In an extensive category, the following conditions are equivalent for an object.

  1. In a coproduct decomposition, exactly one of the summands is initial;
  2. The covariant functor it represents preserves coproducts.

An object satisfying these equivalent conditions is called connected.

Now consider the functor $\mathsf C\overset{H}{\longleftarrow} \mathsf{Set}$ given by taking copowers of a fixed terminal object. Say an object $X$ of $\mathsf C$ has connected components if there exists a universal arrow $\eta_X:X\to H(\Pi_0 X)$ from $X$ to $H$.

The universal property of this universal arrow means $\Pi_0(X)\cong \mathbf 1$ is equivalent to the covariant $\mathrm{Hom}(X,-)$ preserving coproducts of terminal objects. Thus it's clear connected objects have a single connected component.

Unfortunately, I am struggling with the converse. Although I don't expect $\Pi_0$ to exist globally as a left adjoint to $H$ (e.g not all topological spaces are the coproducts of their connected components), it still seems reasonable to expect that $\Pi_0(X)\cong \mathbf 1$ should imply $X$ is connected in any extensive category.

But that would mean that $\mathrm{Hom}(X,-)$ preserving coproducts of terminal objects is equivalent to $\mathrm{Hom}(X,-)$ preserving arbitrary coproducts. I think I have proved this given $\Pi_0\dashv H$, but I am not as confident about the general case:

It seems that in an extensive category $\mathrm{Hom}(X,\bf 2)$ is in bijection with binary coproduct decompositions of $X$. If $\mathrm{Hom}(X,-)$ preserves coproducts of terminal objects then $\mathrm{Hom}(X,\mathbf 2)\cong \mathbf 2$ which must be the two trivial coproduct decompositions $\mathbf 0\amalg X\cong X\cong X\amalg \mathbf 0$. This seems to imply $X$ is connected.

Is the latter argument correct?


1 Answer 1


I wouldn't say that there is a bijection between $\mathrm{Hom}(X,2)$ and binary coproduct decompositions of $X$ since the former is a set and the latter is a category. If we ignore this fact, then we can show that the natural function $\coprod\limits_{A,B \in \mathrm{Ob(C)}} A \amalg B \simeq X \to \mathrm{Hom}(X,2)$ is surjective, so there is a bijection if we define the set of coproduct decompositions in a certain way, but I don't know how to use it to prove this fact. I can give another argument instead.

Let's say that we have a decomposition $X \simeq A \amalg B$. Let $f : X \to 2$ be the map $X \to A + B \to 2$. Since the obvious map $2 \to \mathrm{Hom}(X,2)$ is a bijection, $f$ factors through either $i_0 : 1 \to 2$ or $i_1 : 1 \to 2$. Let's say it factors through $i_0$ (the other case is similar). It follows that the map $A + B \to 2$ also factors through $i_0$. Then the map $B \to A + B \to 2$ equals to $B \to A + B \to 1 \overset{i_0}\to 2$ and it also equals to $B \to 1 \overset{i_1}\to 2$ by definition. Thus, we have a map from $B$ to the pullback of $i_0$ and $i_1$. Since coproducts in an extensive category are disjoint, this pullback is an initial object. Since initial objects in an extensive category are strict, $B$ is also initial.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the presented argument. I carelessly imagined defining the "set of binary coproduct decompositions" as the set of equivalence classes of such things, but perhaps that's ill-advised. The assignment I imagined to be bijective was between the third diagram(s) of Proposition 4.1 in Carboni and Lack's paper and its middle arrow(s). $\endgroup$
    – Arrow
    Dec 11, 2017 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Arrow I don't think that's ill-advised at all. In an extensive category, coproduct decompositions form a discrete groupoid, so it's equivalent to a set. $\endgroup$ Dec 12, 2017 at 3:01

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.