It's been a long time since I tried to understand the deep meaning of the "Kan construction", or "nerve-realization" adjunction $$ \text{Lan}_y F \dashv N_F = \hom(F,1) $$ that exists among the left Kan extension of $F\colon \mathcal{A}\to \mathbf{D}$ ($\cal A$ small, $\bf D$ cocomplete) along the Yoneda embedding $y\colon {\cal A} \to \hat{\cal A}$. It can be expressed as $$ \text{Lan}_y F \dashv \text{Lan}_F y, $$ and this property seems pretty peculiar; especially if I think about the definition of a "Yoneda structure"[here, several comments in the discussion are mine].

  1. Is there a reason why this is true?
  2. What are other examples of a span of functors ${\bf C} \xleftarrow{G} {\cal A} \xrightarrow{F} {\bf B}$ such that $\text{Lan}_GF\dashv \text{Lan}_FG$?
  3. My sensation is that this question acquires a (more?) meaning plunging the 2-category $\bf Cat$ in $\bf Prof$ in the usual way. The functor $N_F = \hom(F,1)$ is the image of $F$ via the canonical 2-functor $\varphi^{(-)} : {\bf Cat}^\text{co} \to \bf Prof$, and $N_F$ has a right adjoint $\hom(1,F)$; the Kan construction amounts to say that this extends to a triple of adjoints $$ \text{Lan}_yF = \varphi_F^! \dashv \varphi^F\dashv \varphi_F. $$ What's the meaning of this extension, and its universal property, in $\bf Prof$?
  • $\begingroup$ I had to read ncatlab.org/nlab/show/nerve+and+realization in order to understand your question. Perhaps others want to follow this link too. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Oct 18 '16 at 21:37
  • $\begingroup$ Feel free to improve the question as you like; or did you already edit it? $\endgroup$ – Fosco Oct 18 '16 at 21:59
  • $\begingroup$ Nice! I can't believe I never noticed the F-nerve was $\mathrm{Lan}_F y$. $\endgroup$ – Omar Antolín-Camarena Nov 20 '18 at 22:42

I will try to answer the second question.

Prop 1. Let ${\bf C} \xleftarrow{i} {\bf A} \xrightarrow{f} {\bf B}$ be a span where $i$ is dense and fully faithful. Moreover $\text{lan}_if$ is pointwise. Then, the following are equivalent.

  1. $\text{lan}_if \dashv \text{lan}_fi$.
  2. $f$ is the $i$-relative left adjoint of $\text{lan}_fi$, i.e. ${\bf C}(i, \text{lan}_fi) \cong {\bf B}(f, - ).$
  3. $f = \text{lift}_{\text{lan}_fi}i$ and the lift is absolute.

If $i$ is only fully faithful $1 \Rightarrow 2$, if $i$ is only dense $2 \Rightarrow 1$.


$1 \Rightarrow 2$) $${\bf B}(f, -) \stackrel{i \text{ is ff.}}{\cong} {\bf B}((\text{lan}_if) i, -) \stackrel{1}{\cong} {\bf C}(i, \text{lan}_fi).$$

$2 \Rightarrow 1$) $${\bf B}(\text{lan}_if, -) \stackrel{\text{point.}}{\cong} \text{lan}_i{\bf B}(f, -) \stackrel{2}{\cong} \text{lan}_i{\bf C}(i, \text{lan}_fi) \stackrel{\text{point.}}{\cong} {\bf C}(\text{lan}_ii, \text{lan}_fi) \stackrel{i \text{ is dense}}{\cong} {\bf C}(-, \text{lan}_fi).$$

$3$ is just a rewriting of $2$.

Now we study a very special setting.

Let ${\bf C} \xleftarrow{i} {\bf A} \xrightarrow{f} {\bf B}$ be a span where $i$ is dense and fully faithful. Moreover $\text{lan}_if$ is pointwise, ${\bf A}$ is small, ${\bf C}$ and ${\bf B}$ are cocomplete.

In this setting ${\bf C}$ is a reflective subcategory $ V: {\bf C} \leftrightarrows \text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ} : L $ of $\text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}$ via the nerve $V = \text{lan}_i(y_{{\bf A}})$ (V is the right adjoint).

Prop 2. Let ${\bf C} \xleftarrow{i} {\bf A} \xrightarrow{f} {\bf B}$ be a span where $i$ is dense and fully faithful. ${\bf A}$ is small, ${\bf C}$ and ${\bf B}$ are cocomplete. Then, the following are equivalent.

  1. $\text{lan}_if \dashv \text{lan}_fi$.
  2. V preserves $\text{lan}_fi$.
  3. ${\bf C}(i,\text{lan}_fi) \cong \text{lan}_f{\bf C}(i,i)$.

Proof. Recall that $\text{lan}_if$ is pointwise,because ${\bf B}$ is cocomplete.

$1 \Rightarrow 2)$.

