4
$\begingroup$

Background: Let $\mathsf{C}$ be a category and $S$ be a collection of morphisms (let's suppose that $S$ has all the identities and is closed under multiplication just to simplify a bit). We can construct the localization $S^{-1}\mathsf{C}$ as a category such that $\operatorname{Ob}(S^{-1}\mathsf{C})=\operatorname{Ob}(\mathsf{C})$ and such that a morphism is an equivalence class of strings of the form $s_0^{-1}\circ f_1\circ s_2^{-1}\circ f_3\circ \cdots\circ f_n$, where we impose all the obvious compatibility conditions such as $s^{-1}\circ s\sim\operatorname{id}$. (These compatibility conditions can be found on the page 2 of Dragan Milicic notes.)

One problem with localization in all its generality (as described above) is that if $\mathsf{C}$ is an additive category, it is not clear if $S^{-1}\mathsf{C}$ is also additive or not. For that, we impose the axiom "LMS2":

This implies that every morphism in the localization can be represented as $s^{-1}\circ f$ and that any finite number of morphisms can be represented using the same "denominator" $s$. In particular, we can define an additive structure on $S^{-1}\mathsf{C}$ as $$s^{-1}\circ f + s^{-1}\circ g=s^{-1}\circ (f+g).$$

In basically every reference that I could find, the authors also required an axiom "LMS3" given by

I feel like this last axiom is only useful for giving a simpler (is it really simpler?) description of the equivalence relation between morphisms without needing to ever consider strings of length larger than 2.

Is there a real need for this axiom LMS3 that I didn't see?

$\endgroup$
13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If C is a small category, and $S \subseteq Mor C$ is any set of morphisms, there always exists a small category $S^{-1}C$ and a functor $C \to S^{-1} C$ which universally forces the morphisms of $S$ to become invertible. Likewise, if $C$ is a small additive category and $S \subseteq Mor C$, there is always a small additive category $S^{-1}_{add} C$ universally inverting the morphisms of $S$. So in some sense, there is no "real need" for any requirements whatsoever on $S$, without further clarification of what one's "real needs" are. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    Aug 4, 2021 at 17:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TimCampion firstly, I didn't know that a localization of an additive category is always additive. Do you have some reference for that? Anyway, I think that "having a simple structure for the sum of morphisms on the localization" is a good motivation for considering the axiom LMS2. But I don't really see what we gain with the axiom LMS3. $\endgroup$
    – Gabriel
    Aug 4, 2021 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ I don't claim that $S^{-1} C = S^{-1}_{add} C$ in general. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    Aug 4, 2021 at 17:20
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ A related discussion about the construction of the additive localization by closing $S$ under finite sums: mathoverflow.net/q/44047/1017 $\endgroup$ Aug 4, 2021 at 17:56
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Gabriel Axioms of the form LMS3 are part of the notion of calculus of fractions. They ensure that the localization will have as many finite (co)limits as $C$. This kind of axiom is not necessary to understand localizations and only gives useful sufficient conditions ensuring the localization is well behaved. $\endgroup$ Aug 4, 2021 at 18:01

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

The axiom LMS3 you ask about directly corresponds to the axiom that any parallel pair of arrows in a filtered category can be coequalised. The idea is to consider the full subcategory of $\mathcal{C}_{/ N}$ spanned by the $(L', s')$ where $s' : L' \to N$ is in $\mathcal{S}$, which by a minor abuse of notation I will denote by $\mathcal{S}_{/ N}$. (If $\mathcal{S}$ has the 2-out-of-3 property and contains all identity morphisms then this is no abuse of notation.)

Given an object $(L', s')$ in $\mathcal{S}_{/ N}$ and a morphism $h : L' \to P$ in $\mathcal{C}$, we have a morphism $h \circ (s')^{-1} : N \to P$ in $\mathcal{C} [\mathcal{S}^{-1}]$. This defines a cocone from the obvious diagram of shape $(\mathcal{S}_{/ N})^\textrm{op}$ to $\mathcal{C} [\mathcal{S}^{-1}] (N, P)$, and hence a map
$$\varinjlim_{(L', s') : (\mathcal{S}_{/ N})^\textrm{op}} \mathcal{C} (L', P) \to \mathcal{C} [\mathcal{S}^{-1}] (N, P)$$ When you have a Gabriel–Zisman calculus of fractions, $(\mathcal{S}_{/ N})^\textrm{op}$ is filtered and the comparison map is a bijection. Filtered colimits have many convenient properties and in this situation we are able to easily transfer convenient properties of $\mathcal{C}$ – e.g. existence of finite limits and/or colimits – to $\mathcal{C} [\mathcal{S}^{-1}]$.

$\endgroup$

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.