17
$\begingroup$

I'm wondering about categorifications of Zorn's lemma along the following lines.

Lemma: if $\mathbf{C}$ is a small category in which every directed diagram of monomorphisms has a cocone of monomorphisms, then there is an object $A$ such that any monomorphism $A \rightarrowtail B$ splits.

Proofsketch: If there were no such object, we could use the axiom of choice to define a function $f$ that assigns to each directed diagram $D$ of monomorphisms, a monomorphism with domain $\mathop{cocone}(D)$ that does not split. Define an ordinal-indexed diagram $D$ by setting $D(\alpha) = f\big( D(\beta) \mid \beta<\alpha \big)$. Because $D$ consists of monomorphisms that don't split, it cannot contain any cycles. But this contradicts smallness of $\mathbf{C}$.

Can this be generalised? (E.g. do we need smallness and monics?) Are other versions known? Are there similar categorical existence statements that are provable without the axiom of choice?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ If the colimits coproiection are monorphisms then your statements follow clearly, do these follow also in general? $\endgroup$
    – Buschi Sergio
    Commented Nov 19, 2012 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ Good spot. It needs that every directed diagram of monomorphisms has a cocone of monomorphisms. I've edited the question, thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Chris Heunen
    Commented Nov 19, 2012 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ Tom Leinster has some remarks about Zorn's lemma, wherein he notes that by being very careful with the hypotheses one can prove a (formally weaker) version without choice: golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2012/10/the_zorn_identity.html $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    Commented Nov 19, 2012 at 22:19
  • $\begingroup$ Aren't you just considering the subcategory of $C$ consisting of monomorphisms, which is then a preorder? A monomorphism that splits in this will be an isomorphism, which is intuitively what Zorn's lemma would give you (a top element, unique up to isomorphism). I don't know if I'd call this categorification, imprecise though that word can be. I would consider taking a (2,3)-category and trying to formulate a Zorn-style result as categorification (what you have, with my spin on it, is a (1,2)-category). $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts ♦
    Commented Nov 19, 2012 at 22:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ David, left-cancellative categories (i.e. categories in which every morphism is monic) are not necessarily preorders; think of any groupoid. Having said that, it would definitely be interesting to "derive" a lemma such as that in the question from Zorn's actual lemma applied on a "higher" categorical level; could you make that more precise? $\endgroup$
    – Chris Heunen
    Commented Nov 19, 2012 at 23:04

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

In their book Categories and Sheaves, M. Kashiwara and P. Schapira prove the following theorem (Theorem 9.4.2) :

Let $C$ be an essentially small non empty category which admits small filtrant inductive limits. Then $C$ has a quasi-terminal object, that is, an object $X$ such that every morphism with source $X$ has a left inverse.

It seems to me that the hypothesis is stronger than yours, but the conclusion is also stronger. (What about considering the subcategory $C'$ of $C$ whose arrows are monomorphisms of $C$?)

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .