# Efficiently computing with pullbacks and pushouts

Often when computing in category theory, one has to show that some square is cartesian. Depending on the number of maps involved, and their arrangement, it's somewhat difficult to write down exactly all of the relationships between the various squares.

We have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{matrix}C_3 &\to& C_2 &\to& C_1\\ \downarrow&&\downarrow&&\downarrow\\ D_3&\to &D_2&\to& D_1 \end{matrix}$$

Label the right vertical map $p$, and assume we further have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{matrix}\ast &\to& C_1\\ \downarrow&&\downarrow\\ D_3&\to& D_1 \end{matrix}$$

Where map on the top of the square is called $x$ (it classifies a point $x$, and the left vertical map is called $\sigma$. The bottom map and right map are the same maps from the first diagram $D_3\to D_1$ is simply the composite of the two bottom maps in the first diagram.

We would like to show that the canonical map between fibers $$C_3\times_{D_3\times_{D_1} C_1} \{\sigma,x\}\to C_2\times_{C_1} \{x\}\times_{D_2\times_{D_1} \{px\}}\{e\}$$ is a pullback of the canonical map $C_3\to C_2\times_{D_2} D_3$ (if you really care to know, this is to show that the first map is a trivial fibration, since we knew at the time that the second map was a trivial fibration).

Note: The vertex $\{e\}$ is the image of $\sigma$ in $D_2$.

The diagram I drew to realize this was a sheet of four cartesian squares with a cartesian cube attached at the top left square. This is before even taking fibers.

Another example: If anyone's following Ravi Vakil's notes for his schemes course, there is a similar, albeit substantially less complicated problem to prove that the "magic square" is cartesian. I did a similar computation, which ended again with the surprising cartesianness ultimately arising from a cartesian cube attached to a cartesian sheet.

Then the question: Is there a more efficient way to verify claims like this (i.e. without drawing out "every single possible pullback"?

-
When I was writing up my thesis I had to think a lot about moduli problems in algebraic geometry and I ended up with questions like this, and once or twice an even simpler sort of question: I had some crazy commutative diagram and I wanted to use some universal property of some subset of it (e.g. "this bit is a pullback of this bit so there's a map from here to here that makes this triangle commute") to draw in another arrow, and I wanted to verify that the new diagram was a commutative diagram! The first time I ran into this issue I had to think hard about what the correct definition... –  Kevin Buzzard Sep 18 '10 at 9:55
...of "commutative diagram" was, and then I had to think about what one actually needed to check in order to verify that adding an arrow to a commutative diagram made a new commutative diagram: "I know this new triangle commutes, but do I also have to check that this pentagon does or is it a formal consequence? Do I even have to check that every closed loop mentioning the new arrow commutes? No hang on, that doesn't always make sense...um..." sort of thing. So I agree that it can get very confusing! There's nothing deep though, it's just a matter of practice (in my experience). –  Kevin Buzzard Sep 18 '10 at 9:57

Try doing it in sets; then you can usually write it out "syntactically". It looks like you've got a map $$\{c_3\in C_3|p(c_3)=\sigma, fg(c_3)=x\} \to \{c_2 \in C_2| f(c_2)=x \}$$ sending $c_3\mapsto g(c_3)$ and you want to know it's the pullback of the map $$\{c_3\in C_3\} \to \{(c_2,d_3)| p(c_2)=g(d_3)\}$$ sending $c_3\mapsto (g(c_3),p(c_3))$. I'm writing "$p$" for all vertical maps, "$g$" for $C_3\to C_2$ and $D_3\to D_2$, and "$f$" for $C_2\to C_1$ and $D_2\to D_1$.
Having done this, your claim looks false: it looks like the pullback set is just $\{c_3\in C_3|gf(c_3)=x\}$. But quite possibly I've misinterpreted your diagrams.
The point of this exercise is that, if the set theoretic argument holds, then you can prove the version in the category $C$ using the Yoneda lemma; apply $\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathcal{C}}(T,{-})$ to everything, for arbitrary objects $T$, and observe you get a pullback of sets, therefore you must have a pullback in $\mathcal{C}$.