The free cocompletion of a locally small category
Let be a locally small category. All results here can easily be adapted to the case that is locally essentially small, and we do not assume that is small. Then denotes its free cocompletion (often called in the literature when is not assumed to be small), which is the full subcategory of consisting presheaves that are small. This condition can be described in many equivalent ways:
- is a small colimit of representable functors.
- There is a small category such that is the left Kan extension of a presheaf on along a functor .
- There is small subcategory such that is the left Kan extension of its restriction to .
- The category of elements is finally small.
Here, the objects of are pairs , where and , and a morphism is a morphism with . 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) (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) (1) follows from the co-Yoneda Lemma 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 , its subcategory of small presheaves is always locally essentially small:
If is a locally small category, then is locally essentially small.
Proof. Let be a small presheaf, so that for a small diagram . For every other (small) presheaf we compute, using the Yoneda Lemma, and the latter is a set.
But it is usually not locally small:
If is locally small, then 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 is locally essentially small is only what matters.
Proof. If is empty, there is nothing to prove. Otherwise, choose an object . Consider the collection of morphisms , which is surely isomorphic to the set . By assumption, it actually is a set. It follows that is a set, and therefore also that is a set. This natural transformation is a map that associates to every object the map . If we model a map as a set of ordered pairs and ordered pairs as Kuratowski pairs, we get
This construction shows , so that is indeed a set.
If is a locally small category, then is cocomplete. Colimits can be constructed objectwise.
Proof. This follows from cocompleteness of with objectwise constructed colimits and the third characterization of small presheaves above. Details can be found as Proposition 5.34 in Kelly's book.
The existence of limits in 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 has limits of a given type if and only if small functors are closed under these limits taken in the category of all presheaves.
For every the evaluation functor , is continuous. In particular, the inclusion functor is continuous, and every limit that exists in is an objectwise limit.
Proof. By the Yoneda Lemma, the evaluation functor is represented by . Thus, it is continuous.
A morphism in is a monomorphism (resp. epimorphism) if and only if for every the map injective (resp. surjective).
Proof. The direction is trivial in each case. For the direction , the evaluation functor is continuous by Lemma 4 and therefore preserves monomorphisms. Furthermore, it is also cocontinuous by Lemma 3 and therefore preserves epimorphisms.
If is a locally small category, then 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 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 .
If is a locally small category, then is infinitary extensive.
Proof. We need to prove that for a family of small presheaves the coproduct functor is an equivalence of categories. Since is infinitary extensive, also is infinitary extensive, so that the coproduct functor is an equivalence of categories. Since is a full subcategory of that is closed under coproducts, it remains to prove that if a coproduct of presheaves is small, then each is small. For this, it suffices to prove for two presheaves for which is small, that is small. The category of elements identifies with . Thus, the claim follows from the next lemma.
Let be two categories. Assume that the coproduct is finally small. Then is finally small.
Proof. Assume that is a final functor, where is small. Since is extensive, we get a decomposition with two functors and . For every the comma category identifies with the comma category , which is connected. Therefore, is final.
Let be a locally small category. Then is co-Malcev.
Proof. This follows since is co-Malcev and since finite colimits are objectwise.
Let be a locally small category. Then is epi-regular.
Notice that this would be easy if has pullbacks. In that case, every epimorphism would even be effective since this is the case for . But in general, 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 be an epimorphism of small presheaves. Since is small, there is an epimorphism where is a coproduct of representable functors. Since is small, there is a coequalizer diagram
where and are coproducts of representable functors. Since is projective, there is a morphism such that . Since is projective, there is a morphism such that . We get the following diagram, where the outer square and the lower triangle commutes, but not necessarily the upper triangle.
Define the morphisms by We will prove that is a coequalizer of and . First, coequalizes these because and Conversely, suppose that is a morphism that coequalizes these morphisms, meaning that and . The first equation means that there is a morphism such that . The second equation then becomes which is equivalent to . We have thus shown that every morphism that coequalizes and factors through , and uniqueness is clear since is an epimorphism.
Let be a locally small category. Then has effective congruences.
Proof. Let be a congruence in . Let be its quotient (i.e. coequalizer) in , which is constructed objectwise. Applying the functorial definition of a congruence to representable functors in , we see that for every object that is a congruence in . Since congruences in are effective, is the kernel pair of ; we are also using this result. Therefore, is the kernel pair of in the category of all presheaves, a fortiori in the category of small presheaves.
Let be a locally small category. Then has effective cocongruences.
Proof. Let be a cocongruence in . Since the inclusion functor preserves finite colimits by Lemma 3, this is the same as a cocongruence of presheaves where happen to be small. Since cocongruences in are effective (by this result), and in fact cokernel pairs of their equalizer (see here), the cocongruence is isomorphic to where is the objectwise defined equalizer in . We would be done if were small, which however is not the case in general. But we can prove that is a quotient of a small presheaf, or equivalently, a quotient of a coproduct of representable presheaves, which is sufficient, since any epimorphism satisfies . (Such presheaves are also called petty in the literature.)
We view the pushout as the union of two copies of with . In particular, we regard as sub-presheaves of . For a morphism in , we write instead of .
Since is small, its category of elements has a finally small subcategory . Let be the set of objects that appear in . We claim that is a weakly terminal set in , which is equivalent to saying that the canonical morphism is an epimorphism of presheaves, as required.
Let be an object of , i.e. and . In particular, . Thus the comma category is connected, and therefore non-empty. Choose an object . Thus, , , and satisfies . If , we are done. Assume otherwise and, without loss of generality, . Let be the corresponding element in the other copy of . Using the flip automorphism of that fixes and exchanges and , we see that . Thus, we also have a morphism with the same underlying morphism .
Since is connected, the two morphisms and are connected to each other. Thus, there are morphisms with , , starting with and ending with , such that for each pair of adjacent indices , there is a morphism or a morphism . If any is contained in , we would be done. Assume, for a contradiction, that this is not the case.
In this case, we can prove inductively that as follows. The base case follows from . If and there is a morphism , we immediately get since is a sub-presheaf of . If, on the other hand, there is a morphism and , we would get , hence , contradicting our assumption.
Therefore, every lies in . But the last element in this chain is , so we would have , contradicting our assumption.
Context
This page is referenced by the following categories.