Skip to main content
Notice removed Reward existing answer by Tim Campion
Bounty Ended with Zhen Lin's answer chosen by Tim Campion
Notice added Reward existing answer by Tim Campion
Bounty Started worth 200 reputation by Tim Campion
Thanks, LSpice! Since you've made up for my laziness, I now have the freedom to set things to my preferred font for general constructions like this.
Source Link
Tim Campion
  • 63.9k
  • 13
  • 143
  • 384

Does $\mathit$\mathsf{Ind}_\lambda^\mu(\mathit\mathsf{Ind}_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) = \mathit\mathsf{Ind}_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

$\newcommand\Ind{\mathit{Ind}}\newcommand\Ord{\mathit{Ord}}\newcommand\Psh{\mathit{Psh}}$$\newcommand\Ind{\mathsf{Ind}}\newcommand\Ord{\mathsf{Ord}}\newcommand\Psh{\mathsf{Psh}}$For $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \Ord$ regular cardinals and $\mathcal C$ an essentially small category, let $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ be the free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. So $\Ind_\kappa^{\Ord}(\mathcal C) = \Ind_\kappa(\mathcal C)$ is the usual free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\kappa$-filtered colimits.

An explicit construction of $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ is given by taking the smallest full subcategory of the presheaf category $\Psh(\mathcal C)$ which contains the representables and is closed under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. In other words, there is a monotonic, inflationary endofunction $I_\kappa^\lambda$ on full subcategories of $\Psh(\mathcal C)$ where $I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal D)$ comprises those objects which are $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of objects of $\mathcal D$; then $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = \cup_{\alpha \in \Ord} (I_\kappa^\lambda)^\alpha(\mathcal C)$ is the least fixed-point of $I_\kappa^\lambda$ above the full subcategory of representables $\mathcal C \subseteq \Psh(\mathcal C)$, given by iterating $I_\kappa^\lambda$ transfinitely.

Questions:

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \Ord$, when do we have $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$? That is, when is it the case that a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of representables is already a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of representables?

It is well-known that a sufficient criterion is that $\lambda = \Ord$. I suspect that when $\lambda < \Ord$, the answer is "not always". I believe it also suffices for $\mathcal C$ to have $\kappa$-small colimits. I'm interested in a sufficient criterion that holds for all $\mathcal C$. I suspect it may suffice to have $\kappa \triangleleft \lambda$ (that's the "sharply below" relation).

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \mu \leq \Ord$, when do we have $\Ind_\lambda^\mu(\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) \simeq \Ind_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

I suspect again that the answer is "not always", but that a sufficient criterion may be for the pairs $(\kappa,\lambda)$, $(\lambda,\mu)$, and $(\kappa,\mu)$ to each satisfy the sufficient criterion of (1). I'm particularly interested in the case $\kappa = \omega < \lambda < \mu = \Ord$, where I suspect that this always holds (keeping in mind that $\omega \triangleleft \lambda$ for all regular $\lambda$).

I would be interested to know a reference for the answers to (1) and (2).

Does $\mathit{Ind}_\lambda^\mu(\mathit{Ind}_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) = \mathit{Ind}_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

$\newcommand\Ind{\mathit{Ind}}\newcommand\Ord{\mathit{Ord}}\newcommand\Psh{\mathit{Psh}}$For $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \Ord$ regular cardinals and $\mathcal C$ an essentially small category, let $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ be the free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. So $\Ind_\kappa^{\Ord}(\mathcal C) = \Ind_\kappa(\mathcal C)$ is the usual free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\kappa$-filtered colimits.

An explicit construction of $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ is given by taking the smallest full subcategory of the presheaf category $\Psh(\mathcal C)$ which contains the representables and is closed under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. In other words, there is a monotonic, inflationary endofunction $I_\kappa^\lambda$ on full subcategories of $\Psh(\mathcal C)$ where $I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal D)$ comprises those objects which are $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of objects of $\mathcal D$; then $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = \cup_{\alpha \in \Ord} (I_\kappa^\lambda)^\alpha(\mathcal C)$ is the least fixed-point of $I_\kappa^\lambda$ above the full subcategory of representables $\mathcal C \subseteq \Psh(\mathcal C)$, given by iterating $I_\kappa^\lambda$ transfinitely.

Questions:

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \Ord$, when do we have $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$? That is, when is it the case that a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of representables is already a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of representables?

