Here's a statement of Yoneda's lemma for n-category.

Let C be a n-category and $C^{\wedge}=[C^o,n-1Cat]$ be the n-category of presheaves on C.

$C^o$ is the opposite n-category of C and $n-1Cat$ is the n-category of (n-1)-categories.

We have the Yeneda embedding:

$h_C:C \rightarrow C^{\wedge}$ , X being sent to the hom-presheaf $hom_C(-,X)$.

Now Yoneda's lemma says:

1) For $X \in C $ and $A \in C^{\wedge}$,

$hom_{C^{\wedge}}(h_C(X),A) \approx A(X) $ in the n-category $n-1Cat$ up to n-equivalence;

2) For $A \in C^{\wedge}$,

$hom_{C^{\wedge}}(h_C(-),A) \approx A $ in the n-category $C^{\wedge}$ up to n-equivalence.

I want to test the Yoneda in the case n=0.

Now a 0-category is, supposedly, an ensemble and a (-1)-category is either 1 or 0 (truth values). So the 0-category of (-1)-categories is


Now let C be a 0-category ; $C^{\wedge}=[C^o,-1Cat]$ is nothing but the power set of C since a function of C in {0,1} defines a subset of C.

The Yoneda embedding is

$h_C:C \rightarrow C^{\wedge}$ , x being sent to the hom-presheaf $hom_C(-,x)=\{x\}$ (since $hom_C(y,x)=0$ if $y \neq x$), that is, x being sent to the singleton {x}.

So the Yoneda lemma gives:

$hom_{C^{\wedge}}(h_C(x),A) \approx A(x) = 0$ if $x \notin A$


$hom_{C^{\wedge}}(h_C(x),A) \approx A(x) = 1$ if $x \in A$

in the 0-category $-1Cat$ up to 0-equivalence which is equality.


$hom_{C^{\wedge}}(h_C(x),A) = 1$ as long as $x \in A$,

so this indeed makes $C^{\wedge}$ not just a set but a set with equivalence relation, also called setoid in nLab.

I don't actually expect this: Yoneda's lemma forces us to consider setoids instead of plain sets as 0-categories.

So now my question is: Given two 0-categories C and D,

[C, D] (functions of C in D) should be a 0-category, i.e., a setoid.

So what is the equivalence on [C,D]?

In the case of [C,{0,1}], a subset A and a singleton {x} are equivalent iff x is an element of A. Two functions A and B (i.e. two sunsets of C) are equivalent iff their intersection is not empty; indeed any subset is either equivalent to the empty set or the whole set C itself (if the 0-category C is strictly a set).

This is indeed rather confusing. I hope someone can perhaps clarify.

Or perhaps the Yoneda should not be applied in this rather trivial case at all?

  • 8
    $\begingroup$ (Why do you insist on using French -- is "ifif" so too? -- when explaining their meaning takes much more space than just using English in the few times you need those words?) $\endgroup$ – Jules Lamers Mar 14 '17 at 16:11

The fact that you have to consider setiods shouldn't be too surprising, since if we're working ($n>0$)-categorically the distinction between sets and setoids isn't invariant under equivalence. If C and D are strict 0-categories (i.e., sets), then the equivalence relation is just the identity relation. If C and D are weak 0-categories (setoids), then $[C, D]$ is the weak 0-category (setoid) whose elements are the set functions $f : C \to D$ respecting the equivalence relation and where two functions $f, g: C \to D$ are equivalent if $f(c) \sim g(c)$ for all $c$ in $C$.

Sets equipped with equivalence relations have the simplest not-entirely-trivial homotopy theory I know. Larusson has a nice discussion of it.


We can try to apply the Yoneda lemma to $(n,k)$-categories for all $n$ and $k$. If we try to do this for $(0,0)$-categories, then we need the $(0,0)$-category of $(-1,-1)$-categories, and I'm not sure that it is a good idea to define $(-1,-1)$-categories as truth values.

We can apply the Yoneda lemma to $(0,1)$-categories instead. Those are just posets (or, equivalently, preordered sets). The $(0,1)$-category of $(-1,0)$-categories is just the poset of truth values $\Omega = \{0,1\}$. The yoneda embedding $h_C : C \to [C^o,\Omega]$ is defined as follows: $h_C(x) = (- \leq x)$. Now, we have the Yoneda lemma: for every $A : C^o \to \Omega$, there is a natural isomorphism $[C^o,\Omega](h_C(x),A) \simeq A(x)$, which just says that $A(x)$ is true if and only if $y \leq x$ implies $A(y)$ for every $y \in C$.

Setoids appear because we are talking about $(0,1)$-categories (i.e., preordered sets) and there is a structure of a setoid on the set of objects of a $(0,1)$-category. If $C$ and $D$ are preordered sets, then $[C,D]$ is also a preordered set and hence there is a natural equivalence relation on $[C,D]$. Also, note that every $(0,1)$-category is equivalent to a $(0,1)$-category (a poset) in which the underlying setoid is discrete.


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.