3
$\begingroup$

In these days I am studying some properties of Kan extensions. In order to do so I am looking at some general observations on Kan extensions that I would like to share with the community. A feedback would be very important to me.

Give a look at the following diagram to set the notation.

$\require{AMScd}$ \begin{CD} A @>f>> C\\ @VgVV \\ B \end{CD}

I will suppose that $g$ is fully faithful, that $C$ is cocomplete and that the kan extension is pointwise.

My interest is to understand how properties of $f$ interact with properties of Lan$_g f.$

To do so, I would start by giving a factorization of the Kan extension in the following way:

$$B \stackrel{\text{Elts}^g}{\to} \text{Fib}(A) \stackrel{f_*}{\to} \text{Fib}(C) \stackrel{\text{colim}}{\to} C.$$

Let's give a description of these functors.


Elts$^g$: $B \to \text{Fib}(A)$

By e $\text{Fib}(A)$ we mean the category of fibrations over $A$. This functor takes an object $b \in B$ into the category Elts($B(g\_, b)$).


The functor $f^*$ is just composition. So we map the fibration $E \to A$ to $E \to A \stackrel{f}{\to} C.$


Colim is just the functor that takes the colimit of the diagram induced by the fibration.


Under these notations it looks to me (please confirm, I am following the construction presented by Borceux (3.7.4, HoCA vol II)) that one can writhe down the equation: $$\text{Lan}_gf = \text{colim} \circ f_* \circ \text{Elts}^g. $$

Here come my questions:

What do we know about the functors Elts$^g$ and colim? More precisely,

Q1 Are they faithful or conservative?

Q2 What (co)limits do they preserve?

As a final remark, I would point out that any reference about Kan extensions which goes deeply in their properties and their behave is absolutely welcome.


Motivations:

My motivating questions are the following ones:

In the setting of the question, under what assumptions can I hope that $f$ conservative implies that Lan$_g f$ is conservative?

What about faithfulness?

Again, any reference for an answer to these questions is absolutely welcome.


These questions are not so desperate ad they may appear. If $B = \text{Set}^{A^{\text{op}}}$ and $g$ is the yoneda embedding, then the functor Elts$^y$ should be faithful and conservative because $$\text{PseudoPres}(A) \cong \text{Fib}(A) $$ precisely under that functor.

$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

$ \def\colim{\text{colim}} \def\A{\mathcal{A}} \def\coker{\text{coker }} $ There is a blatant example in which $\colim : \A^J \to \A$ is not conservative; take a pushout square in an abelian category. Then, the canonical comparison map $$ \begin{CD} X @>f>> Y @>>> \coker f\\ @VuVV @VVvV @VVV\\ X'@>>g> Y' @>>> \coker g \end{CD} $$ between cokernels is invertible whatever $u,v$ are. (This appears as Lemma 1.2, p. 86 of Hilton-Stammbach's Course in Homological Algbera, but I bet there are better references and the proof is very easily done by hand).

So, for $J=\{* \rightrightarrows \bullet\}$ the $\colim$ functor is (I'd say, highly and irredemably) not conservative.

As you maybe remember, a necessary and sufficient condition for a functor admitting an adjoint, so that it is (faithful and) conservative is that

  • it is a right adjoint, and the components of the counit are extremal epis (here a neat proof), or
  • it is a left adjoint, and the components of the unit are extremal monos.

Of course here $\colim\dashv \Delta_J$, the constant functor $\A \to \A^J$, and the unit components at $P\in \A^J$ are precisely the arrows of the initial cocone for $P$.

Somehow this is telling you two things, that $\colim$ is conservative iff each colimit inclusion is in fact an honest inclusion, and that sometimes (in fact, quite often, if you like pointed categories) $\colim$ won't be conservative because some maps in the initial cocone can be the zero morphism.

More than often, however, colimits are honest inclusions; I'd check what happens in a topos (where each $X\to \varnothing$ must be an iso), for example.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Pay attention, your colim operator is not the same of mine, at least, the look to me very different. $\endgroup$ – Ivan Di Liberti Nov 15 '17 at 11:43

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.