5
$\begingroup$

Let $(\mathcal{E},\mathcal{S})$ be a realized limit sketch, i.e. a locally small category $\mathcal{E}$ with a class $\mathcal{S}$ of limit cones in it. It is not assumed that $\mathcal{E}$ is small, and $\mathcal{S}$ is allowed to be a proper class. We have the category $\mathrm{Mod}(\mathcal{S})$ of $\mathcal{S}$-models, which are functors $\mathcal{E} \to \mathbf{Set}$ which map the cones in $\mathcal{S}$ to limit cones in $\mathbf{Set}$. It does not have to be locally small. If $(\mathcal{E},\mathcal{S})$ is small, it is well-known that $\mathbf{Mod}(\mathcal{S})$ is cocomplete (by this I always mean: existence of small colimits). The reason is that the inclusion functor $\mathbf{Mod}(\mathcal{S}) \hookrightarrow \mathrm{Hom}(\mathcal{E},\mathbf{Set})$ has a left adjoint, and we can use the left adjoint ("sheafification") to produce colimits. I am pretty sure that there must be examples of (large) realized limit sketches such that $\mathbf{Mod}(\mathcal{S})$ is not cocomplete, but I haven't been able to find one.

Question. What is an example of a realized limit sketch $\mathcal{S}$ such that $\mathbf{Mod}(\mathcal{S})$ is not cocomplete?

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

Here is a nice trick to construct an example. But maybe there are more naturally occuring examples. I feel like there should be a better way to explain the construction, but I don't know how for now.

The core of the idea is the following observation:

  • The category of suplattices (poset with arbitrary suprema) is monadic over Set (the power set being the monad) so it can be represented by a product sketch. It has all colimits.

  • The category of sets X endowed with a "successor" function $f:X \to X$ is also sketchable, in fact it is a presheaf category, it also has all colimits.

  • But, the category of suplattices $S$ endowed with a successor function (not a morphism) $f:S \to S$ does not have all colimits. These are called ZF-algebras in algebraic set theory and the initial ZF-algebra can be identified with the class of all sets (the supremum being identified with the union of set and the function $f$ with $X \mapsto \{X\}$). See for example page 4-5 of An outline of algebraic set theory by Awodey for more details).

This category of ZF-algebras is (probably) not going to be sketchable directly (at least, not with a 'realized' sketch) but we can exploit this fact nonetheless.

The trick is to consider the category of triples $(X,A,B)$, where $X$ is a set, $A$ and $B$ are "subsingleton" (i.e. sets that are either empty or singletons) and such that if $A = \{*\}$ then $X$ has a suplattice structure, and if $B = \{*\}$ then $X$ has a function $f:X \to X$. Think of $A$ and $B$ as "toggles" that activate additional structure on $X$. Functions $(X,A,B) \to (X',A',B')$ only exist if $A \leqslant A'$ and $B \leqslant B'$ and are functions $X \to X'$ which are suplattice morphisms if $A=1$ and preserve the "successor" function if $B=1$.

This is sketchable, informally because you can use a sketch that does not contain any object where both $A=\{*\}$ and $B=\{*\}$ at the same time (no axiom involve both structure at the same time). But using colimit of representable, we will get objects where $A = B =\{*\}$, hence ZF-algebras and arrive in a world where colimits can be large.

Let me try to give an explicit description of the sketch. I'll describe the opposite category of the sketch, so that I can work with full subcategory of the category of models which I find more convenient. It will have for objects:

  • For each set $X$ an object $T_X$ corresponding to $(X,\emptyset,\emptyset)$.
  • For each set $X$ an object $F_X$ corresponding to $(\mathbb{N} \times X,\emptyset,1)$ with the obvious succesor function.
  • An object $S_X$ for each set $X$ corresponding to $(\mathcal{P}(X),1,\emptyset)$ with its suplattice structure.

They have all their morphisms between the corresponding models, so basically the $T_X$ have all functions between sets as morphisms, the $S_X$ have their suplattice morphisms between them, the $F_X$ have the morphisms of $\mathbb{N}$-sets between them and the only morphisms between these classes are the maps from the $T_X$ to the $F_Y$ and $S_Z$ that corresponds respectively to functions from $X$ to $\mathbb{N} \times Y$ and from $X$ to $\mathcal{P}(Z)$.

If we only put the obvious (co)limit condition on each of these classes separately, then the category of models would a category of triples of a suplattice $S$, an $\mathbb{N}$-set $F$ and a set $T$ together with functions from $S$ to $T$ and from $F$ to $T$. That is not enough yet to break co-completeness.

