6
$\begingroup$

The binary product of two $\lambda$-presentable objects (in a locally presentable category) is $\mu$-presentable for some regular cardinal $\mu \geq \lambda$ (because all objects are $\mu$-presentable for some regular cardinal $\mu$). I don't see any reason for $\mu$ to be equal to $\lambda$. Even if $\lambda^2=\lambda$ and even if the binary product of two finite sets is finite for example.

Is there one ? Or is there a regular cardinal big enough $\mu$ such that the class of $\mu$-presentable objects is closed under binary product ?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I just noticed this question has been asked before and there's a counterexample there to keeping the same degree of presentability: $F_2 \times F_2$ is not a finitely presentable group. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    Jul 29, 2018 at 16:09

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

Unfortunately, no example for the first question is coming to mind at the moment.

For the second question, let $\lambda$ be such that the product functor $\times: \mathcal C \times \mathcal C \to \mathcal C$ is $\lambda$-accessible [1]. Let $\mu \rhd \lambda$ be such that the binary product of $\lambda$-presentable objects is $\mu$-presentable. I claim that $\mu$-presentable objects are closed under binary products.

To see this, let $A,B$ be $\mu$-presentable. Then $(A,B)$ is $\mu$-presentable in $\mathcal C \times \mathcal C$ [2]. Write $(A,B) = \varinjlim_{i \in I} (A_i, B_i)$ where $I$ is $\lambda$-filtered and $\mu$-small [3]. Because $\times$ is $\lambda$-accessible, we have

$$A \times B = \varinjlim_I A_i \times B_i \qquad (\ast)$$

If $C = \varinjlim_{j \in J} C_j$ is a $\mu$-filtered colimit, then we have

$$\mathcal C(A \times B, C) = \mathcal C(\varinjlim_{i \in I} A_i \times B_i, \varinjlim_{j \in J} C_j) = \varprojlim_{i \in I} \mathcal C(A_i \times B_i, \varinjlim_{j \in J} C_j) \\ = \varprojlim_{i \in I} \varinjlim_{j \in J} \mathcal C(A_i \times B_i, C_j) \\ = \varinjlim_{j \in J} \varprojlim_{i \in I} \mathcal C(A_i \times B_i, C_j) \\ = \varinjlim_{j \in J} \mathcal C(\varinjlim_{i \in I} A_i \times B_i, C_j) = \varinjlim_{j \in J} \mathcal C(A \times B, C_j) $$

as desired. In the first line, we have used $(\ast)$. In the second line, we have used that $A_i \times B_i$ is $\mu$-presentable and $J$ is $\mu$-filtered. In the third line we have used that $I$ is $\mu$-small and $J$ is $\mu$-filtered. In the fourth line, we have used $(\ast)$ again.


[1] In fact any $\lambda$ will do here: recall that a right adjoint functor is $\lambda$-accessible iff its left adjoint preserves $\lambda$-presentable objects. The left adjoint of $\times$ is the diagonal functor $\Delta: \mathcal C \to \mathcal C \times \mathcal C$, which preserves $\lambda$-presentable objects for every $\lambda$.

[2] To see this, suppose that $A = \varinjlim_{k \in K} A_k$ and $B = \varinjlim_{l \in L} B_l$ where $K,L$ are $\mu$-small and $\lambda$-filtered. Then we claim that $(A,B) = \varinjlim_{(k,l) \in K \times L} (A_k, B_l)$; then we can take $I = K \times L$, which is also $\mu$-small and $\lambda$-filtered. It suffices to show that the projection $\pi: K \times L \to K$ is cofinal (and dually). Now, for $k \in K$, $k \downarrow \pi = (k \downarrow K ) \times L$, which is a product of filtered categories and so filtered itself, and in particular nonempty and connected. So indeed $\pi$ is cofinal.

[3] Thanks to Mike Shulman, who points out below that this is Rmk 2.15 in Adámek and Rosický -- and rather, $A \times B$ is a retract of such a colimit -- but this is sufficient for our purposes.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I understand the key point: there is a set of $\lambda$-presentable objects up to isomorphism, hence the existence of $\mu$. Your answer will be cited in one of my future papers like I cite a paper. Thanks. $\endgroup$ Jul 16, 2018 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ No problem! There's a subtle point I glossed over -- if $A = \varinjlim_{i \in I} A_i$ and $B = \varinjlim_{j \in J} B_j$, then in order to express $(A,B)$ as a colimit of a single diagram of the same size and filteredness, use the functor $I \times J \to \mathcal C \times \mathcal C$, $(i,j) \mapsto (A_i, B_j)$. To see this has the correct colimit $(A,B)$, one must verify that the projections $I \times J \to I$ and $I \times J \to J$ are cofinal functors given that $I,J$ are filtered. This is not hard, though. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    Jul 17, 2018 at 2:17
  • $\begingroup$ I don't care about the first question by the way. Even if I am curious to see a counterexample. The existence of a regular cardinal $\mu$ is sufficient for what I need. $\endgroup$ Jul 17, 2018 at 7:43
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand your [3]. Remark 1.30 of Adamek-Rosicky says that every $\mu$-presentable object is (a retract of) a $\mu$-small colimit of $\lambda$-presentable ones, but says nothing about the colimit being $\lambda$-filtered. (BTW, I also have never managed to extract the elimination-of-retracts proof from the pages they cite in Makkai-Pare.) It's Remark 2.15 that says that every $\mu$-presentable object is (a retract of) a $\mu$-small $\lambda$-filtered colimit of $\lambda$-presentable objects, but requires the stronger hypothesis that $\mu\rhd\lambda$. $\endgroup$ Mar 12, 2019 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ @MikeShulman Good point -- I've updated to reflect this. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    Mar 12, 2019 at 14:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.