Given a category $\mathcal{C}$ and a set (let's not bother with size issues here) $\mathcal{W} \subseteq \text{Mor}(\mathcal{C})$ we may form the category $\mathcal{C}[\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$ obtained by formally inverting all arrows belonging to $\mathcal{W}$. If we're lucky, then the localization functor $j: \mathcal{C} \longrightarrow \mathcal{C}[\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$ admits a fully faithful right adjoint $\iota: \mathcal{C}[\mathcal{W}^{-1}] \hookrightarrow \mathcal{C}$, in which case one speaks of a reflective localization.

The category $\mathcal{C}[\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$ viewed as a full subcategory of $\mathcal{C}$ via $\iota$ obviously consists of $\mathcal{W}$-local objects, i.e. for every $A \in \mathcal{C}[\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$ and every $f \in \mathcal{W}$ the map $\text{Hom}(f,A)$ is a bijection.

The nLab entry for "reflective localization" seems to claim that also the converse holds, i.e. that every $\mathcal{W}$-local object lies in the essential image of $\iota$, or equivalently, that for every $\mathcal{W}$-local $X$ the unit

$\eta(X): X \longrightarrow \iota(j(X))$

of the adjunction is an isomorphism. However I don't see how to prove that. By the triangle equation it follows (since $\iota$ is fully faithful) that $\eta(X)$ becomes an isomorphism after applying $j$, but I don't see how this helps in proving that $\eta(X)$ itself is an isomorphism.

So the question is, does this reverse implication hold at all?


2 Answers 2


To avoid confusing myself, I will write $L : \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{C} [\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$ for the localising functor and $R : \mathcal{C} [\mathcal{W}^{-1}] \to \mathcal{C}$ for its right adjoint. (Note that $R$ is automatically fully faithful – the hard part is existence!)

As you say, for any object $Y$ in $\mathcal{C} [\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$, $R Y$ is automatically a $\mathcal{W}$-local object in $\mathcal{C}$: indeed, for any object $Z$ in $\mathcal{C}$, $Z$ is a $\mathcal{W}$-local object if and only if $\mathcal{C} (-, Z) : \mathcal{C}^\mathrm{op} \to \mathbf{Set}$ factors through $L : \mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{C} [\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$. So suppose $Z$ is a $\mathcal{W}$-local object. Since $\epsilon : L R \Rightarrow \mathrm{id}_{\mathcal{C} [\mathcal{W}^{-1}]}$ is a natural isomorphism, the triangle identities imply $L \eta : L \Rightarrow L R L$ is also a natural isomorphism. In particular, $$\mathcal{C} (\eta_Z, Z) : \mathcal{C} (R L Z, Z) \to \mathcal{C} (Z, Z)$$ is a bijection, so there is a unique morphism $\alpha : R L Z \to Z$ such that $\alpha \circ \eta_Z = \mathrm{id}_Z$. But $L \alpha = \epsilon_{L Z}$, so $$\eta_Z \circ \alpha = R L \alpha \circ \eta_{R L Z} = R \epsilon_{L Z} \circ \eta_{R L Z} = \mathrm{id}_{R L Z}$$ and therefore $\eta_Z : Z \to R L Z$ is indeed an isomorphism.

So the conclusion is that $\mathcal{C} [\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$ is equivalent to the full subcategory of $\mathcal{C}$ spanned by the $\mathcal{W}$-local objects.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Okay, now I see how $L \alpha = \epsilon_{LZ}$. Nice argument btw. Didn't notice that one could apply the universal property to the hom-functor itself! $\endgroup$ May 11, 2015 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ Out of curiosity: If for a class $\mathcal{W}$ the $\mathcal{W}$-local objects form a reflective subcategory $\mathcal{C}_0 \subseteq \mathcal{C}$, does it follow that $\mathcal{C} \rightarrow \mathcal{C}_0$ is a localization of $\mathcal{C}$ at $\mathcal{W}$? $\endgroup$ May 11, 2015 at 23:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's true if the components of the adjunction unit are in $\mathcal{W}$, but I don't know what happens in general. $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    May 11, 2015 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ @NicolasSchmidt I have found a counterexample. Take $\mathcal{W}$ to be the class of $J$-dense monomorphisms in the category of presheaves on a small site $(\mathcal{C}, J)$; then the $\mathcal{W}$-local objects are the $J$-sheaves (which are, of course, reflective) but localisation with respect to $\mathcal{W}$ is not reflective. $\endgroup$
    – Zhen Lin
    May 24, 2015 at 10:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NicolasSchmidt : $C \rightarrow C_0$ is in general not "the localization" of $C$ at $W$, but it does satisfies a "localization like" universal properties: any left adjoint functor from $C$ to another category $D$ which invert all arrow in $W$ factors into $C_0$ (while the actual localization would satifies this property for any functor and not just for left adjoint functor). Also $C_0$ is the localization of $C$ at the class of arrows of $C$ that become invertible in $C_0$ $\endgroup$ May 24, 2015 at 11:34

