The free cocompletion of a locally small category

Let C\C be a locally small category. All results here can easily be adapted to the case that C\C is locally essentially small, and we do not assume that C\C is small. Then C^\widehat{\C} denotes its free cocompletion (often called PCP\C in the literature when C\C is not assumed to be small), which is the full subcategory of [Cop,Set][\C^{\op},\Set] consisting presheaves F:CopSetF : \C^{\op} \to \Set that are small. This condition can be described in many equivalent ways:

  1. FF is a small colimit of representable functors.
  2. There is a small category I\I such that FF is the left Kan extension of a presheaf on I\I along a functor IC\I \to \C.
  3. There is small subcategory IC\I \subseteq \C such that FF is the left Kan extension of its restriction to I\I.
  4. The category of elements F\int F is finally small.

Here, the objects of F\int F are pairs (X,a)(X,a), where XCX \in \C and aF(X)a \in F(X), and a morphism (X,a)(Y,b)(X,a) \to (Y,b) is a morphism f:XYf : X \to Y with F(f)(b)=aF(f)(b) = a. The equivalence of the conditions (1), (2), (3) is proven as Proposition 4.83 in Kelly's book Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory. The implication (1)     \implies (4) is proven as Proposition 3.7 in Kan Extensions are Partial Colimits by Perrone-Tholen (but there must be earlier references). The implication (4)     \implies (1) follows from the co-Yoneda Lemma Fcolim(X,a)FHom(,X)F \cong \colim_{(X,a) \in \int F} \Hom(-,X) and the fact that final functors do not "change" colimits; see Proposition 2.5.2 in Kashiwara-Schapira.

In contrast to the full presheaf category [Cop,Set][\C^{\op},\Set], its subcategory C^\widehat{\C} of small presheaves is always locally essentially small:

Lemma 1.

If C\C is a locally small category, then C^\widehat{\C} is locally essentially small.

Proof. Let F:CopSetF : \C^{\op} \to \Set be a small presheaf, so that FcolimiHom(,Xi)F \cong \colim_i \Hom(-,X_i) for a small diagram X:ICX : \I \to \C. For every other (small) presheaf G:CopSetG : \C^{\op} \to \Set we compute, using the Yoneda Lemma, Hom(F,G)limiHom(Hom(,Xi),G)limiG(Xi),\textstyle \Hom(F,G) \cong \lim_i \Hom(\Hom(-,X_i),G) \cong \lim_i G(X_i), and the latter is a set. \square

But it is usually not locally small:

Lemma 2.

If C^\widehat{\C} is locally small, then C\C is small.

Disclaimer: This result and its proof are not relevant for category theory and are also depending on implementation details of set theory. That C^\widehat{\C} is locally essentially small is only what matters.

Proof. If C\C is empty, there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, choose an object XCX \in \C. Consider the collection of morphisms Hom(,X)Hom(,X)\Hom(-,X) \to \Hom(-,X), which is surely isomorphic to the set Hom(X,X)\Hom(X,X). By assumption, it actually is a set. It follows that {idHom(,X)}\{\id_{\Hom(-,X)}\} is a set, and therefore also that idHom(,X)\id_{\Hom(-,X)} is a set. This natural transformation is a map that associates to every object YOb(C)Y \in \Ob(\C) the map idHom(Y,X)\id_{\Hom(Y,X)}. If we model a map as a set of ordered pairs and ordered pairs as Kuratowski pairs, we get

idHom(,X)={(Y,idHom(Y,X)):YOb(C)}={{{Y},{Y,idHom(Y,X)}}:YOb(C)} \begin{align*} \id_{\Hom(-,X)} & = \bigl\{(Y,\id_{\Hom(Y,X)}) : Y \in \Ob(\C)\bigr\} \\ & = \bigl\{\{\{Y\},\{Y,\id_{\Hom(Y,X)}\}\} : Y \in \Ob(\C)\bigr\} \end{align*}

This construction shows Ob(C)idHom(,X)\Ob(\C) \subseteq \bigcup \bigcup \id_{\Hom(-,X)}, so that Ob(C)\Ob(\C) is indeed a set. \square

Lemma 3.

If C\C is a locally small category, then C^\widehat{\C} is cocomplete. Colimits can be constructed objectwise.

Proof. This follows from cocompleteness of [Cop,Set][\C^{\op},\Set] with objectwise constructed colimits and the third characterization of small presheaves above. Details can be found as Proposition 5.34 in Kelly's book. \square

The existence of limits in C^\widehat{\C} is a much more complicated issue, see the paper Limits of small functors by Day-Lack. The following result is useful in this regard. Namely, it shows that C^\widehat{\C} has limits of a given type if and only if small functors are closed under these limits taken in the category of all presheaves.

