MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

This question probably belongs to the very basics of Category Theory, but I have not found an appropriate answer in the latest hours.

Suppose that one has a category $\mathcal{C}$ in which direct limits exist and $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{K}$ are directed sets. By a Double Direct System in $\mathcal{C}$ (w.r.t $\mathcal{I}$ and $\mathcal{K}$), {$A_{i}^{k},f_{ji}^{lk}$} ($i\in \mathcal{I}, k\in \mathcal{K}$), I will mean a collection of objects $A_{i}^{k}\in \mathcal{C} $ and, for each $i\leq j$ and $r\leq s $, morphisms $f_{ji}^{sr}:A_{i}^{r}\rightarrow A_{j}^{s}$ such that:

1. $f_{ii}^{rr}=Id:A_{i}^{r}\rightarrow A_{i}^{r}$.

2. The composite $A_{i}^{r}\stackrel{f_{ji}^{sr}}{\rightarrow}A_{j}^{s}\stackrel{f_{kj}^{ts}}{\rightarrow}A_{k}^{t}$ equals $f_{ki}^{tr}$.

Note that, fixing $r$, one gets a direct system {$A_{i}^{r}, f_{ji}^{rr}$}, and there is, for each $r\leq s$, an induced map $$f^{sr}:\varinjlim_{i}A_{i}^{r}\rightarrow \varinjlim_{i}A_{i}^{s}$$ which makes {$\varinjlim_{i}A_{i}^{r}, f^{sr}$} a direct system.

Repeating this procedure in the subindices one gets a direct system {$\varinjlim_{r}A_{i}^{r}, f_{ji}$}. My question is: under which conditions (over $\mathcal{C}$, or over the involved morphisms) does one has a (unique?) isomorphism $$\varinjlim_{i}\\ \varinjlim_{r}A_{i}^{r}\cong\varinjlim_{r} \\ \varinjlim_{i}A_{i}^{r}$$ ?


1. Instead of the given definition one can assume the (apparently?) weaker condition that, fixing subindices $i$, the system {$A_{i}^{r},f_{ii}^{sr}$}$_{r,s\in\mathcal{K}}$ is direct, and analogously for superindices. What do one gets in this case?

2. There is a theorem about "Interchange of Limits" in Mac Lane's "Categories for the Working Mathematician", but I do lack of a proper background to quickly see whether this answers my question. Should I do the effort of understanding that result for this?

3. (Just for information) The question did arise while I was solving Ex. II.1.10 from Hartshorne's "Algebraic Geometry", as my solution carried me to check the validity of the equation $$(\varinjlim_{i} \mathcal{F}_{i})_P\cong \varinjlim_i (\mathcal{F}_i)_P$$

where $\mathcal{F}_{i}$ is a direct system of sheaves of abelian groups on a topological space $X$. In this case I could achieve an isomorphism using the universal property for direct limits of abelian groups and using constant sheaves on $X$, but this seems to be quite restrictive.

share|cite|improve this question

Your indices are hard to read, and I think you might have mixed some of them up.

If you mean what I think you mean, then Mac Lane's result is exactly what you need. The two colimits are canonically isomorphic to each other and to the colimit over the product category $\mathcal{I} \times \mathcal{K}$.

If you assume only that the system is functorial in $i \in \mathcal{I}$ and $k \in \mathcal{K}$ separately, then what you have is not necessarily a functor $\mathcal{I} \times \mathcal{K} \to \mathcal{C}$ (it's what John Power and Edmund Robinson call a binoidal functor), and I don't know if there is any sensible notion of limit for such a thing.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks. I will study Mac Lane's book. You were right with the indices: they were horribly mixed. I hope the question makes more sense now. – David Barrera Nov 3 '10 at 21:06

I think you will find an answer in par. 2.4 of this

In particular I think one always have $$ \varprojlim_I\;\varprojlim_J A_{ij} \cong \varprojlim_J\; \varprojlim_I A_{ij} $$ because $\varprojlim$ is right adjoint in an adjoint couple, and right adjoints preserve projective limits...

share|cite|improve this answer

Ler $I$ and $J$ graphs (like small categories, but whitout compositions and identity) and let $\mathscr{C}$ a category by colimits respect to $I$ and $J$. Then if $\mathscr{C}$ as $I\times J$ colimits and for $F: I\times J\to \mathscr{C} $ the two partial limits commute and their compositions is the limit of $F$ :

$colim_{i\in I} (lim_{j\in J} F(i, j)) \cong colim_{(i, j)\in I\times J} F(i, j) \cong colim_{j\in J} (colim_{i\in I} F(i, j)) $.

The some is true for limt (for duality)

PROOF. Let $F_I(j):= {\underrightarrow{lim}}_{i\in I} F(i, j)$ follow $F_I: J\to \mathscr{C}: j \mapsto F_I(j)$, the first equivalence mean that the colimits of $F_I$ is the colimit of $F$, this folow because a cocone $f_j: F_I(j)\to X,\ j\in J$ as a unique extention (considering the colimits cocones $\varepsilon_{i,j}: F(i, j)\to F_I(j),\ i\in I$) to a cocone $f_{i,j}=f_j\circ \varepsilon_{i, j}: F(i,j)\to X,\ (i,j)\in I\times J$. The second equivalence is similar.

Then your assert is true for general $I$ and $J$ but if $I=J$ is directed (or in general a filtrant category) then $lim_{I\times I} F\cong lim_{i\in I} F(i,i)$.

The more interesting propriety is the follow: if $I $ is a filtrant small category (in particolar a directed order) and $J$ a finite graph then for $F: I\times J\to \mathscr{C} $ and $\mathscr{C}$ is locally finitely-presentable then $I$-colimits and $J$-colimits commute:

$colim_{i\in I} lim_{j\in J} F(i,j) \cong lim_{J} colim_{I} F(i, j) $.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.