7
$\begingroup$

Usually, in a category with pullbacks, the pullback on a cospan $f : A \rightarrow C \leftarrow B : g $ is noted $ A \times_C B $. However its definition is highly dependent on the choice of arrows $f$ and $g$.

So, is there a good coherent reason to mention $C$ in the notation, instead of mentionning $(f,g)$?

Or, if not, is there a good historical reason?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The pullback is the categorical product in the slice category of objects over $C$.

A nice motivating case to think about is the category of schemes, where, for example, the category of schemes over a field $k$ is the slice category of objects over $\text{Spec } k$ in the category of schemes. On affine schemes the categorical product is even given by tensor product of the corresponding rings of functions over $k$ (which note that we also denote by $A \otimes_k B$ without explicitly highlighting the dependence on maps $k \to A, k \to B$).

Note that mathematical notation constantly omits dependence on extra data for the sake of brevity: for example, in representation theory it's typical to talk about a representation $V$ of a group $G$ without explicitly highlighting that all constructions involving $V$ depend on a choice of map $\rho : G \to \text{Aut}(V)$. The point is that it's understood that the symbol $V$ already implicitly refers to this data, which is usually clear from context.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ So, by analogy with the representation theory example, you mean that when using pullbacks all we need is to get $any$ pullback with codomain $C$, whatever $(f,g)$ is? I think that arises from how it is mainly used when working with it. I may realize that with more experience. $\endgroup$
    – almaus
    Feb 24 '14 at 8:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @almaus: I don't understand your question, but hopefully this is an answer: in practice $f$ and $g$ will be clear from context. $\endgroup$ Feb 24 '14 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ I mean, when we fetch a representation of a group, we are happy to use it as a tool to understand $G$ from within $V$, no matter what is the map $\rho$. So there should be something similar with the pullback, making it useful even if we "forgot" the exact $(f,g)$, right? $\endgroup$
    – almaus
    Feb 24 '14 at 8:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @almaus: I still don't understand your question. $f$ and $g$ haven't been forgotten; they've been omitted for brevity. $\endgroup$ Feb 24 '14 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but my quest is to grasp the understanding of why this brievity is acceptable in this case. $\endgroup$
    – almaus
    Feb 24 '14 at 22:13
4
$\begingroup$

You are technically correct. The definition of the pullback completely depends on the arrows $f$ and $g$. One of the reasons for the prevalence of the notation $A\times_C B$ instead of something like $A\times_{f,g} B$ is that it is more aesthetically pleasing and very often does not result in ambiguity. Unless you are in the presence of another arrow with codomain $C$, the notation $A\times_C B$ can only refer to one pullback.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, so is it because during mathematician job we most often work with only one pullback (and only one couple $(f,g)$) on a given codomain? I ask because I'm still learning category theory, not yet used it a lot outside the handbook. $\endgroup$
    – almaus
    Feb 24 '14 at 7:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @almaus: You are right. One only writes $A \times_{f,g} B$ instead of $A \times_C B$ if $f$ and $g$ are not understood from the context. But I also like Qiaochu's point ... $A$ is not an object in the given category, but rather in the slice category, so that $A \to C$ belongs to the data of (what one also calls but should not ...) $A$. So actually $A \times_C B$ is an abbreviation of $(A \to C) \times (B \to C)$ (product in the slice category), where again the arrows should have names or a meaning clear from the context. $\endgroup$ Feb 24 '14 at 20:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In this case why don't we advocate to use the notation $f \times_C g$? That would make much more sense (in fact it will make sense at all), and is just as verbose as the (wrongish) notation $A \times_C B$. $\endgroup$
    – almaus
    Feb 25 '14 at 7:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, I maybe understand. As $f \times_C g$ is, in a category with products, a subobject of $A \times B$, one does use the mongrel notation $A \times_C B$ that refers both to the subobject of $A \times B$ and to the product in slice category $\times_C$. I was heavily bathing in examples where there were no products (thus pullbacks were not their subobjects) so I lost this meaning. $\endgroup$
    – almaus
    Feb 25 '14 at 7:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @almaus, I agree, something like $f \times_C g$ would be better. Or perhaps $f_C \times g_C$, where $f_C$ denotes $f$ viewed as an object of the slice category into $C$. Or maybe even $C_f \times C_g$. $\endgroup$ Apr 27 '14 at 15:31

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.