Lemma 4.

For every XCX \in \C the evaluation functor evX:C^Set\ev_X : \widehat{\C} \to \Set, FF(X)F \mapsto F(X) is continuous. In particular, the inclusion functor C^[Cop,Set]\widehat{\C} \hookrightarrow [\C^{\op},\Set] is continuous, and every limit that exists in C^\widehat{\C} is an objectwise limit.

Proof. By the Yoneda Lemma, the evaluation functor is represented by Hom(,X)\Hom(-,X). Thus, it is continuous. \square

Lemma 5.

A morphism α:FG\alpha : F \to G in C^\widehat{\C} is a monomorphism (resp. epimorphism) if and only if for every XCX \in \C the map α(X):F(X)G(X)\alpha(X) : F(X) \to G(X) injective (resp. surjective).

Proof. The direction     \impliedby is trivial in each case. For the direction     \implies, the evaluation functor evX:C^Set\ev_X : \widehat{\C} \to \Set is continuous by Lemma 4 and therefore preserves monomorphisms. Furthermore, it is also cocontinuous by Lemma 3 and therefore preserves epimorphisms. \square

Lemma 6.

If C\C is a locally small category, then C^\widehat{\C} is mono-regular. Actually, every monomorphism is an effective monomorphism. Moreover, monomorphisms are stable under filtered colimits.

Proof. The first statement is a formal consequence of the fact that every monomorphism in Set\Set is effective and the already established facts that monomorphisms and pushouts can be understood objectwise. For similar reasons, the second statement is a formal consequence of the corresponding fact for Set\Set. \square

Lemma 7.

If C\C is a locally small category, then C^\widehat{\C} is infinitary extensive.

Proof. We need to prove that for a family of small presheaves (Pi)iI(P_i)_{i \in I} the coproduct functor iIC^/PiC^/iIPi\textstyle \prod_{i \in I} \widehat{\C} / P_i \to \widehat{\C}/\coprod_{i \in I} P_i is an equivalence of categories. Since Set\Set is infinitary extensive, also [Cop,Set][\C^{\op},\Set] is infinitary extensive, so that the coproduct functor iI[Cop,Set]/Pi[Cop,Set]/iIPi\textstyle \prod_{i \in I} [\C^{\op},\Set] / P_i \to [\C^{\op},\Set]/\coprod_{i \in I} P_i is an equivalence of categories. Since C^\widehat{\C} is a full subcategory of [Cop,Set][\C^{\op},\Set] that is closed under coproducts, it remains to prove that if a coproduct of presheaves iIFi\coprod_{i \in I} F_i is small, then each FiF_i is small. For this, it suffices to prove for two presheaves F,GF,G for which F+GF+G is small, that FF is small. The category of elements (F+G)\int (F+G) identifies with F+G\int F + \int G. Thus, the claim follows from the next lemma. \square

Lemma 8.

Let C,D\C,\D be two categories. Assume that the coproduct C+D\C + \D is finally small. Then C\C is finally small.

Proof. Assume that IC+D\I \to \C + \D is a final functor, where I\I is small. Since Cat\Cat is extensive, we get a decomposition I=IC+ID\I = \I_\C + \I_\D with two functors ICC\I_\C \to \C and IDD\I_\D \to \D. For every XCX \in \C the comma category XICX \downarrow I_\C identifies with the comma category XIX \downarrow I, which is connected. Therefore, ICCI_\C \to \C is final. \square

Lemma 9.

Let C\C be a locally small category. Then C^\widehat{\C} is co-Malcev.

Proof. This follows since Set\Set is co-Malcev and since finite colimits are objectwise. \square

Proposition 10.

Let C\C be a locally small category. Then C^\widehat{\C} is epi-regular.

Notice that this would be easy if C^\widehat{\C} has pullbacks. In that case, every epimorphism would even be effective since this is the case for Set\Set. But in general, C^\widehat{\C} may fail to have pullbacks. This is why the proof is more complicated.

Proof. First, notice that the Yoneda Lemma and the description of epimorphisms (see Lemma 5) implies that representable functors are projective objects. Therefore, also coproducts of representable functors are projective.

