I'm stuck on Exercise 4.5.1 of Goldblatt's, "Topoi: A Categorial Analysis of Logic".

It's in the topos $\mathbf{Bn}(I)$ of bundles over a set $I$. Goldblatt asks the reader to verify that

enter image description here$\tag{1}$

satisfies the $\Omega$-axiom.${}^\dagger$ The construction is defined in the first link above.

For convenience: here $(A, f)\stackrel{k}{\rightarrowtail}(B, g)$ is an arbitrary, monic $\mathbf{Bn}(I)$-arrow, taken as an inclusion; $(I, \operatorname{id}_I)$ is the terminal object in $\mathbf{Bn}(I)$; $p_I$ is the projection $p_I(\langle x, y\rangle)=y$; $\top$ is defined by $\top(i)=\langle 1, i\rangle$; and $\chi_k$ is the product map $\langle\chi_A, g\rangle$, i.e., $$\chi_k(x)=\begin{cases}\langle 1, g(x)\rangle &: x\in A \\ \langle 0, g(x)\rangle &: x\notin A.\end{cases}$$

Thoughts: What I've done so far is replace $\chi_k$ with an arbitrary $\mathbf{Bn}(I)$-arrow $h: \langle B, g\rangle\to \langle 2\times I, p_I\rangle$ in $(1)$, supposing what I get is a pullback. Then I've run it though the definition of a pullback quite easily. I've had numerous stupid ideas about what to do next (with all manner of confusing diagrams) but to no avail.

I'd like a detailed solution, please.

It should be easier than I think it is. Maybe my problem is with bundles themselves. This is my second attempt at reading Goldblatt's book: last time I thought I had'm but got up to "11.4: Models in a Topos" - right where I wanted to be - before other commitments made me lose track entirely; now I'm about to read "4.8: $\Omega$ and comprehension".

Please help :)

$\dagger$: The $\Omega$-axiom is given on page 81, ibid., via the definition of a subobject classifier:

Definition: If $\mathbb{C}$ is a category with a terminal object $1$, then a subobject classifier for $\mathbb{C}$ is a $\mathbb{C}$-object $\Omega$ with a $\mathbb{C}$-arrow $\text{true}: 1\to\Omega$ that satisfies the following axiom.

$\Omega$-axiom: For each monic $f:a\rightarrowtail d$ there is one and only one $\mathbb{C}$-arrow $\chi_{f}:d\to\Omega$ such that $\chi_f\circ f=\text{true}\circ !$ is a pullback square.


$\require{AMScd}$ First, recall that $\mathbf{Bn}(I)$ is just a notation for the slice category $\mathsf{Set}_{/I}$.

Lemma. For any category $\mathscr C$ and any object $c$ of $\mathscr C$, the forgetful functor $\mathscr C_{/c} \to \mathscr C$ commutes with fibered products.

So if you have a pullback as in your question, the square $$ \begin{CD} A @>k>> B \\ @VfVV @VV\chi_k V \\ I @>>\top> 2 \times I \end{CD} $$ is a pullback in $\mathsf{Set}$. Then, remark that the square $$ \begin{CD} I @>\top>> 2\times I \\ @VVV @VVV \\ 1 @>>\mathrm{true}> 2 \end{CD} $$ is also a pullback ($\mathrm{true}$ being the map selecting $1 \in 2$). So, concatenating the two squares makes the outer square of $$ \begin{CD} A @>k>> B \\ @VfVV @VV\chi_k V \\ I @>>\top> 2 \times I \\ @VVV @VVV \\ 1 @>>\mathrm{true}> 2 \end{CD} $$ a pullback again. But then $2$, equipped with the map $\mathrm{true} \colon 1 \to 2$, is a subobject classifier for $\mathsf{Set}$. From here, you can easily derive the uniqueness of $\chi_k$ (remember that $p_I \circ \chi_k$ is fixed to be $g$ by hypothesis).

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, @Pece. I had to make sure I can understand this without recourse to functors, though, given the way Goldblatt has structured his book; I can just about see what you've done :) $\endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Jun 25 '14 at 11:45

Just to fill in the gaps of the great answer above. Understand how PBL (pullback lemma) works in Goldblatt. And understand that for products there exists a unique arrow $\langle p, q \rangle$ for any third object $a \xleftarrow{p} c \xrightarrow{q} b$ onto the argument objects (of the product).

Bn(I) Omega axiom satisfied picture

Note that $! \circ f = !$ and that in set $\chi_A$ is already known to exist (regardless of uniqueness) since $\textbf{Set}$ has a subobject classifier $\Omega$. Thus after pasting the two pullbacks, you get a pullback diagram on the right (the square). But more importantly, we know that the morphism $\chi_A$ is the unique such morphism that creates that pullback square by the $\Omega$ axiom in $\text{Set}$.

Thus $\chi_k = \langle m, g \rangle$ where $m = \chi_A$. Now apply the product rule to the object $B$ with its two projectors onto the arguments of $2 \times I$, namely $\chi_A : B \to 2$ and $g:B\to I$. Then by definition of $\langle \chi_A, g\rangle$ it is the unique such arrow (we call it $\chi_k$) such that $p_2 \circ \chi_k = \chi_A$ and $p_I \circ \chi_k = g$. That's using the universal property of product.

But that is the same as saying it is the unique arrow such that the square on the top left (together with arrows into $I$) above is a pullback in $\text{Bn}(I)$ because one of the conditions that the whole thing commutes or in particular that $p_I \circ \chi_k = g$.

As is often the case in mathematics, we don't always make full use of a condition, i.e. we only said "such that $p_I \circ \chi_k = g$" and didn't mention all the other conditions going on in the pullback. One condition was enough in this case.

  • $\begingroup$ It's a slight abuse of notation to write $!\circ f=!$, is it not? $\endgroup$
    – Shaun
    Apr 18 '20 at 0:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Shaun yes, that's correct. ! is used anytime there's a unique something and we don't need to name it. $\endgroup$ Apr 18 '20 at 12:42

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.