2
$\begingroup$

In stating the Yoneda Lemma, my category theory book (Kashiwara's Categories and Sheaves) makes the following definition:

Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a $\mathcal{U}$-category, where $\mathcal{U}$ is our universe. We define the big categories $$\mathcal{C}^{\wedge}_{\mathcal{U}}: \text{The category of functors from $\mathcal{C}^{\text{op}}$ to }\mathcal{U}\text{-set}$$ $$\mathcal{C}^{\vee}_{\mathcal{U}}: \text{The category of functors from $\mathcal{C}^{\text{op}}$ to }(\mathcal{U}\text{-set})^{\text{op}}.$$ and the functors $$\mathrm{h}_\mathcal{C}: \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{C}^{\wedge}_{\mathcal{U}}: X \mapsto \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(\cdotp, X)$$ $$\mathrm{k}_\mathcal{C}: \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{C}^{\vee}_{\mathcal{U}}: X \mapsto \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(X, \cdotp).$$

There is a natural isomorphism $$\mathcal{C}^{\vee} \simeq \mathcal{C}^{\text{op}\wedge \text{op}}$$ and $\mathcal{C^{\vee}}$ is the opposite big category to the category of functors from $\mathcal{C}$ to Set. Hence, for $X \in \mathcal{C}$, $\mathrm{k}_\mathcal{C}(X) = (\mathrm{h}_\mathcal{C^{\text{op}}}(X^{\text{op}}))^{\text{op}}$.

I don't understand why we can't (shouldn't) view things like $\text{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(X, \cdotp)$ as functors from $\mathcal{C}$ to Sets. They seem to be saying that somehow, the arrows in $\mathcal{C}^{\vee}$ point the wrong way for that to be the case. What does that mean?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ just try to define what the functor does to a function $f:S\to T$ and see what happens. $\endgroup$ – Ittay Weiss Oct 18 '14 at 3:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @IttayWeiss $\text{Hom}(X, \cdotp):(S \xrightarrow{f}T) \mapsto (\text{Hom}(X, S) \xrightarrow{f \circ} \text{Hom}(X, T)$. What's wrong with that? It should be saying something about the arrows between the functors, right (i.e. natural transformations)? $\endgroup$ – Eric Auld Oct 18 '14 at 3:30
4
$\begingroup$

This is actually pretty easy to justify, but even easier to forget (as I did) or to never notice-as happens to readers of approximately every category theory book except Kashiwara-Schapira. Probably many students guess that $[\mathcal{C}^{op},\mathbf{Set}]$ is the opposite of $[\mathcal{C},\mathbf{Set}]$, even though this is badly wrong-I can think of at least one who did, anyway.

Zoom out, and show in general that the functor categories $[\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}]$ and $[\mathcal{C}^{op},\mathcal{D}^{op}]$ are anti-equivalent. They're actually dual-isomorphic, so the equivalence is given by the identity on objects. But on morphisms, that is, natural transformations, we have to turn things around. If $\alpha:F\to G$ is a morphism in $[\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}]$ then $\alpha$ is just an $\text{ob}(\mathcal{C})$-indexed collection of morphisms $\alpha_A:FA\to GA$ in $\mathcal{D}$ satisfying the naturality property. So in our equivalence we will associate $\alpha$ with the exact same indexed collection of morphisms, that is, $(\alpha^{op})_{A^{op}}=(\alpha_A)^{op}$. What else? But $\alpha_A^{op}: G^{op} A^{op}=(GA)^{op}\to (FA)^{op}=F^{op} A^{op}$, so $\alpha^{op}:G^{op}\to F^{op}$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Should it say "an $\text{ob}(\mathcal{C})$-indexed collection of morphisms $\alpha_A: FA \to GA$"? Not $FA'$? $\endgroup$ – Eric Auld Oct 18 '14 at 4:18
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I think I understand your point that $[\mathcal{C},\mathcal{D}]$ and $[\mathcal{C}^{\text{op}}, \mathcal{D}^{\text{op}}]$ are not the same. Can you illustrate why $\text{Hom}(X,\cdotp)$ is an object in the latter rather than the former? $\endgroup$ – Eric Auld Oct 18 '14 at 4:25
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, thanks for the correction. That functor is an object of both categories-the idea of the answer is to show the two functor categories are opposite, but opposite categories have the same (depending on definitions, a canonically isomorphic class of) objects! Sp when I write things like $F^{op}$ it might be obfuscatory: this is an object in the opposite category, but it's exactly the same as a functor. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Arlin Oct 18 '14 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, so the point is that we want to define $\mathcal{C}^{\vee}$ and $\mathcal{C}^{\wedge}$ to be opposite categories? $\endgroup$ – Eric Auld Oct 18 '14 at 17:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, it's $\mathcal C^\vee$ and $[\mathcal C,\mathbf{Set}]$ that are opposite: what you said is the common mistake I mention in my first paragraph. If you think of some examples you'll see there's no way to get a contravariant functor from a covariant one in general. $\endgroup$ – Kevin Arlin Oct 18 '14 at 19:22

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.