But we have one more card to play:

First one removes the condition that $S_\emptyset$ and $T_\emptyset$ are initial, which expands the category above a bit by replacing "suplattice" and "$\mathbb{N}$-set" by the categories obtained by freely adding initial objects to the category of suplattices and $\mathbb{N}$-sets (see the edit below for more details).

Then we add new marked cocone, implementing the condition that $S_\emptyset \coprod T_1 = S_{1}$ and $F_\emptyset \coprod T_1 = F_{1}$ through the obvious maps. It is easy to check that these are indeed colimits in the category of representables (i.e. in the sketch), so this is still a realized sketch.

Now, the triples as above are model of this new sketch if as soon as the suplattice $S$ is not the freely added initial object, then the map $S \to T$ is a bijection and similarly, as soon as the $F$ is not the freely added initial object, then the map $F \to T$ is a bijection.

This gives us exactly the category of triples $(X,A,B)$ described above ($A$ and $B$ just remembering if the "suplatice" or the "$\mathbb{N}$-Set" are the freely added initial object or not).

So, in the resulting category of models, if you try to construct the coproduct of $(\{0,1\},1,\emptyset)$ with $(\emptyset,\emptyset,1)$ you are constructing $(V,1,1)$ where $V$ is the initial ZF-algebra, which is always large (it is in bijection with the class of all sets as mentioned before).


Edit: let me details a side construction that I'm using which I think will clarify a bit what I'm doing here.

Assume that I have a "realized" sketch $T$, which I see as a full subcategory of its category of models. For simplicity, I'm assuming that T is stable under finite coproducts, and that all cocone in T that are colimits in the category of models are marked cocone of the sketch.

I now consider the sketch T' with the same underlying category as T, but where I have removed from the list of marked cocone all the empty ones (i.e. the cocone that would specify an initial object). I claim that the category of T' model identify with the category of T-model together with a new, freely added initial object given by the empty model.

Indeed, as all special cocone of T' are non-empty, one easily see that the empty model (sending each ovject of $T$ to the empty set) is a model of T'.

Now given any non-empty model X of T', i.e. such that X(a) is inhabited for some object $a$. In T', if I write $e$ for the initial object of $T'$, we have $a \coprod e \simeq a$ and it corresponds to a marked cocone $a,e \to a$. This mean that the unique map $e \to a$, induce a map $X(a) \to X(e)$ such that the map $X(a) \to X(a) \times X(e)$ is a bijection, in particular, the projection map $X(a) \times X(e) \to X(a)$ being a right inverse of it is also a bijection. But as $X(a)$ is inhabited, this implies that $X(e)=\{*\}$, and hence that $X$ is not justs a $T'$ model but actually a $T$ model as it is also compatible to the empty cocone of $T$.

Given that all $T$-model are non-empty (as $X(e)=\{*\}$) we have that a $T'$ model is either the empty model or a $T$-model. Hence the result.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot, Simon! I will have a closer look at this construction. $\endgroup$ Commented May 23, 2021 at 23:09
  • $\begingroup$ I have to admit that there several things which I don't understand yet. 1) What are the "obvious colimit conditions" in (the first version of) the sketch? (I have some guess, but I am not sure.) 2) What do you mean with the sentence "which expands the category above a bit by replacing "suplattice" and "N-set" by the categories obtained by freely adding initial objects to the category of suplattices and N-sets."? I assume that you remove two distinguished cones, so that the model category gets larger, but how does this model category look like explicitly? [...] $\endgroup$ Commented May 25, 2021 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ In particular, I am confused that we do not get freely added terminal objects because of the dualization process (contravariant functors)? 3) Which "category of representables" do you mean in "It is easy to check that these are indeed colimits in the category of representables"? 4) Why is $S \to T $ a bijection in the modified category of models? 5) Do you mean "coproduct" instead of "pushout" in the last sentence? $\endgroup$ Commented May 25, 2021 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ 1)By 'obvious colimit" I guess I mean all cocone that a colimits cocone in the category of suplattice/N-set. Though probably there are smaller more explicit familly that also works. (2) I've added some details about it at the end of the answer. (3) By representable, I mean object of the sketch (As you work with realizable sketches, I've witched to thinking about the sketch as a full subcategory of the category of models) $\endgroup$ Commented May 26, 2021 at 0:41
  • $\begingroup$ (4) I feel the details I have added might clarify this as well as it is fairly similar, but let me know if it is still unclear. (5) Absolutely. I've corrected it. $\endgroup$ Commented May 26, 2021 at 0:43

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .