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

This question came up when I was reading over some information about sheaves; specifically, that if $\mathscr{F}$ is a sheaf on the topological space $X$, $x\in X$, and $Z\subseteq X$, then $(\mathscr{F}|_Z )_x =\mathscr{F}_x$. I don't know if this is supposed to be trivial, and while it definitely seems to be a desirable property, I didn't see it as being obvious that it is true. After thinking for a while, I came to this conclusion:

Let $\mathfrak{I}$ be a directed category, and $F:\mathfrak{I}\rightarrow\mathfrak{C}$ a covariant functor; for $i\in \mathfrak{I}$, denote $F(i)$ by $A_i$. Fix a particular $I\in\mathfrak{I}$, and let $\mathfrak{J}$ be the full subcategory of $\mathfrak{I}$ satisfying $\mathrm{obj}(\mathfrak{J})=\lbrace j\in \mathfrak{I}\mid \mathrm{Mor}_\mathfrak{I}(I,j)\neq \emptyset\rbrace$. Then $\underrightarrow{\mathrm{lim}}_{i\in \mathfrak{I}}A_i =\underrightarrow{\mathrm{lim}}_{j\in \mathfrak{J}}A_j$.

I believe that this is true (well, I wrote a proof that convinced myself, anyway). If this is correct, it would explain why the statement about the stalks of the sheaves earlier is true. I was wondering if something more general can be said about when a colimit of a subcollection is equal to the colimit of the entire collection? Is there an even more general principle at work here, other than just a property of colimit?

share|improve this question
If you're taking a filtered colimit (like in this case) then I think any cofinal subcollection will do? –  Dylan Wilson Nov 21 '11 at 16:15

3 Answers 3

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Dylan's comment is right. More generally, if $D \colon J \to C$ is a diagram and $L \colon J' \to J$ a functor, then the colimit of D is isomorphic to the colimit of DL if and only if L is (co)final. See Mac Lane, Cats Work, section IX.3.

share|improve this answer
Ah, yes. That's exactly the property I used in the proof I wrote. Thanks guys! (Sorry for the not-so-interesting question...) –  topspin1617 Nov 21 '11 at 16:23

As for the equation $(F|_Z)_x = F_x$ for sheaves: This is an instance of the following lemma from category theory: If $\alpha,\beta$ are composable functors such that their left adjoints $\alpha^\*,beta^\*$ exist, then $(\alpha \circ \beta)^\* = \beta^\* \circ \alpha^\*$. Now apply this to the direct image functors $f_\*$ and $g_\*$ for the inclusions $f = \{x\} \to Z$ and $g : Z \to X$.

share|improve this answer

Is $I$ is a small category then you have $I=\bigcup_{c\in \pi_0(I)} I^{(c)}$ i.e. I is the (disjoint) union of the family $\pi_0(I)$ of its connect components, (full categories) (connection is the equivalent relation on objects generated by "have some arrow betwenn them" ).

Then if in some category $\mathcal{C}$ exist a colimt $X=Colim_I X_i$ then you have that $X=\coprod_{c\in\pi_o(I)} X^{(c)}$ and your assert is flase (in general) if your category isnt connected. If $I$ is connected, then for any subcategory $J\subset I$ the canonical morphism $colim_{j\in J}X_j\to colim_{i\in I}X_i$ is a isomorphism (for any category $\mathcal{C}$ and any diagram whenever exist such colimts) $iff$ for any $i\in I$ the comma category $i\downarrow J$ is connected: this means that isnt empty i.e. exist a arrow of type $\phi: i\to j,\ j\in J$, and for two of these arrow $\phi: i\to j,\ \phi': i\to j'$ exixst a finite sequence of arrow in $J$ : $j\to j_1\leftarrow j_2\ldots j_n\to k$ and arrow's $\phi_k: i\to j_k\ 1\leq k\leq n$ such that the diagram of the $\phi, \phi', \phi_1,\ldots, \phi_n, j\to j_1\leftarrow j_2\ldots j_n\to k $ is commutative.

share|improve this answer
Yes, if you saw the comment I wrote already on the other answer, I already realized that the original question wasn't very difficult. I just didn't realize it when I asked. I was still curious about whether things like that could happen more generally, i.e. when a limit/colimit/etc of a subset of objects is enough to determine the same on the whole set, but I'm sorry if that's a silly thing to wonder about. –  topspin1617 Nov 21 '11 at 18:28
"Too elementary" really is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I'd say the question is fine. MO is ready-made for mathematicians asking for confirmation on graduate-level proofs outside their domain of expertise. I'd also say that not noticing a chapter with the vague title of "special limits" would have especial bearing on one's question is quite forgivable. :-) –  Todd Trimble Nov 21 '11 at 18:33
I edit my answere, mine was really a wrong consideration. –  Buschi Sergio Nov 21 '11 at 18:54

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.