MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

(1) Can a small category be cocomplete? Meaning, have all small colimits? I'd be glad to see an example.

(2) Suppose $\mathcal C$ is a small category, with $Ob(\mathcal C)$ being of cardinality $\kappa$. May $\mathcal C$ have all small limits of cardinality $\leq \kappa$ ? Does this now allow examples which ware outruled in (1)?

share|cite|improve this question

Small (co)complete categories are posets by a theorem of Freyd. If $C$ has all small coproducts and its class of morphisms $C_1$ is small, then $C(x,y)^{C_1}\simeq C(\coprod_{f\in C_1} x, y)\subseteq C_1$. If $C(x,y)>1$, then $C_1$ has a subset of strictly greater cardinality: contradiction.

A poset that has suprema and infima of all of its subsets is a complete category.

share|cite|improve this answer
I didn't know this theorem, it's really a beautiful piece of math. Probably, the same argument shows that you can only get (2) with posets. – Fernando Muro Oct 3 '12 at 19:57
You have to be careful about (2), since the OP seems to be measuring the size of a small category by the cardinality of its set of objects, not its set of morphisms. That measure might be a bad idea, by the way. – Todd Trimble Oct 3 '12 at 20:44
@Todd Trimble: since every object has an identity morphism, the set of morphisms has a greater cardinality than the set of objects. I fotgot to mention that. – Wouter Stekelenburg Oct 4 '12 at 8:06
@Todd Trimble: What is OP? In addition, I see what you mean that measuring a category's size only by the cardinality of it's objects isn't such a good idea, as it might have a much greater cardinality of morphisms. Is there any other reason? – Shlomi A Oct 4 '12 at 9:24
I think that the best definition of cardinal for categories (and the one I've seen most used) is the cadinal of all morphisms in a skeleton (i.e. a subcategory with one object for each isomorphism class). – Fernando Muro Oct 4 '12 at 11:14

(1) Yes, the trivial (final) category, with only one object and one morphism (the identity in the unique object).

(2) If you only asked for colimits of cardinality $<\kappa$ then you would find many examples, e.g. finite abelian groups ($\kappa = \aleph_0$ here). If you insists in $\leq\kappa$ I think you face the same problem as above. Just think of vector spaces of dimension $<\kappa$. This category, up to isomorphism, has $\leq \kappa$ objects but it doesn't have colimits of sice $\leq \kappa$ since the coproduct of $\kappa$ copies of the ground field has dimension exactly $\kappa$.

I've been speaking about colimits in (2) instead of limits, which is what you ask for, so take opposite categories.

share|cite|improve this answer
Colimits is fine for me. Your example of vector spaces of dimension $< \kappa $ is clear. However, is there some more general argument that shows that any small category with $Ob(\mathcal C)$ of cardinality $\kappa $ *cannot* have all colimits of size $\kappa$? – Shlomi A Oct 3 '12 at 22:14
@Shlomi, probably not, now I'd go to prove that any category with your conditions in (2) is a poset, have a try. – Fernando Muro Oct 4 '12 at 6:00
@Fernando, thanks. It seems that a poset with $\kappa $ objects and a maximal element works if one requires all colimits of cardinality $\leq \kappa$. However, I haven't managed to convince myself that such a category (2) must be a poset. – Shlomi A Oct 4 '12 at 10:37

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.