Now let η:FG\eta : F \to G be an epimorphism of small presheaves. Since FF is small, there is an epimorphism F0 π F,F_0 \xrightarrow{~ \pi ~} F, where F0F_0 is a coproduct of representable functors. Since GG is small, there is a coequalizer diagram

G1 α  β G0 ψ G, G_1 \begin{array}{c} \xrightarrow{~ \alpha ~ }\\[-1.25ex] \xrightarrow[~ \beta ~ ]{} \end{array} G_0 \xrightarrow{~ \psi ~} G,

where G0G_0 and G1G_1 are coproducts of representable functors. Since G0G_0 is projective, there is a morphism λ:G0F\lambda : G_0 \to F such that ηλ=ψ\eta \circ \lambda = \psi. Since F0F_0 is projective, there is a morphism μ:F0G0\mu : F_0 \to G_0 such that ψμ=ηπ\psi \circ \mu = \eta \circ \pi. We get the following diagram, where the outer square and the lower triangle commutes, but not necessarily the upper triangle.

F0πFμληG0ψG \begin{CD} F_0 @>{\pi}>> F \\ @V{\mu}VV \, \, \nearrow{\scriptsize \, \lambda} @VV{\eta}V \\ G_0 @>>{\psi}> G \end{CD}

Define the morphisms γ,δ:G1F0F\gamma,\delta : G_1 \sqcup F_0 \rightrightarrows F by γG1=λα,δG1=λβ,\gamma|_{G_1} = \lambda \circ \alpha, \quad \delta|_{G_1} = \lambda \circ \beta, γF0=λμ,δF0=π.\gamma|_{F_0} = \lambda \circ \mu, \quad \delta|_{F_0} = \pi. We will prove that η:FG\eta : F \to G is a coequalizer of γ\gamma and δ\delta. First, η\eta coequalizes these because ηγG1=ηλα=ψα=ψβ=ηλβ=ηδG1\eta \circ \gamma|_{G_1} = \eta \circ \lambda \circ \alpha = \psi \circ \alpha = \psi \circ \beta = \eta \circ \lambda \circ \beta = \eta \circ \delta|_{G_1} and ηγF0=ηλμ=ψμ=ηπ=ηδF0.\eta \circ \gamma|_{F_0} = \eta \circ \lambda \circ \mu = \psi \circ \mu = \eta \circ \pi = \eta \circ \delta|_{F_0}. Conversely, suppose that ϑ:FH\vartheta : F \to H is a morphism that coequalizes these morphisms, meaning that ϑλα=ϑλβ\vartheta \circ \lambda \circ \alpha = \vartheta \circ \lambda \circ \beta and ϑλμ=ϑπ\vartheta \circ \lambda \circ \mu = \vartheta \circ \pi. The first equation means that there is a morphism ϑ:GH\vartheta' : G \to H such that ϑψ=ϑλ\vartheta' \circ \psi = \vartheta \circ \lambda. The second equation then becomes ϑπ=ϑψμ=ϑηπ,\vartheta \circ \pi = \vartheta' \circ \psi \circ \mu = \vartheta' \circ \eta \circ \pi, which is equivalent to ϑ=ϑη\vartheta = \vartheta' \circ \eta. We have thus shown that every morphism that coequalizes α\alpha and β\beta factors through η\eta, and uniqueness is clear since η\eta is an epimorphism. \square

Lemma 11.

Let C\C be a locally small category. Then C^\widehat{\C} has effective congruences.

Proof. Let f,g:FGf,g : F \rightrightarrows G be a congruence in C^\widehat{\C}. Let p:GQp : G \twoheadrightarrow Q be its quotient (i.e. coequalizer) in C^\widehat{\C}, which is constructed objectwise. Applying the functorial definition of a congruence to representable functors in C^\widehat{\C}, we see that for every object XCX \in \C that f(X),g(X):F(X)G(X)f(X),g(X) : F(X) \rightrightarrows G(X) is a congruence in Set\Set. Since congruences in Set\Set are effective, f(X),g(X)f(X),g(X) is the kernel pair of p(X)p(X); we are also using this result. Therefore, f,gf,g is the kernel pair of pp in the category of all presheaves, a fortiori in the category of small presheaves. \square

Proposition 12.

Let C\C be a locally small category. Then C^\widehat{\C} has effective cocongruences.