Using Prop 1. we know that ${\bf C}(i, \text{lan}_fi) \cong {\bf B}(f, - )$. Since the presheaf construction is a Yoneda structure, we have that $\text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}(y_A, \text{lan}_fy_A) \cong {\bf B}(f, -)$.

Thus, $$ {\bf C}(i, \text{lan}_fi) \cong {\bf B}(f, -) \cong \text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}(y_A, \text{lan}_fy_A) \cong \text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}(y_A, \text{lan}_fVi)$$

Observe also that $${\bf C}(i, \text{lan}_fi) \cong {\bf C}(Ly_A, \text{lan}_fi) \stackrel{L \dashv V}{\cong} \text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}(y_A, V\text{lan}_fi),$$ putting the last two equation together, one gets: $$\text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}(y_A, \text{lan}_fVi) \cong \text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}(y_A, V\text{lan}_fi). $$ By Yoneda Lemma the two functors on the right have to coincide.

$2 \Rightarrow 1).$

Using Prop 1. it is enough to prove that ${\bf C}(i, \text{lan}_fi) \cong {\bf B}(f, - )$. Since the presheaf construction is a Yoneda structure, we have that $\text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}(y_A, \text{lan}_fy_A) \cong {\bf B}(f, -)$. Now, $${\bf C}(i, \text{lan}_fi) \cong {\bf C}(Ly_A, \text{lan}_fi) \stackrel{L \dashv V}{\cong} \text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}(y_A, V\text{lan}_fi) \stackrel{2}{\cong} \text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}(y_A, \text{lan}_fVi) \cong \text{Set}^{{\bf A}^\circ}(y_A, \text{lan}_fy_A) \cong {\bf B}(f, -). $$

$3$ is just a rewriting of $2$.

Cor. 1 (Quite surprising). Let ${\bf Set}^{A^\circ} \xleftarrow{y} {\bf A} \xrightarrow{f} {\bf B}$ be a span where $y$ is the Yoneda embedding of a small category and ${\bf B}$ is cocomplete. Then $\text{lan}_yf \dashv \text{lan}_fy$.

Proof 1. In Prop 1 the condition 2 is verified and is essentially a rewriting of the Yoneda Lemma. Moreover $\text{lan}_yf$ is pointwise because ${\bf B}$ is cocomplete.

Proof 2. In Prop 2 the condition 2 is trivially verified because $V$ is the identity.

I shall conclude by saying that the adjunction cannot verify too often.

Rem. 4 Let $y: {\bf A} \to {\bf C}$ be a dense and fully faithful functor. Then the following are equivalent.

  1. For every map $f: {\bf A} \to {\bf B}$, where ${\bf B}$ is cocomplete, the Kan extensions $\text{lan}_yf$ and $\text{lan}_fy$ exist and are adjoint.
  2. $y$ is the Yoneda embedding.

Proof. One implications is Cor 1. The other implication can be read as follows, if 1 is verified, then for every functor $f: {\bf A} \to {\bf B}$, there is a unique cocontinous extension ($\text{lan}_yf$), this is the characterization of the free cocompletion under colimits, that is the (small) presheaf construction.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ This looks correct to me. $\endgroup$ – Fosco Nov 17 '18 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ Hopefully, one never knows. $\endgroup$ – Ivan Di Liberti Nov 17 '18 at 15:41

Edit. The construction of $\eta$ below is not correct. See the comments.

Ad 2. I think that indeed $\mathrm{Lan}_G(F):\mathbf{C} \to \mathbf{B}$ is left adjoint to $\mathrm{Lan}_F(G):\mathbf{B} \to \mathbf{C}$ when $G:A \to \mathbf{C}$ is fully faithful.

Below, I will construct two morphisms of functors $\eta : \mathrm{id}_\mathbf{C} \to\mathrm{Lan}_F(G) \circ \mathrm{Lan}_G(F)$ and $\varepsilon : \mathrm{Lan}_G(F) \circ \mathrm{Lan}_G(F) \to \mathrm{id}_\mathbf{B}$. I haven't verified the triangle identities yet, so that this answer should be taken with a grain of salt. What really confuses me is that I cannot write down a natural bijection $$\hom(\mathrm{Lan}_G(F)(X),Y) \cong \hom(X,\mathrm{Lan}_F(G)(Y))$$ directly, without using $\eta$ and $\varepsilon$, basically because $\hom(X,-)$ does not interchange with coends.

