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

I found the following exercise in Vistoli's notes. He proves a theorem stating that any category $\mathcal{F}$ fibered over $\mathcal{C}$ is equivalent, as a fibered category, to a split one. Namely $\mathcal{F}$ is equivalent to the category $\mathcal{F}' = Hom_\mathcal{C}(\cdot, \mathcal{F})$, which is the fibered category associated to the following functor $F : \mathcal{C}^{op} \rightarrow Cat$.

For every $U \in \mathcal{C}$ we set $F(U) = Hom_\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{C}/U, \mathcal{F})$, where $\mathcal{C}/U$ is the comma category and $Hom_\mathcal{C}$ denotes the category of morphism of fibered categories. (In particular an arrow in this category is a morphism of functors over the identity of $\mathcal{C}$). The action of $F$ on arrows is the obvious one: an arrow $U \rightarrow V$ in $\mathcal{C}$ gives a functor $\mathcal{C}/U \rightarrow \mathcal{C}/V$, and $F$ acts by composition with this functor.

The exercise requires to carry out the construction explicitly for the following situation. A group $G$ can be seen as a category with a single object. If $G \rightarrow H$ is a surjective homomorphism, then we can see $G$ as a category fibered over $H$, and the exercise is to work out what $\mathcal{F}'$ is in this case.

I am able to do this exercise, but I think I am missing something. Vistoli says that this is a nice exercise, so I guess I should obtain as a result something which I can recognize, but I don't. If needed I can post here my answer, but it is not very enlightening.

I was tempted to write here the relevant terminology, but it is pointless, as everything is clearly defined in chapter 3 of the above mentioned notes. If you need any clarification, I'll be happy to provide more details.

share|improve this question
I deleted my answer because, as Mike Shulman pointed out, it's wrong. –  Tom Leinster Feb 3 '10 at 2:49

2 Answers 2

In Anton Geraschenko's notes from Martin Olsson's course on stacks, you can find the following quote:

The upshot is that if you choose a splitting, you really have no idea what’s going on.

That's at the end of example 23.8, page 94, precisely after calculating a splitting for $\mathbb{Z}/4 \to \mathbb{Z}/2$ as a fibered category.

share|improve this answer
Uhm... that kinda explains why the computation in general seemed so cumbersome :-D If this is the case, I may retire the question. I'll just wait a few days to see if someone finds out a nice interpretation. –  Andrea Ferretti Feb 2 '10 at 23:08
I don't think you should retire the question: a negative answer can still be useful! –  Alberto García-Raboso Feb 3 '10 at 4:13

This construction may not be the most natural (or general) one, but I find it reasonably enlightening.

Let $\mathcal F$ and $\mathcal C$ denote the categories with one object associated to $G$ and $H$, respectively. Notice that if $\mathcal F'$ is any category equivalent to $\mathcal F$, then in particular it admits a fully faithful functor to $\mathcal F$. Since $\mathcal F$ has only one object, with isomorphisms in bijection with $G$, this implies that every hom-set in $\mathcal F'$ must be in bijection with $G$ as well. It's easy to check that every morphism in $\mathcal F'$ must be an isomorphism, so this proves that $\mathcal F'$ is a groupoid, with exactly $|G|$ isomorphisms between any two objects.

I claim that we can choose $\mathcal F'$ to have objects indexed by $H$. To be explicit, let's say that the morphisms between any two objects $h_1, h_2$ are identified with $G$, and that the composition of $g_1: h_1 \to h_2$ and $g_2: h_2 \to h_3$ is $g_1 g_2: h_1 \to h_3$. Then this admits a natural "projection" functor to $\mathcal F$, by sending every object to the unique object $*$ of $\mathcal F$ and sending each morphism to the morphism of the same name. We get a functor in the other direction by sending $*$ to the object labeled by the identity of $H$, and preserving names of morphisms. The composition $\mathcal F \to \mathcal F' \to \mathcal F$ is literally the identity functor, and $\mathcal F' \to \mathcal F \to \mathcal F'$ is easily seen to be naturally isomorphic to the identity functor via a base-preserving natural transformation. So $\mathcal F'$ and $\mathcal F$ are equivalent fibered categories over $\mathcal C$.

Now let's construct a splitting of $\mathcal F' \to \mathcal C$. Fix a representative $\widetilde h \in G$ for each element $h \in H$. Consider the subcategory of $\mathcal F'$ that includes all objects, but only the morphisms of the form $\widetilde h_1 \widetilde h_2^{-1}: h_1 \to h_2$. (Note that this does contain identities and compositions.) For any given morphism $h$ in $\mathcal C$ and any object $h_2 \in \mathcal F'$, our chosen subcategory contains a unique pullback $h_1 \to h_2$ of $h$, namely the morphism $\widetilde h_1 \widetilde h_2^{-1}: h_1 \to h_2$ with $h_1$ chosen so that $h_1 h_2^{-1} = h$.

To make this more concrete, let's look at the simplest possible non-split group extension: $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$. Here, the category $\mathcal F'$ has two objects, with four morphisms between any pair, all of them isomorphisms. This category deserves to be equivalent to $\mathcal F$: it has two objects, which both look exactly like the object of $\mathcal F$ and are isomorphic to each other. Make $\mathcal F'$ into a fibered category over $\mathcal C$ by composing the "projection" functor to $\mathcal F$ with the given functor $\mathcal F \to \mathcal C$. Recall that we can't construct a splitting of the original fibered category $\mathcal F \to \mathcal C$ precisely because we would need to choose a lift of the morphism $1 \in \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$ to $\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z$, and neither of the two choices gives something that respects composition. But in our new fibered category $\mathcal F'$, we need to choose a lift of $1 \in \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z$ to some morphism between the two objects of $\mathcal F'$, instead of an automorphism of one of the objects. So we don't need to worry about composing the lift with itself, and the problem is avoided.

share|improve this answer

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.