2
$\begingroup$

I would like to define a category as $\bf Cat \downarrow Set$ (which would be the slice category of $\bf Cat$ over the object $\bf Set$. However, since $\bf Set$ is not an object of $\bf Cat$, I cannot do that. However, using the slice definition still gives us some category where the objects are $\bf Set$-valued functors and arrows are functors in $\bf Cat$ along with some 2-isomorphism.

So I don't think this is the result of some slice but it seems so close ! Moreover I could also extend this definition to all the categories, but again, since their is no category of all categories, I don't think it is the result of any slicing.


My question is : is there a standard notation for these kind of construction ? Am I completely lost with those size issues?

Thanks a lot :)

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

What you're describing is the (2-)comma category $(\mathbf{Cat} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{CAT}) \downarrow (\mathbf{Set} : \mathbf{1} \to \mathbf{CAT})$, where $\mathbf{Cat}$ is the (2-)category of small categories, $\mathbf{1}$ is the terminal category and $\mathbf{CAT}$ is the (2-)category of locally small categories. The objects of this comma category are small categories with functors into $\mathbf{Set}$ and morphisms are functors between small categories commuting with the functors into $\mathbf{Set}$. Comma categories are a generalisation of (co)slice categories that often allow you to describe structure which is "slice-like", but isn't quite.

Alternatively, if you're happy with the objects being locally small categories, you can simply take the (2-)slice category $\mathbf{CAT}/\mathbf{Set}$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer, that's exactly what I was looking for. Do you have any references on $\bf CAT$ ? I was not able to find something about it. I looked into enriched categories to see that it is equivalent to $\bf Cat$ enriched with $\bf Set$. $\endgroup$
    – 141592653
    Jun 18, 2020 at 18:19
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure what might be considered a canonical reference, but see for instance Section 1.7 of M-Completeness Is Seldom Monadic Over Graphs, which describes foundational issues regarding treating $\mathbf{CAT}$ as a category versus a 2-category. $\endgroup$
    – varkor
    Jun 18, 2020 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ @141592653 for category related things it is always nice to check ncatlab.org/nlab/show/2-category - references are on the bottom of the page. $\endgroup$ Jun 19, 2020 at 8:15
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much, you were very helpful $\endgroup$
    – 141592653
    Jun 19, 2020 at 10:04
2
$\begingroup$

Here is how you get rid of the "size" issues in constructions like this:

An object of the slice (2-)category that you want is a functor $F:{\mathbf C}\to{\mathbf{Set}}$, which is otherwise known as a presheaf on ${\mathbf C}^{\mathsf{op}}$.

The Grothendieck construction transforms this a functor $P:{\mathbf E}\to{\mathbf C}^{\mathsf{op}}$ that is a discrete fibration.

It's an exercise to work out what the 1- and 2-cells of this 2-category look like in terms of discrete fibrations.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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