I will use the coend formula

$$\forall X \in \mathbf{C}:\quad \mathrm{Lan}_G(F)(X) = \int^{a \in A} \hom(G(a),X) \otimes F(a).$$ Now let's do some co/end fu: $$\begin{eqnarray} &&\mathrm{Lan}_F(G)(\mathrm{Lan}_G(F)(X)) \\ & = & \int^{a \in A} \hom\biggl(F(a),\int^{a' \in A} \hom(G(a'),X) \otimes F(a')\biggr) \otimes G(a) \\ & \leftarrow & \int^{a \in A} \int^{a' \in A} \hom(G(a'),X) \otimes \hom(F(a),F(a')) \otimes G(a) \\ & \cong & \int^{a' \in A} \hom(G(a'),X) \otimes \int^{a \in A} \hom(F(a),F(a')) \otimes G(a) \\ & \leftarrow & \int^{a' \in A} \hom(G(a'),X) \otimes \int^{a \in A} \hom(a,a') \otimes G(a) \\ & \cong & \int^{a' \in A} \hom(G(a'),X) \otimes G(a') \\ & \cong & \int^{X' \in \mathbf{C}} \hom(X',X) \otimes X' \\ & \cong & X\end{eqnarray}$$ This describes $\eta$. We describe $\varepsilon$ as follows: $$\begin{eqnarray} && \mathrm{Lan}_G(F)(\mathrm{Lan}_F(G)(Y)) \\ &= & \int^{a \in A} \hom(G(a),\mathrm{Lan}_F(G)(Y)) \otimes F(a) \\ & \cong & \int^{a \in A} \int^{a' \in A} \hom(F(a'),Y) \otimes \hom(G(a),\mathrm{Lan}_F(G)(F(a'))) \otimes F(a) \\ & \rightarrow & \int^{a \in A} \int^{a' \in A} \hom(F(a'),Y) \otimes \hom(G(a),G(a')) \otimes F(a) \\ & \cong & \int^{a \in A} \int^{a' \in A} \hom(F(a'),Y) \otimes \hom(a,a') \otimes F(a) \\ & \cong & \int^{a' \in A} \hom(F(a'),Y) \otimes \int^{a \in A} \hom(a,a') \otimes F(a) \\ & \cong & \int^{a' \in A} \hom(F(a'),Y) \otimes F(a') \\ & \rightarrow & Y \end{eqnarray}$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand why fully faithfulness of $G$ implies $\int^{a' \in \cal A} \hom(G(a'),X) \otimes G(a') \cong \int^{X' \in \mathbf{C}} \hom(X',X) \otimes X'$, can you expand? $\endgroup$ – Fosco Oct 19 '16 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ This is a mistake, sorry. So probably there won't be an adjunction in this generality. $\endgroup$ – HeinrichD Oct 19 '16 at 17:55

What follows is kind of preliminary and complementary to Ivan's answer.

Let $A$ be a small category, $\mathcal B$ and $\mathcal C$ be locally presentable categories and $i\colon A \to \mathcal B$ and $j \colon A \to \mathcal C$ two functors. The left Kan extension $\operatorname{Lan}_i j \colon \mathcal B \to \mathcal C$ is a left adjoint functor if and only if it commutes with colimits. By this answer of John Bourke, this happens if, for any object $a$ of $A$, the object $i(a)$ of $\mathcal B$ is tiny. Suppose that this is the case and call $V\colon \mathcal C \to \mathcal B$ the right adjoint to $\operatorname{Lan}_i j$.

If the functor $i \colon A \to \mathcal B$ is fully faithful, then for every object $a$ of $A$ we have $\operatorname{Lan}_i j \,(i(a)) \cong j(a)$. Thus for every object $a$ of $A$ and every object $Y$ of $\mathcal Y$ we get $$\text{Hom}_{\mathcal C}(\operatorname{Lan}_i j \,(i(a)), Y) = \text{Hom}_{\mathcal C}(j(a), Y) = \text{Hom}_{\mathcal B}(i(a), V(Y)) $$ naturally in $a \in A$. This is equivalent to say that the two commas $A/Y$ and $A/V(Y)$ (aka $j \downarrow Y$ and $i\downarrow V(Y)$) are isomorphic categories.

In the case where $i$ is fully faithful, the functor $V$ is isomorphic to $\operatorname{Lan}_j i$ if and only if for any object $Y$ of $\mathcal C$ we have that $V(Y)$ is the colimit of the functor $A/Y \to A \to \mathcal B$. By the previous paragraph, this is isomorphic to the colimit of the functor $A/V(Y) \to A \to \mathcal B$. Thus $V \cong \operatorname{Lan}_j i$ if and only if every object in the image of $V$ is canonically a conical colimit with respect to the functor $i$. (The functor $i$ is dense in the subcategory of $\mathcal B$ spanned by the essential image of $V$.)

We obtain a sufficient condition for $V$ to be isomorphic to $\operatorname{Lan}_j i$ imposing the functor $i$ to be dense (and fully faithful). Indeed, in this case by definition we have that $V(Y)$ is the colimit of the functor $A/V(Y) \to A \to \mathcal B$ for any object $Y$ of $\mathcal C$ and so we conclude using the preceding paragraph.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ To my knowledge, in John's answer that is not an "if and only if", it is just an "if". $\endgroup$ – Ivan Di Liberti Jan 16 '19 at 22:39
  • $\begingroup$ You are absolutely right, thanks! $\endgroup$ – Andrea Gagna Jan 17 '19 at 12:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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