ factors through $R$ then the arrow $(f\times f)x=\langle fx_1,fx_2\rangle \colon I \to Y\times Y$ factors through $S$ (if we were talking about sets, this would mean that, whenever $(x_1,x_2)\in R$ then $(fx_1,fx_2)\in S$),

or, equivalently, iff:

there is an arrow $R \xrightarrow{f'} S$ (not necessarily unique) making the obvious square commute.

$(2')$ Actually, we consider equivalent two such arrow $f,g \colon X \to Y$ such that for every $x \colon I \to X$, the arrow $\langle fx,gx\rangle \colon I \to Y \times Y$ factors through $S$ (again, set-theoretically this means that $(fx,gx) \in S$ for every $x\in X$). This happens precisely when $\langle f,g\rangle$ factors through $S$. Hence an arrow of $Ex(C)$ is an equivalence class, modulo this relation, of equivalence relation preserving parallel arrows.

$(3)$ One can verify that this equivalence relation between arrows agrees with the composition of $C$, hence we can define the composition in $Ex(C)$ of two classes as the class of the composition in $C$ of their representatives.

$(4)$ The embedding $C \hookrightarrow Ex(C)$ sends every object $X$ of $C$ to the trivial (pseudo-)equivalence relation $\langle 1_X,1_X\rangle \colon X \to X\times X$ and every arrow $X \to Y$ to itself. Obviously this defines an embedding and one can verify that it preserves finite limits.

One can prove that $Ex(C)$ is exact. In particular, the regular-epi mono factorization is obtained as follows: if $[f]$ is an arrow $(X,R) \to (Y,S)$, then its image is the arrow $(X,(f\times f)^*S)\to(Y,S)$ again represented by $f$, and the regular epimorphism $(X,R) \to (X,(f\times f)^*S)$ is the arrow represented by the identity $1_X$ (indeed, by the universal property of $(f\times f)^*S$, there is an arrow $R \to (f\times f)^*S$ making the obvious square commute - just consider the arrows $R \to X\times X$ and $f'$ in order to get it). Hence we know how the regular epimorphisms look like.

One can characterize the exact categories obtained through this procedure. Indeed if $D$ is an exact category with enough projective (means regular projective) objects and its full subcategory $P$ of its projective objects is closed under finite limits (that is, finitely complete) then $D \simeq Ex(P)$. Viceversa, if $C$ is a finitely complete category, then the inclusion of $C$ into $Ex(C)$ through the embedding $C \hookrightarrow Ex(C)$ verifies the following properties:

$(a)$ it is finitely complete (this is trivial because of $(4)$);

$(b)$ its objects are projective in $Ex(C)$ and the projective objects are enough;

$(c)$ its objects, up to isomorphism of $Ex(C)$, are precisely the projective objects of $Ex(C)$, that is, every projective object of $Ex(C)$ is in the essential image of $C \hookrightarrow Ex(C)$.

The only thing I can't prove is $\boldsymbol{(c)}$. Can someone help me working it out?

Maybe the proof that $Ex(C)$ has enough projectives can help: let $(X,R)$ be a pseudo equivalence relation over the object $X$ of $C$. After having proved that $(X,\langle 1_X,1_X\rangle)$ is projective, observe that the identity $1_X$ represents a regular epimorphism $(X,\langle 1_X,1_X\rangle) \to (X,R)$. I was trying to see if this is actually an isomorphism (i.e. a monomorphism - it's enough in such a category) assuming that $(X,R)$ is projective, but this doesn't seem to work.


1 Answer 1


Solution by Fabio P.

Let $(X,R)$ be a projective object of $Ex(\mathcal{C})$. As we know, the identity $1_X$ represents a regular epimorphism $(X,\langle 1_X,1_X\rangle)\xrightarrow{c}(X,R)$. It is a wrong idea to try to prove that $c$ is an isomorphism. Indeed, $(X,R)$ turns out to be isomorphic to an object in the image of $\mathcal{C}\hookrightarrow Ex(\mathcal{C})$ which is not necessarily $(X,\langle 1_X,1_X\rangle)$.

As $(X,R)$ is projective, there is an arrow $X \xrightarrow{s}X$ of $\mathcal{C}$, representing a section $(X,R)\to (X,\langle 1_X,1_X\rangle)$ of $c$.

Let $(E,S)\xrightarrow{[e]}(X,\langle 1_X,1_X\rangle)$ be the equaliser of the couple $([s]c,[1_X])$ of arrows $(X,\langle 1_X,1_X\rangle)\to(X,\langle 1_X,1_X\rangle)$. Then $[e]$ is a monomorphism of $Ex(\mathcal{C})$, hence, up to precomposing by an isomorphism, we can assume (look at the exhibition we gave of the regular epi-mono factorisation in $Ex(\mathcal{C})$) that: $$S=(e\times e)^*\langle 1_X,1_X\rangle=\langle e^*1_X,e^*1_X\rangle=\langle 1_E,1_E\rangle.$$ Observe that the arrow $[s]$ equalises the pair $([s]c,[1_X])$. Hence, by the universal property of the arrow $[e]$, there is unique an arrow $(X,R)\xrightarrow{r}(E,\langle 1_E,1_E\rangle)$ such that $[e]r=[s]$.

We are done if $r$ is an isomorphism. This is indeed true, since:

  • it is the case that $(c[e])r=c[s]=[1_X]=1_{(X,R)}$;

  • it is the case that $[e]r(c[e])=[s]c[e]=[e]$, hence $r(c[e])=1_{(E,\langle 1_E,1_E\rangle)};$

that is, $c[e]$ is the inverse of $r$.


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.