It is well-known that a sufficient criterion is that $\lambda = \Ord$. I suspect that when $\lambda < \Ord$, the answer is "not always". I believe it also suffices for $\mathcal C$ to have $\kappa$-small colimits. I'm interested in a sufficient criterion that holds for all $\mathcal C$. I suspect it may suffice to have $\kappa \triangleleft \lambda$ (that's the "sharply below" relation).

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \mu \leq \Ord$, when do we have $\Ind_\lambda^\mu(\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) \simeq \Ind_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

I suspect again that the answer is "not always", but that a sufficient criterion may be for the pairs $(\kappa,\lambda)$, $(\lambda,\mu)$, and $(\kappa,\mu)$ to each satisfy the sufficient criterion of (1). I'm particularly interested in the case $\kappa = \omega < \lambda < \mu = \Ord$, where I suspect that this always holds (keeping in mind that $\omega \triangleleft \lambda$ for all regular $\lambda$).

I would be interested to know a reference for the answers to (1) and (2).

Does $\mathsf{Ind}_\lambda^\mu(\mathsf{Ind}_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) = \mathsf{Ind}_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

$\newcommand\Ind{\mathsf{Ind}}\newcommand\Ord{\mathsf{Ord}}\newcommand\Psh{\mathsf{Psh}}$For $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \Ord$ regular cardinals and $\mathcal C$ an essentially small category, let $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ be the free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. So $\Ind_\kappa^{\Ord}(\mathcal C) = \Ind_\kappa(\mathcal C)$ is the usual free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\kappa$-filtered colimits.

An explicit construction of $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ is given by taking the smallest full subcategory of the presheaf category $\Psh(\mathcal C)$ which contains the representables and is closed under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. In other words, there is a monotonic, inflationary endofunction $I_\kappa^\lambda$ on full subcategories of $\Psh(\mathcal C)$ where $I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal D)$ comprises those objects which are $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of objects of $\mathcal D$; then $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = \cup_{\alpha \in \Ord} (I_\kappa^\lambda)^\alpha(\mathcal C)$ is the least fixed-point of $I_\kappa^\lambda$ above the full subcategory of representables $\mathcal C \subseteq \Psh(\mathcal C)$, given by iterating $I_\kappa^\lambda$ transfinitely.

Questions:

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \Ord$, when do we have $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$? That is, when is it the case that a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of representables is already a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of representables?

It is well-known that a sufficient criterion is that $\lambda = \Ord$. I suspect that when $\lambda < \Ord$, the answer is "not always". I believe it also suffices for $\mathcal C$ to have $\kappa$-small colimits. I'm interested in a sufficient criterion that holds for all $\mathcal C$. I suspect it may suffice to have $\kappa \triangleleft \lambda$ (that's the "sharply below" relation).

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \mu \leq \Ord$, when do we have $\Ind_\lambda^\mu(\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) \simeq \Ind_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

I suspect again that the answer is "not always", but that a sufficient criterion may be for the pairs $(\kappa,\lambda)$, $(\lambda,\mu)$, and $(\kappa,\mu)$ to each satisfy the sufficient criterion of (1). I'm particularly interested in the case $\kappa = \omega < \lambda < \mu = \Ord$, where I suspect that this always holds (keeping in mind that $\omega \triangleleft \lambda$ for all regular $\lambda$).

I would be interested to know a reference for the answers to (1) and (2).

\mathit
Source Link
LSpice
  • 12.9k
  • 4
  • 45
  • 69

Does $Ind_\lambda^\mu$\mathit{Ind}_\lambda^\mu(Ind_\kappa^\lambda\mathit{Ind}_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) = Ind_\kappa^\mu\mathit{Ind}_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

For$\newcommand\Ind{\mathit{Ind}}\newcommand\Ord{\mathit{Ord}}\newcommand\Psh{\mathit{Psh}}$For $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq Ord$$\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \Ord$ regular cardinals and $\mathcal C$ an essentially small category, let $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$$\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ be the free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. So $Ind_\kappa^{Ord}(\mathcal C) = Ind_\kappa(\mathcal C)$$\Ind_\kappa^{\Ord}(\mathcal C) = \Ind_\kappa(\mathcal C)$ is the usual free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\kappa$-filtered colimits.

