# Equivalence of categeories-variants of definition [closed]

There is a notion of equivalence of categories which is the functor $F:\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ such that there is a functor $G:\mathcal{D} \to \mathcal{C}$ such that $FG \cong id_{\mathcal{D}}$ and $GF \cong id_{\mathcal{C}}$ where $\cong$ means natural isomorphism (natural transformation with each component being the isomorphism). One can also check equivalence of categories without referring to $G$: it suffices that $F$ is full, fauthul (faithful means injective on arrows between fixed objects, full means surjective on arrows between $F(C_1)$ and $F(C_2)$) and essentially surjective (surjective on objects, up to isomorphism). Note that from being full and faithul follows that $F$ is essentially injective on objects (meaning that if $F(C_1)$ and $F(C_2)$ are isomorphic in $\mathcal{D}$ then $C_1$ and $C_2$ are isomorphic in $\mathcal{C}$). Is there an example of two categories $\mathcal{C}$ and $\mathcal{D}$ with the properties:
-there is a functor $F:\mathcal{C} \to \mathcal{D}$ being essential bijection on objects (meaning essentially surjective and essentially injective in the above sense)
-for each two objects $C_1,C_2 \in \mathcal{C}$ there is an abstract bijection between $Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(C_1,C_2) \simeq Hom_{\mathcal{D}}(F(C_1),F(C_2))$ meaning that this bijection is not implemented by $F$. To be more precise: for each pair of objects $C_1,C_2 \in \mathcal{C}$ we can find a map $T_{C_1,C_2}:Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(C_1,C_2) \to Hom_{\mathcal{D}}(F(C_1),F(C_2))$ being a bijection of sets and this map is not of the form $F(f)$ for $f \in Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(C_1,C_2)$?

## closed as unclear what you're asking by Andrej Bauer, abx, Qiaochu Yuan, Wolfgang, MyshkinMay 15 '16 at 23:45

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• What is an "abstract" bijection and what does it mean for "a bijection to be implemented by $F$"? – Andrej Bauer May 15 '16 at 18:14
• Not implemented by $F$ means that for each pair of objects $C_1,C_2$ there is a map $T_{C_1,C_2}$ between sets $Hom_{mathcal{C}}(C_1,C_2)$ and $Hom_{\mathcal{D}}(F(C_1),F(C_2))$ which is a bijection. This map sends a morphism $f:C_1 \to C_2$ to some morfizm between $F(C_1) \to F(C_2)$ in such a way that $T_{C_1,C_2}f_1=T_{C_1,C_2}f_2$ implies $f_1=f_2$ and each morphism in $Hom_{\mathcal{D}}(F(C_1),F(C_2))$ is of the form $T_{C_1,C_2}(f)$ for some morphism $f \in Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(C_1,C_2)$. In the definition of equivalence of categories $T_{C_1,C_2}(f)$ is just $F(f)$... – truebaran May 15 '16 at 18:26
• ... this I meant to be implemented by $F$, – truebaran May 15 '16 at 18:26
• It is false that faithful means "injective on arrows". Please check the definition again, as the real definition of fully faithful doesn't imply injectivity on objects. Eg the functor M from the category of vector spaces over R with basis, and all linear maps, to the category with objects the natural numbers and matrices as morphisms: this is an equivalence of categories and highly non-injective on objects and arrows. Also, use 'injective up to isomorphism' becasue that is what you really mean, or 'essentially injective'. – David Roberts May 15 '16 at 20:52
• David Roberts thank you, you are obviosly right, I corrected what was wrong – truebaran May 15 '16 at 21:20

Let $D$ be the category whose only object is $\mathbb{N}$ and the morphisms are all functions $\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$. Let $C$ be the subcategory whose morphisms are bijections $\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{N}$.
The inclusion $F : C \to D$ has the properties you ask for.