Let $C$ be a small category, let $D$ be a locally small category. Given a functor $F:C\to D$, the image of $F$ may not be a category. Now following the nLab, let's instead call the image of $F$ the subcategory of $D$ generated by the images of the objects and morphisms of $C$ under $F$, i.e. close it under composition.

With this notion of image, by construction we have a subcategory of $D$. Is this subcategory again small?

  • $\begingroup$ Since $D$ is locally small, the image of $F$ should have a set of objects (the image of the set of objects of $C$, since $C$ is small and you can't reach any object outside that image) and each hom is a set (as a subset of the hom-set of locally-small $D$) so the image is small. $\endgroup$ – Chessanator Mar 27 at 3:55
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure what happens if $D$ isn't locally small, which is probably a more interesting question. $\endgroup$ – Chessanator Mar 27 at 3:56

Yes, this is trivial. Every morphism in the image of $F$ can be written as a finite composition of morphisms that come from morphisms of $C$, and there is only a small set of such finite compositions.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Another way to put this is that the image of $F$ is a quotient of the category freely generated by the underlying graph of $C$, which certainly remains small. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Arlin Mar 27 at 5:13
  • $\begingroup$ @KevinCarlson: I think you mean the underlying graph of the "naive" image of $F$ (which is not necessarily actually a subcategory). $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Mar 27 at 5:16
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, let's say that. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Arlin Mar 27 at 5:28

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.