Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a small category, let $C$ be an object of $\mathcal{C}$ and let $\mathbf{y}:\mathcal{C}\to[\mathcal{C}^{op},\mathbf{Set}]$ be the Yoneda embedding.

I am trying to derive the simple fact that a sieve $S$ on $C$ is a family of morphisms in $\mathcal{C}$, all with common codomain $C$, such that $f\in S\Rightarrow f\circ g\in S$ (whenever the composition makes sense) from the fact that $S$ is a subobject $S\subseteq \mathbf{y}(C)=\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(-,C)$ but there must be something I do not get.

$S\subseteq \mathbf{y}(C)$ really means a monic $S\to\mathbf{y}(C)$ in the presheaf category. Hence it is a natural transformation between the functors $S$ and $\mathbf{y}(C)$. Therefore it is a collection of set functions $$\lbrace t_A:SA\to \mathbf{y}(C)(A)\rbrace_{A\in \textrm{ob}\mathcal{C}}$$ such that for all $g:B\to A$ in $\mathcal{C}$ the following square is commutative $$ \require{AMScd} \begin{CD} SA @>{t_A}>> \mathrm{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(A,C);\\ @VVV @VVV \\ SB @>{t_B}>> \mathrm{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(B,C); \end{CD}$$ where the vertical arrows are $Sf$ and $-\circ g$.

But I don't see from here how the first description of a sieve above follows...I am probably not looking at this correctly. Can someone help?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually, here it is best to use subpresheaf in the strictest possible sense: each $S A$ is a subset of $\mathcal{C}(A, C)$ and each map $S A \to \mathcal{C}(A, C)$ is the inclusion. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Nov 12 '13 at 8:45
  • $\begingroup$ Makes much more sense now! If I am not mistaken, you are saying that if you have a monic natural transformation then the family of maps it induces consists of monics as well? Is this a general fact? $\endgroup$ – user121314 Nov 12 '13 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ That is true when the components are in a category where kernel pairs exist. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Nov 12 '13 at 13:57
  • $\begingroup$ ...Like $\mathbf{Set}$... $\endgroup$ – user121314 Nov 12 '13 at 14:00

The monic $S \rightarrow y(C)$ determines subsets $S(A) \subseteq Hom_\mathcal{C}(A,C)$, in the standard sense (why?), so that composing with a morphism sends the subset $S(A)$ to $S(B)$. Since the category is small, you can also take the union $\bigcup_{A \in \mathcal{C}} S(A)$. You can then check that this union is precisely a sieve, and that an isomorphic subobject will give the same sieve.

And of course, given an bunch of "equivariant subsets" as above, you can construct a subobject of $y(C)$.

  • $\begingroup$ I guess my problem was your "(why?)". It is because a monic natural transformation $S\to \mathrm{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(-,C)$ consists of monic components, right? For some reason this was not obvious for me, now it is. Thanks very much! $\endgroup$ – user121314 Nov 12 '13 at 14:04

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.