Sign up ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is it true that the pro-objects of an abelian category form a category with enough projectives?

In general, given an abelian category A, is there a canonical way to embed it a bigger abelian category A' with enough projectives (or injectives) and such that A' is universal with respect to this property?

share|cite|improve this question
Matthew Emerton's answer to question 14 would be worth looking at. –  Greg Stevenson Oct 17 '09 at 7:26
Thanks! Do you have a reference for the proof? –  Akhil Mathew Oct 18 '09 at 3:40

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

It seems that Pro(A) does not have enough projectives in general. In Kashiwara-Schapira's book "Categories and Sheaves" they prove (corollary 15.1.3) that Ind(k-Mod) does not have enough injectives. This means, taking opposite categories, that Pro(k-Mod^{op}) does not have enough projectives.

I don't know of any universal way of adding enough projectives.

share|cite|improve this answer

I'm not sure this is quite what you're looking for, but if A is small, you can consider the (contravariant) Yoneda embedding of A into the category of left-exact functors from A to Ab. This is an exact full embedding, and the product of all representable functors is an injective cogenerator (this is nontrivial; it is not even obvious that left-exact functors form an abelian category). This is proven in Freyd's book Abelian Categories, and is a key part of his proof of the Mitchell Embedding Theorem. I don't know about any universal properties of this, but it is canonical.

share|cite|improve this answer
Is this just secretly taking the ind-category? It seems true and I have seen it somewhere I can't remember I think, but I might be being dumb. –  Greg Stevenson Oct 17 '09 at 7:31

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.