Proof. Let FGF \rightrightarrows G be a cocongruence in C^\widehat{\C}. Since the inclusion functor C^[Cop,Set]\widehat{\C} \hookrightarrow [\C^{\op},\Set] preserves finite colimits by Lemma 3, this is the same as a cocongruence of presheaves where F,GF,G happen to be small. Since cocongruences in Set\Set are effective (by this result), and in fact cokernel pairs of their equalizer (see here), the cocongruence is isomorphic to FFEF,F \rightrightarrows F \sqcup_E F, where Eeq(FG)E \coloneqq \eq(F \rightrightarrows G) is the objectwise defined equalizer in [Cop,Set][\C^{\op},\Set]. We would be done if EE were small, which however is not the case in general. But we can prove that EE is a quotient of a small presheaf, or equivalently, a quotient of a coproduct of representable presheaves, which is sufficient, since any epimorphism EEE' \to E satisfies FEF=FEFF \sqcup_E F = F \sqcup_{E'} F. (Such presheaves are also called petty in the literature.)

We view the pushout PFEFP \coloneqq F \sqcup_E F as the union of two copies F1,F2F_1,F_2 of FF with F1F2=EF_1 \cap F_2 = E. In particular, we regard E,F1,F2E,F_1,F_2 as sub-presheaves of PP. For a morphism ff in C\C, we write ff^* instead of P(f)P(f).

Since PGP \cong G is small, its category of elements P\int P has a finally small subcategory K\K. Let KOb(C)K \subseteq \Ob(\C) be the set of objects that appear in K\K. We claim that {(A,a):AK,aE(A)}\{(A,a) : A \in K, \, a \in E(A)\} is a weakly terminal set in E\int E, which is equivalent to saying that the canonical morphism AK,aE(A)Hom(,A)E\textstyle \coprod_{A \in K,\, a \in E(A)} \Hom(-,A) \to E is an epimorphism of presheaves, as required.

Let (X,x)(X,x) be an object of E\int E, i.e. XOb(C)X \in \Ob(\C) and xE(X)x \in E(X). In particular, xP(X)x \in P(X). Thus the comma category (X,x)K(X,x) \downarrow \K is connected, and therefore non-empty. Choose an object f:(X,x)(A,a)f : (X,x) \to (A,a). Thus, AKA \in K, aP(A)a \in P(A), and f:XAf : X \to A satisfies f(a)=xf^*(a)=x. If aE(A)a \in E(A), we are done. Assume otherwise and, without loss of generality, aF1(A)a \in F_1(A). Let bF2(A)P(A)b \in F_2(A) \subseteq P(A) be the corresponding element in the other copy of FF. Using the flip automorphism of PP that fixes EE and exchanges F1F_1 and F2F_2, we see that f(b)=xf^*(b)=x. Thus, we also have a morphism f:(X,x)(A,b)f' : (X,x) \to (A,b) with the same underlying morphism f:XAf : X \to A.

Since (X,x)K(X,x) \downarrow \K is connected, the two morphisms ff and ff' are connected to each other. Thus, there are morphisms (X,x)(Ai,ai)(X,x) \to (A_i,a_i) with AiKA_i \in K, aiP(Ai)a_i \in P(A_i), starting with ff and ending with ff', such that for each pair of adjacent indices i,i+1i,i+1, there is a morphism (Ai,ai)(Ai+1,ai+1)(A_i,a_i) \to (A_{i+1},a_{i+1}) or a morphism (Ai+1,ai+1)(Ai,ai)(A_{i+1},a_{i+1}) \to (A_i,a_i). If any aia_i is contained in E(Ai)E(A_i), we would be done. Assume, for a contradiction, that this is not the case.

In this case, we can prove inductively that aiF1(Ai)a_i \in F_1(A_i) as follows. The base case follows from aF1(A)a \in F_1(A). If aiF1(Ai)a_i \in F_1(A_i) and there is a morphism (Ai+1,ai+1)(Ai,ai)(A_{i+1},a_{i+1}) \to (A_i,a_i), we immediately get ai+1F1(Ai+1)a_{i+1} \in F_1(A_{i+1}) since F1F_1 is a sub-presheaf of PP. If, on the other hand, there is a morphism (Ai,ai)(Ai+1,ai+1)(A_i,a_i) \to (A_{i+1},a_{i+1}) and ai+1F1(Ai+1)a_{i+1} \notin F_1(A_{i+1}), we would get ai+1F2(Ai+1)a_{i+1} \in F_2(A_{i+1}), hence aiF1(Ai)F2(Ai)=E(Ai)a_i \in F_1(A_i) \cap F_2(A_i) = E(A_i), contradicting our assumption.

Therefore, every aia_i lies in F1(Ai)F_1(A_i). But the last element in this chain is bF2(A)b \in F_2(A), so we would have bE(A)b \in E(A), contradicting our assumption. \square

Context

This page is referenced by the following categories.