Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Given a category ${\cal C}$, a functor $F:{\cal C}\rightarrow {\rm Sets}$, an object $A$ in ${\cal C}$ and an element $x\in F(A)$, one may consider the smallest subfunctor $F_x$ of $F$ that contains $x$. Explicitly, $F_x(B) = \{ F(f)(x) \}_{f\in {\rm Hom}(A,B)}$ and $F_x(f) = F(f)|_{F_x(B)}$ for $f:B\rightarrow B'$.

While functors of the form $F_x$ are not necessarily representable, I believe a bit of the Yoneda lemma survives. Namely given any set valued functor $G:{\cal C}\rightarrow {\rm Sets}$, and natural transformations $T,T'$ taking $F_x$ to $G$, $(T(id_A))(x)= (T'(id_A))(x)$ (in $G(A)$) implies $T=T'$. Thus one can still identify the set of all natural transformations from $F_x$ to $G$ with a subset of $G(A)$. The proof works just like Yoneda.

Can one give an intrinsic characterization of functors of the form $F_x$ solely in terms of ${\cal C}$?

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Up to isomorphism, they are precisely quotients of representables. Indeed, these $F_x$ arise as image (epi-mono) factorizations of the classifying map $\theta_x: \hom(A, -) \to F$ of $x \in F(A)$:

$$\theta_x = (\hom(A, -) \stackrel{epi}{\to} F_x \stackrel{mono}{\to} F)$$

since the image of the map $\theta_x$ is by definition the smallest subobject of $F$ through which it factors. (Note that epi-mono factorizations in the presheaf topos are computed pointwise. Note also that if $Q$ is a quotient of a representable, $\theta: \hom(A, -) \to Q$, then $Q \cong Q_x$ where $x \in Q(A)$ is the element $\theta_A(1_A)$.)

This explains your modified Yoneda lemma in terms of the usual Yoneda lemma: to say $\theta: \hom(A, -) \to Q$ is epi is to say that for any two $T, T': Q \to G$, that $T \circ \theta = T' \circ \theta$ implies $T = T'$. But following the Yoneda lemma, $T \circ \theta$ is the unique map classified by the element $(T \circ \theta)_A(1_A)$, and your result follows.

Edit: In my comment below in response to David, I referred to the end calculation of the set of natural transformations $F \to G$ between functors $F, G: C \to Set$ (where $C$ is small). In terms of vanilla products and equalizers, this set $Nat(F, G)$ is the equalizer of a pair of maps of the form

$$\prod_{A \in Ob(C)} G(A)^{F(A)} \stackrel{\to}{\to} \prod_{A, B} G(B)^{F(A) \times \hom(A, B)}$$

I am almost tempted to leave the description of these maps to the reader. One takes a tuple of maps $\theta_A: F(A) \to G(A)$ to the tuple whose component at $(A, B)$ is the evident composite $F(A) \times \hom(A, B) \to F(B) \to G(B)$; the other takes the same tuple to the evident composite $F(A) \times \hom(A, B) \to G(A) \times \hom(A, B) \to G(B)$. The condition that the maps are equalized corresponds exactly to the naturality condition on $\theta_A: F(A) \to G(A)$.

A nice exercise is to see the definition of sheaf over a space in terms of this construction. Let $U_i$ be an open cover of $U$, and let $F = \bigcup_i \hom(-, U_i) \hookrightarrow \hom(-, U)$ be the corresponding covering sieve. Then a presheaf $G$ is a sheaf iff the restriction map

$$G(U) \cong Nat(\hom(-, U), G) \to Nat(F, G)$$

is an isomorphism for every such covering sieve.

Edit 2: This answer was downvoted for unspecified reasons. If there are good reasons, they should be made explicit.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, Todd. My original aim was understanding the class of all natural transformations between two arbitrary set-valued functors. So natural transformations from $F$ to $G$ restrict to natural transformation from the various sub-functors $F_x$ to G. Then one wants to cover $F$ with the various $F_x$, keep track of how things patch together, and ultimately identify the set of natural transformations with some kind of possibly large limit of subsets of various sets $G(A)$. Does this make any sense, and can I find it worked out somewhere? I would ask a whole new MO question if so advised. –  David Feldman Dec 29 '10 at 1:31
    
It makes a lot of sense! But also this stuff is well worked out. In outline, each presheaf $F$ is a colimit of representables, in fact a union (a special type of filtered colimit) of quotients $F_x$ of representables as you are saying. (There is another way of expressing this via the calculus of coends; see for instance ncatlab.org/nlab/show/co-Yoneda+lemma) This means $Nat(F, G)$ is a limit of sets $Nat(\hom(A, -), G)$, in other words a limit of sets $G(A)$ or: an end $\int_A G(A)^{F(A)}$ where the exponential is the $F(A)$-indexed product of copies of $F(A)$. (cont.) –  Todd Trimble Dec 29 '10 at 2:35
    
It is slightly scandalous that I cannot find an immediate online link for this (classic) material, but there is brief reference to this in the nLab at ncatlab.org/nlab/show/end#enriched_functor_categories_39. I might recommend reading about ends in Categories for the Working Mathematician, and then working out the meaning of the end formula for $Nat(F, G)$ (in the Set-valued case). You'll probably be able to work out the sheaf-y patching formulas for the end from these hints, but I'd be happy to supply them as an edit to this answer as well. –  Todd Trimble Dec 29 '10 at 2:40
    
@Todd I've been saddled since graduate school with the misconception that ${\rm Nat}(F,G)$ was somehow deeply intractable even just at the conceptual level. Do there exist criteria (e.g. interesting necessary condition or sufficient conditions weaker than Yoneda) to determine when ${\rm Nat}(F,G)$ forms a set (rather than a proper class)? Can one describe, say $Nat(H_3(\ast,Z),\pi_5(\ast))$, or at least reduce it to a purely topological calculation? –  David Feldman Dec 29 '10 at 5:19
    
You're right: much of the time $Nat(F, G)$ is hard-to-understand, and you're right also that it's often not even a set if the domain $C$ is large. Basically it's a set if $F: C \to Set$ ($Set$ can be replaced by other bases of hom-enrichment) can be presented as a small colimit of representables. I don't know off the bat if $H_3(\ast, Z)$ is so presentable (say if $C$ is the homotopy category of CW complexes), but that would be something to determine in these calculations. –  Todd Trimble Dec 29 '10 at 14:11

Your Answer

 
discard

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.