An explicit construction of $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$$\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ is given by taking the smallest full subcategory of the presheaf category $Psh(\mathcal C)$$\Psh(\mathcal C)$ which contains the representables and is closed under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. In other words, there is a monotonic, inflationary endofunction $I_\kappa^\lambda$ on full subcategories of $Psh(\mathcal C)$$\Psh(\mathcal C)$ where $I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal D)$ comprises those objects which are $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of objects of $\mathcal D$; then $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = \cup_{\alpha \in Ord} (I_\kappa^\lambda)^\alpha(\mathcal C)$$\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = \cup_{\alpha \in \Ord} (I_\kappa^\lambda)^\alpha(\mathcal C)$ is the least fixed-point of $I_\kappa^\lambda$ above the full subcategory of representables $\mathcal C \subseteq Psh(\mathcal C)$$\mathcal C \subseteq \Psh(\mathcal C)$, given by iterating $I_\kappa^\lambda$ transfinitely.

Questions:

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq Ord$$\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \Ord$, when do we have $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$$\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$? That is, when is it the case that a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of representables is already a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of representables?

It is well-known that a sufficient criterion is that $\lambda = Ord$$\lambda = \Ord$. I suspect that when $\lambda < Ord$$\lambda < \Ord$, the answer is "not always". I believe it also suffices for $\mathcal C$ to have $\kappa$-small colimits. I'm interested in a sufficient criterion that holds for all $\mathcal C$. I suspect it may suffice to have $\kappa \triangleleft \lambda$ (that's the ""sharply below"sharply below" relation).

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \mu \leq Ord$$\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \mu \leq \Ord$, when do we have $Ind_\lambda^\mu(Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) \simeq Ind_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$$\Ind_\lambda^\mu(\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) \simeq \Ind_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

I suspect again that the answer is "not always", but that a sufficient criterion may be for the pairs $(\kappa,\lambda)$, $(\lambda,\mu)$, and $(\kappa,\mu)$ to each satisfy the sufficient criterion of (1). I'm particularly interested in the case $\kappa = \omega < \lambda < \mu = Ord$$\kappa = \omega < \lambda < \mu = \Ord$, where I suspect that this always holds (keeping in mind that $\omega \triangleleft \lambda$ for all regular $\lambda$).

I would be interested to know a reference for the answers to (1) and (2).

Does $Ind_\lambda^\mu(Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) = Ind_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

For $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq Ord$ regular cardinals and $\mathcal C$ an essentially small category, let $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ be the free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. So $Ind_\kappa^{Ord}(\mathcal C) = Ind_\kappa(\mathcal C)$ is the usual free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\kappa$-filtered colimits.

An explicit construction of $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ is given by taking the smallest full subcategory of the presheaf category $Psh(\mathcal C)$ which contains the representables and is closed under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. In other words, there is a monotonic, inflationary endofunction $I_\kappa^\lambda$ on full subcategories of $Psh(\mathcal C)$ where $I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal D)$ comprises those objects which are $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of objects of $\mathcal D$; then $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = \cup_{\alpha \in Ord} (I_\kappa^\lambda)^\alpha(\mathcal C)$ is the least fixed-point of $I_\kappa^\lambda$ above the full subcategory of representables $\mathcal C \subseteq Psh(\mathcal C)$, given by iterating $I_\kappa^\lambda$ transfinitely.

Questions:

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq Ord$, when do we have $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$? That is, when is it the case that a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of representables is already a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of representables?

It is well-known that a sufficient criterion is that $\lambda = Ord$. I suspect that when $\lambda < Ord$, the answer is "not always". I believe it also suffices for $\mathcal C$ to have $\kappa$-small colimits. I'm interested in a sufficient criterion that holds for all $\mathcal C$. I suspect it may suffice to have $\kappa \triangleleft \lambda$ (that's the "sharply below" relation).

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \mu \leq Ord$, when do we have $Ind_\lambda^\mu(Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) \simeq Ind_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

I suspect again that the answer is "not always", but that a sufficient criterion may be for the pairs $(\kappa,\lambda)$, $(\lambda,\mu)$, and $(\kappa,\mu)$ to each satisfy the sufficient criterion of (1). I'm particularly interested in the case $\kappa = \omega < \lambda < \mu = Ord$, where I suspect that this always holds (keeping in mind that $\omega \triangleleft \lambda$ for all regular $\lambda$).

I would be interested to know a reference for the answers to (1) and (2).

Does $\mathit{Ind}_\lambda^\mu(\mathit{Ind}_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) = \mathit{Ind}_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

$\newcommand\Ind{\mathit{Ind}}\newcommand\Ord{\mathit{Ord}}\newcommand\Psh{\mathit{Psh}}$For $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \Ord$ regular cardinals and $\mathcal C$ an essentially small category, let $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ be the free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. So $\Ind_\kappa^{\Ord}(\mathcal C) = \Ind_\kappa(\mathcal C)$ is the usual free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\kappa$-filtered colimits.

