4
$\begingroup$

Let $F:\mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{D}$ be a functor between small categories. We define the functor \begin{align*} f:\hat{\mathcal{D}}&\longrightarrow\hat{\mathcal{C}} \\ G&\longmapsto G\circ F^{\mathrm{op}}, \end{align*} where $\hat{\mathcal{C}}=[\mathcal{C}^{\mathrm{op}},Sets]$ and $\hat{\mathcal{D}}=[\mathcal{D}^{\mathrm{op}},Sets]$ are the presheaf categories of $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ respectively.

I want to show that $f$ has both left and right adjoints.

For the right adjoint, defining a functor $f^{*}:\hat{\mathcal{C}}\to\hat{\mathcal{D}}$ by setting \begin{equation*} f^{*}(H)(D):=\mathrm{Hom}_{\hat{\mathcal{C}}}(f(y_{D}),H)$ \end{equation*} for each presheaf $H\in\hat{\mathcal{C}}$ and each object $D\in\mathcal{D}$, we get the desired right adjoint since by the Yoneda lemma we get that \begin{equation*} f^{*}(H)(D)\cong \mathrm{Hom}_{\hat{\mathcal{C}}}(y_{D},f_{*}(H)). \end{equation*}

However, I have a problem finding the left adjoint. I have a strong feeling that the desired map is the functor $f_{*}:\hat{\mathcal{C}}\to\hat{\mathcal{D}}$ which is induced by the composition arrow \begin{equation} {\mathcal{C}}\xrightarrow{F}{\mathcal{D}}\xrightarrow{y_{\mathcal{D}}}\hat{\mathcal{D}} \end{equation} via the universal property of the Yoneda embedding $y_{\mathcal{C}}:{\mathcal{C}}\to\hat{\mathcal{C}}$, i.e. the unique colimit preserving functor that makes the diagram

enter image description here

commute. It is known that this functor has a right adjoint. I want to prove that this right adjoint is isomorphic to $f$.

I am having trouble showing this. I have started doubting that this map is the desired one. Any help?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Any right adjoint $R$ to a cocontinuous functor $L:\widehat{\mathcal{C}}\to \mathcal E$ from a presheaf category is defined by $R(e)(c)=\mathcal E(L(y_c),e)$. So the right adjoint $R$ of $f_*$ is defined by $$R(H)(c)=\widehat{\mathcal{D}}(f(y_c),H)=\widehat{\mathcal D}(y_{F(c)},H)=H(F(c)),$$ showing $R$ coincides with $f$, as desired.

By the way, your notation choices could be improved, as there's no notation connection between $F$ and $f$. A common options are to call $f$, instead, $F^*$, to give the impression of "pullback of presheaves along $F$"; of course, one could also just write this as $(-)\circ F$ to be quite transparent. The right Kan extension is sometimes denoted by $F_*$, close to the notation you chose for the left, in which case the left Kan extension would be denoted $F_!$. Again, there is also the more explicit option of $\mathrm{Ran}_F$ and $\mathrm{Lan}_F$, respectively.

$\endgroup$

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.