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

Given categories $\mathcal{A},\ \mathcal{B}$ let $\mathcal{A}^{<}:=Fun(\mathcal{A}, Set)$ the category of copresheaves on $\mathcal{A}$, let $\mathcal{A}^{>}:=(\mathcal{A}^{op})^{<}$ the category of presheaves on $\mathcal{A}$.

Let $coCont.Fun(\mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B})$ the category of colimit preserving functors (and natural transformations).

Given the categories $\mathcal{A},\ \mathcal{B}$, (small for simplicity) a profunctor $P: \mathcal{A}\dashrightarrow \mathcal{B}$ is (defined as) as an object of $(\mathcal{A}^{op}\times$$\mathcal{B})^{<}$.

We have the isomorphisms:

$(\mathcal{A}^{op}\times \mathcal{B})^<\cong (Fun({A}^{op}, \mathcal{B}^<)\cong (coCont.Fun({A}^<, \mathcal{B}^<)$

where the first isomorphism is the elementary trasposte, the second one is the left Kan extension by the yoneda contravariant $h^-: \mathcal{A}^{op}\to $$\mathcal{A}^{<}$. Then we can view the profunctor $P$ as a (cocontinuous) functor $\widetilde{P}: {A}^{<}\to \mathcal{B}^{<}$, and given another profunctor $Q: \mathcal{B}\dashrightarrow \mathcal{C}$ the composition $Q\otimes P$ (I use the left convenction) correspond to the functor composition $\widetilde{Q}\circ $$ \widetilde{P}$ . Quite similarly we can argue about enriched categories (on a fixed monoidal symmetric (closed) one).

Now what happen about internal categories as a topos $\mathcal{E}$?

Let $Cat(\mathcal{E})$ the (2-)category of internal categories of a topos $\mathcal{E}$.

For $A\in Cat(\mathcal{E})$ let $\mathcal{E}^A$ the category of internal copresheaves on $A$ (in the literature generally indicates the category of presheaves, but make more light our notations here).

An (internal) profunctor $P: A\dashrightarrow B$ is (defined as) an object $P$ of $\mathcal{E}^{A^{op}\times B}$, this is equivalent to $(\mathcal{E}^B)^{B^\ast(A^{op})}$ where $B^{\ast}: \mathcal{E}^B\to \mathcal{B}$ canonical, and this generalizes the first isomorphism above (related to small categories on $Set$ ) to the internal categories, but what about the second isomorphism? .

I wish to know: could the category $\mathcal{E}^{A^{op}\times B}$ be equivalent (in a natural way) to a category of functors (in some sense cocontinuous) of type: $P^*: \mathcal{E}^A\to \mathcal{E}^B$ ?

share|improve this question
    
I think the answer is yes, but you need to consider $\mathcal{E}^A$ and $\mathcal{E}^B$ as $\mathcal{E}$-indexed categories, with the appropriate notion of cocontinuity. I don't recall a reference off the top of my head, though. –  Mike Shulman Jan 3 '12 at 18:14
add comment

1 Answer

As Mike wrote in his comment, this statement is true with an appropriate notion of a category $\mathcal{E}^A$ and cocontinuity.

The category $\mathcal{E}^A$ from your definition is the underlying category of a locally internal category $\mathcal{E}^{\rightarrow^A}$. In more explicit terms, $\mathcal{E}^{\rightarrow}$ may be thought as of the codomain fibration over $\mathcal{E}$, $A$ as of the small fibration corresponding to the externalization of $\mathcal{E}$-internal category $A$, and $\mathcal{E}^{\rightarrow^A}$ as of the exponent $A \Rightarrow \mathcal{E}^\rightarrow$. Then your $\mathcal{E}^A$ is a mere fibre over terminal object in $\mathcal{E}^{\rightarrow^A}$.

Because for any internal category $A^{op}$, fibration $\mathcal{E}^{\rightarrow^{A}}$ is its internal free cocompletion, we get: $$\mathit{CoCont}(\mathcal{E}^{\rightarrow^{A}}, \mathcal{E}^{\rightarrow^{B}}) \approx \hom(A^{op}, \mathcal{E}^{\rightarrow^B})$$ The above statement may be found as a special case of Theorem 3.20 in Mark Weber's "Yoneda structures from 2-toposes".

Finally: $$\hom(A^{op}, \mathcal{E}^{\rightarrow^B}) \approx \hom(1, \mathcal{E}^{\rightarrow^{A^{op} \times B}}) \approx \mathcal{E}^{A^{op}\times B}$$ where the last equivalence is an instance of fibred Yoneda lemma.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you. Searching about this question I just find this article, but I have to work more about it.. –  Buschi Sergio Apr 29 '13 at 11:12
add comment

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.