Let $\iota: \mathcal{A}\subset \mathcal{C}$ a replete, full, reflexive subcategory with $F: \mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{A}$ left adjoint to $\iota$, and $\eta_X: X\to F(X)$ the canonical unity. The canonical counity $\epsilon$ is a isomorphism (because $\iota$ is full and faithfull) and $F(\eta_X)$ is a isomorphism (triangle identity).

Let $W:= \{ f \in |\mathcal{C}|_1\ |\ F(f)\ is\ Iso \}$ (in your post you can consider the saturation...).

Let $\mathcal{B}\subset \mathcal{C}$ the full subcategory of $W$-replete objects defined as in your post.

Claim: $\mathcal{A}= \mathcal{B}$: Let $A\in \mathcal{A}$ and $f: X\to Y$ by $F(f)\in Iso$, considering the square of $f, F(f), \eta_X, \eta_Y$, by universal property follow that $A\in \mathcal{B}$.

Let $B\in \mathcal{B}$, we have to show that $\eta_B\in Iso$, considering $\eta_B\in W$ follow a morphism $g: F(B)\to B$ with $1_B= g\circ \eta_B$, and from $(\eta_B\circ g)\circ \eta_B=1\circ \eta_B $ follow that (universal property): $\eta_B\circ g=1$.


COnsidering the case $\mathcal{A}= \mathcal{C}[\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$ for some class of morphisms $\mathcal{W}$, and suppose that we have a full immersion $\iota: \mathcal{C}[\mathcal{W}^{-1}]\to \mathcal{C}$ left adjoint of the natural functor $F: \mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{C}[\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$, and let $W$ defined as above, then $W$ is the saturation of $\mathcal{W}$ and $\mathcal{C}[\mathcal{W}^{-1}]\cong \mathcal{C}[W^{-1}]$.

THen the $W$-local objects are the $\mathcal{W}$-local objects, and this is a replete class.

Edit ABout the second question, after the Zhen Lin counterexample, I can say only this: From [P], T.13.11, p.98, given an adjuntion $<\iota, F>: \mathcal{C}\to\mathcal{A}$ with $\iota$ full and faithfull we have that $\mathcal{A}$ is equivalent to $\mathcal{C}[W^{-1}]$ where $W$ is the class of morphisms $f$ such that $F(f)$ is a isomorphism, and $W$ is also the class of morphism's $w$ such that $\mathcal{C}(w, A)$ is a isomorphism (bijection) for any $A\in\mathcal{A}$. Then if $\mathcal{A}\subset \mathcal{C}$ is the full subcategory of the $\mathcal{W}$-stable objects for some class of morphisms $\mathcal{W}$, then $W$ is the "Galois-closure" of $\mathcal{W}$.

Furthermore, about the existence of the adjoint $\iota$: given a class lef-calculable of morphisms $\mathcal{W}$ of a category $\mathcal{C}$, let $F: \mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{C}[\mathcal{W}^{-1}]$ the natural functor. From [P] 15.3 follow that $F$ has a right adjoint (and it is full and faithfull) IFF for any $X\in \mathcal{C}$ there exist a morphism $u_X: X\to X'$ where $X'$ is $\mathcal{W}$-stable and $u_X$ belong to the saturation $W$ of $\mathcal{W}$ IFF for any $X$ the category $X\downarrow W$ (the full subcategory of $X\downarrow\mathcal{C}$ of the $W$'s with $X$ as domain) has a final object (I seem that the proff work without the left-calculable hypothesis).

Biblio: [P]: Theory of Categories , Nicolae Popescu & Liliana Popescu

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This shows that every reflective subcategory is a localization (I think this statement can already be found in Gabriel-Zisman), but my question (in response to Zhen Lin's answer) was whether a reflective subcategory which coincides with the $W$-local objects for a class $W$ also is a localization for this given class. $\endgroup$ May 24, 2015 at 1:14
  • $\begingroup$ I have improved my post. $\endgroup$ May 24, 2015 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ But then you're already assuming what we want to show, namely that $C \rightarrow C_0$ is a localization at $\mathcal{W}$, or equivalently that the localization at $\mathcal{W}$ is reflective. As the counter-example of Zhen Lin shows, this fails in general however. $\endgroup$ May 24, 2015 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ I gave a second answer to the first question (enriching it according to the question later)... $\endgroup$ May 24, 2015 at 20:44

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.