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

It's not hard to show that this is true in the category Set, and proofs have been written down in many places. But all the ones I know are a bit fiddly.

Question 1: is there a soft proof of this fact?

For example, here's a soft proof of the fact that filtered colimits in Set commute with binary products. If $J$ is a filtered category, and $R,S:J\to$ Set are functors, then

$$colim_{j\in J} R(j)\times colim_{k\in J} S(k) \cong colim_{j\in J} colim_{k\in J} R(j)\times S(k)$$ $$\cong colim_{(j,k)\in J\times J} R(j)\times S(k) \cong colim_{j\in J} R(j)\times S(j) $$

where the first isomorphism uses the fact that Set is cartesian closed, so that the functors $X\times-$ and $-\times X$ are cocontinuous; the second isomorphism is the "Fubini theorem"; and the third isomorphism follows from the fact that the diagonal functor $\Delta:J\to J\times J$ is final.

Is there some way to extend this to deal with equalizers and/or pullbacks? (The case of the terminal object is easy.)

For the sort of person who'd rather just prove the fact directly (which after all is not that hard), it's worth pointing out that this proof works not just in Set but for any cartesian closed category with filtered colimits. It works without knowing how to construct colimits in Set.

So another way to ask my question might be

Question 2: what is a class of categories in which you can prove that filtered colimits commute with finite limits (without first proving that this is true in Set)?

So yes, I know that the commutativity holds in any locally finitely presentable category, but the only proofs of this I know depend on the fact that it is true in Set.

share|improve this question
    
Thought I'd mention that a proof that filtered colimits commute with, say, equalizers, must use something more than what you've used for finite limits. Indeed, all you really used was that $J$ was "sifted" (the diagonal map is cofinal). But sifted colimits do not commute with equalizers in general. –  Dylan Wilson Mar 10 '13 at 1:23
    
Thanks, Dylan. I agree that J being filtered will have to be used. But what properties of Set should be used? –  Steve Lack Mar 11 '13 at 23:55

1 Answer 1

For a generalization to pullback we have to proof that $colim_i X_i\times_{Y_i} B_i \cong X\times_YB$ (where $X, Y, B$ are the respective colimits). Because $I$ is filtred the triple diagonal $I\to I\times I\times I$ is final and we can make this colimit partially, then we can do the colimit in the $Y_i$ before.

Then we have to prove that $colim_i X_i\times_Y B_i \cong X\times_YB$ .

Then is enought show that the pullback of any colimit is still a colimit, and then with the some "soft proof" argumentations you done.

Is enought to show that:

give a $f: X\to Y$ and a cocone $B_i \to Y$ with $I$ a small category (no necessarly filtred), with a colimit $B_i\to B$ and the natural arrow $B\to Y$. Then the pullback with $f$: $B_i\times_Y X \to B\times_Y X$ is a colimit.

this is true if the pullbach funtor $(X, f)^\ast: \mathcal{C}\downarrow Y\to \mathcal{C}\downarrow X$ is a left adjoint, and then is cocomplete.

This is as said that $\mathcal{C}$ is locally-cartesian-closed.

This is true in any topos, and this property is a specific and profound aspect of topoi and their internal logic.

We can observe that in my above argomentation $I$ need not be filtred, but for $I$ no filtred the diagonal $I\to I\times I$ could be no final.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks, Buschi. I certainly agree that if the category is locally cartesian closed then we have $colim_i(X_i\times_Y B_i)\cong (colim_i X_i)\times_Y (colim_i B_i)$: this is the same argument I gave applied to the slice category ${\mathcal C}\downarrow Y$. But I don't follow the first paragraph. For one thing, the triple diagonal $I\to I\times I\times I$ does not seem to be directly relevant. You can form the product $X_i\times B_j$ for any $i$ and $j$, but the pullback $X_i\times_{Y_k} B_j$ only makes sense if we have first chosen maps $i\to k$ and $j\to k$. –  Steve Lack Mar 2 '11 at 22:27
    
Steve LAck, yes you are right, in the first part I wrong (I seem it simple, I was shallow). I'm thinking about. –  Buschi Sergio Mar 3 '11 at 9:44

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.