14
$\begingroup$

This question is not really about elementary topoi, it is much more about a category $(\mathcal{E}, \Omega)$ admitting a subobject classifier, or about a category with power objects, you can choose the context that inspires you the most. Of course, elementary topoi are the go-to example.

Q: Can we prove, or provide a counter-example, that the opposite of such a category cannot have a subobject classifier, or have power objects, or be an elementary topos?

Rem. It is well known that the opposite of a Grothendieck topos cannot be a Grothendieck topos, but the proof relies on the fact that the opposite of a locally presentable category cannot be locally presentable. This completely obscures the importance of $\Omega$, which is what I would like to know about.

Rem. Even in the most trivial case, why do we know that $\mathsf{Fin}^\circ$, or $(\mathsf{Fin}^C)^\circ$ does not have a subobject classifier?

Clarification. The title mentions elementary topoi because "category with a subobject classifier" would not sound as good.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Just a comment because I don't know what to say about the general case: For the opposite of Fin, we would get a "quotient coclassifier" in Fin, i.e. an epimorphism such that every other epimorphism is uniquely a pushout along it. But that's absurd, for example pushouts along a fixed epimorphism of finite sets can't reduce the cardinality by more than a fixed amount. $\endgroup$ – Achim Krause Apr 12 at 21:11
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ In a cartesian closed category $C$, the functor $-\times\emptyset$ preserves the initial object. Thus the set $X=C(c,\emptyset)$ satisfies that the projection $X\times C(c,d)\to X$ is a bijection for any $d$, which implies that $X=\emptyset$ unless $c$ is initial. In particular, the subobject classifier would have to be initial, which is probably enough to get a contradiction (and deals with the examples you gave). $\endgroup$ – Bertram Arnold Apr 12 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ @BertramArnold Is this a reformulation of Tom's answer? Anyway, I like it much more! If you spell out it and make it work for the case that $\mathcal{E}$ has a subobject classifier and is monoidal closed, I will accept it as an answer. $\endgroup$ – Ivan Di Liberti Apr 12 at 21:52
23
$\begingroup$

The answer to the question in the title is no, assuming you want to exclude the trivial case of the terminal category.

Let $E$ be an (elementary) topos whose opposite is also a topos. The initial object of a topos is strictly initial (any map into it is an iso), so the terminal object $1$ of $E$ is strictly terminal. Since there is a map from $1$ to the subobject classifier $\Omega$ of $E$, this implies that $\Omega$ is terminal. Hence every object of $E$ has precisely one subobject. In particular, $1$ has only one subobject. But the initial object $0$ of $E$ is a subobject of $1$. So $0 \cong 1$ in $E$, so $E$ is trivial.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks Tom, this is a very good starting point. I upvoted, but for the moment I will not accept, as you rely on an exactness property of the elementary topos which might be lost in more general but similar contexts. $\endgroup$ – Ivan Di Liberti Apr 12 at 21:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ People may be disappointed to find out that an elementary topos is not a profound truth. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Apr 12 at 21:37

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.