Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

3

The title is fairly self explanatory. Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a small category , $X$ be an object of $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}$. Then the question is, are the categories, $\widehat{\mathcal{A}\downarrow X}$, and $\widehat{A}\downarrow X$ equivalent? I am 99% sure that this is true. Furthermore, if their is a reference for this, that would be helpful.

flag	asked Apr 8 2011 at 1:51 Spice the Bird 940●3●14

And what does $\hat{A}$ mean? – David Carchedi Apr 8 2011 at 2:11

1

I like this result, because it seems so trivial that one should expect an "abstract nonsense" proof, but there is none. You have to carefully construct the equivalence ... – Martin Brandenburg Apr 8 2011 at 8:32

... therfore certainly a good exercise for starters in category theory. – Martin Brandenburg Apr 8 2011 at 8:33

I appreciate this comment, I was looking for such a proof, now I know I should stop looking. – Spice the Bird Apr 11 2011 at 5:06

1

Usually, if an abstract-nonsense fact doesn't seem to have an abstract-nonsense proof, it means you haven't gotten abstract enough or nonsensical enough. (-: See my answer below. – Mike Shulman Apr 14 2011 at 20:35

Todd Trimble · Accepted Answer · 2011-04-08 02:21:08Z UTC

4

By $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}$ you must mean the category of presheaves on $\mathcal{A}$. I take it that $X$ denotes a presheaf, and that $\mathcal{A}/X$ is the comma category $y_{\mathcal{A}} \downarrow X$ where $y_{\mathcal{A}}$ is the Yoneda embedding.

Another reference for this fact is Tom Leinster's book Higher Operads, Higher Categories, p. 394. I'm not sure who first discovered it, but it's ancient folklore.

answered Apr 8 2011 at 2:21

Todd Trimble
22.3k●1●62●96

The hat does refer to the presheaves, the down arrow is the comma category. – Spice the Bird Apr 8 2011 at 2:32

1

In my arXiv copy of the book, the fact is Prop. 1.1.7 on page 9, and there is no p. 394. – Mike Shulman Apr 14 2011 at 20:13

Thanks, Mike. I got that page number from a quick googling which pointed to Tom's book on Google Books, p. 394 (this must be the bound CUP version). It mentions the result in passing and refers back to 1.1.7 as you say. – Todd Trimble Apr 14 2011 at 21:30

Mike Shulman · Answer 2 · 2011-04-14 20:27:06Z UTC

Actually, there is an abstract-nonsense proof (although that doesn't make constructing the equivalence by hand any less of a good exercise). It goes through the equivalence of presheaves on a category A with discrete fibrations over A, so $\widehat{A} \simeq \mathrm{DFib}(A) \subset (\mathrm{Cat}\downarrow A)$. Note that DFib(A) is a full subcategory of $\mathrm{Cat}\downarrow A$: any map between discrete fibrations is a map of fibrations.

Furthermore, a composite of discrete fibrations is a discrete fibration, and conversely any map between discrete fibrations is itself a discrete fibration. Thus, for any discrete fibration B → A, we have $\mathrm{DFib}(A)\downarrow B \simeq \mathrm{DFib}(B)$. Thus, if $B = A\downarrow X$ is the category of elements of a presheaf $X\colon A^{op} \to \mathrm{Set}$, then we have

$(\widehat{A}\downarrow X) \simeq (\mathrm{DFib}(A)\downarrow B) \simeq \mathrm{DFib}(B) \simeq \widehat{B} = \widehat{A \downarrow X}$

Are the categories, $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}\downarrow X$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{A}\downarrow X}$ equivalent.

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

3 Answers

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.