An explicit construction of $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ is given by taking the smallest full subcategory of the presheaf category $\Psh(\mathcal C)$ which contains the representables and is closed under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. In other words, there is a monotonic, inflationary endofunction $I_\kappa^\lambda$ on full subcategories of $\Psh(\mathcal C)$ where $I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal D)$ comprises those objects which are $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of objects of $\mathcal D$; then $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = \cup_{\alpha \in \Ord} (I_\kappa^\lambda)^\alpha(\mathcal C)$ is the least fixed-point of $I_\kappa^\lambda$ above the full subcategory of representables $\mathcal C \subseteq \Psh(\mathcal C)$, given by iterating $I_\kappa^\lambda$ transfinitely.

Questions:

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \Ord$, when do we have $\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$? That is, when is it the case that a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of representables is already a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of representables?

It is well-known that a sufficient criterion is that $\lambda = \Ord$. I suspect that when $\lambda < \Ord$, the answer is "not always". I believe it also suffices for $\mathcal C$ to have $\kappa$-small colimits. I'm interested in a sufficient criterion that holds for all $\mathcal C$. I suspect it may suffice to have $\kappa \triangleleft \lambda$ (that's the "sharply below" relation).

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \mu \leq \Ord$, when do we have $\Ind_\lambda^\mu(\Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) \simeq \Ind_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

I suspect again that the answer is "not always", but that a sufficient criterion may be for the pairs $(\kappa,\lambda)$, $(\lambda,\mu)$, and $(\kappa,\mu)$ to each satisfy the sufficient criterion of (1). I'm particularly interested in the case $\kappa = \omega < \lambda < \mu = \Ord$, where I suspect that this always holds (keeping in mind that $\omega \triangleleft \lambda$ for all regular $\lambda$).

I would be interested to know a reference for the answers to (1) and (2).

Source Link
Tim Campion
  • 63.9k
  • 13
  • 143
  • 384

Does $Ind_\lambda^\mu(Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) = Ind_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

For $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq Ord$ regular cardinals and $\mathcal C$ an essentially small category, let $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ be the free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. So $Ind_\kappa^{Ord}(\mathcal C) = Ind_\kappa(\mathcal C)$ is the usual free completion of $\mathcal C$ under $\kappa$-filtered colimits.

An explicit construction of $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$ is given by taking the smallest full subcategory of the presheaf category $Psh(\mathcal C)$ which contains the representables and is closed under $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits. In other words, there is a monotonic, inflationary endofunction $I_\kappa^\lambda$ on full subcategories of $Psh(\mathcal C)$ where $I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal D)$ comprises those objects which are $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of objects of $\mathcal D$; then $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = \cup_{\alpha \in Ord} (I_\kappa^\lambda)^\alpha(\mathcal C)$ is the least fixed-point of $I_\kappa^\lambda$ above the full subcategory of representables $\mathcal C \subseteq Psh(\mathcal C)$, given by iterating $I_\kappa^\lambda$ transfinitely.

Questions:

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq Ord$, when do we have $Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C) = I_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)$? That is, when is it the case that a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimits of representables is already a $\lambda$-small, $\kappa$-filtered colimit of representables?

It is well-known that a sufficient criterion is that $\lambda = Ord$. I suspect that when $\lambda < Ord$, the answer is "not always". I believe it also suffices for $\mathcal C$ to have $\kappa$-small colimits. I'm interested in a sufficient criterion that holds for all $\mathcal C$. I suspect it may suffice to have $\kappa \triangleleft \lambda$ (that's the "sharply below" relation).

  1. For regular cardinals $\kappa \leq \lambda \leq \mu \leq Ord$, when do we have $Ind_\lambda^\mu(Ind_\kappa^\lambda(\mathcal C)) \simeq Ind_\kappa^\mu(\mathcal C)$?

I suspect again that the answer is "not always", but that a sufficient criterion may be for the pairs $(\kappa,\lambda)$, $(\lambda,\mu)$, and $(\kappa,\mu)$ to each satisfy the sufficient criterion of (1). I'm particularly interested in the case $\kappa = \omega < \lambda < \mu = Ord$, where I suspect that this always holds (keeping in mind that $\omega \triangleleft \lambda$ for all regular $\lambda$).

I would be interested to know a reference for the answers to (1) and (2).