2
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\Psh{\mathit{Psh}}\newcommand\Pr{\mathit{Pr}}$Let $\Psh$ be the category of presheaf categories and cocontinuous functors which preserve tiny objects. There is a functor $(-)^\ast : \Psh \to \Psh$ sending $\Psh(C) \mapsto \Psh(C^\text{op})$. This functor is an involution in the sense that $(\Psh(C)^\ast)^\ast = \Psh(C)$. Note that there is a non-full inclusion $i : \Psh \to \Pr^L$ into the category of presentable categories and cocontinuous functors.

Question: Is there an involution $(-)^\star : \Pr^L \to \Pr^L$ such that $i(\Psh(C)^\ast) = (i(\Psh(C)))^\star$?

(I have freely mixed and matched terminology here from 1-categories and $\infty$-categories. The above question is really two questions: one in the 1-categorical case and another in the $\infty$-categorical case. Please ask if it's unclear what I'm saying!)

Notes:

  • Of course, the opposite category to a presentable category is rarely presentable. Note that the putative involution I'm asking about would not be obtained by taking the opposite category.

  • The duality involution on $\Psh$ is related to dualizability with respect to the Lurie tensor product. I'm pretty sure I've been told that the only dualizable objects in $\Pr^L$ are the retracts of presheaf categories. But I don't think that rules out an involution of the form I'm asking about. (I'm a bit confused on this point too, because the involution I'm asking about would anyway be covariant rather than contravariant like the one related to dualizability.)

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't $Psh$ equivalent to $\mathbf{Cat}$ under the requirement that functors preserve tiny objects? $\endgroup$
    – varkor
    May 3 at 13:38
  • $\begingroup$ @varkor Yes, $Psh$ is equivalent to the category of small, idempotent-complete categories and all functors. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    May 3 at 13:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the 1-categorical case, I think this is the "reflexivity" question posed here by Brandenburg, Chirvasitu, and Johnson-Freyd? They show there's a pretty broad class of categories where you get reflexivity even when you don't have dualizability. They don't give any counterexamples that aren't reflexive as far as I can tell. $\endgroup$ May 3 at 16:09
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, key point I missed, they're working in the k-linear setting which it looks like you aren't. $\endgroup$ May 3 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ @NoahSnyder : there's also the question of variance: taking duals is contravariant (although Tim already pointed this out). $\endgroup$ May 3 at 18:52

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

The answer is no, even if you restrict to the full subcategory of $Pr^L$ spanned by the $Psh(C)$'s. I'll answer in the $1$-categorical case but : a- the $\infty$-categorical case follows because presentable $1$-categories are presentable $\infty$-categories and b- even if it didn't strictly follow, one easily convinces oneself that the same method works.

Indeed, your involution provides, for any $Set\to Psh(C)$, a functor $Set = i(Set) \to i(Psh(C)) = Psh(C^{op})$, i.e., for any presheaf $F$ on $C$, a canonical presheaf on $C^{op}$.

Specifically, for every $F: C^{op} \to Set$ it gives you some $\iota F : C\to Set$ in a way compatible with left Kan extension along small functors $C\to D$. Note that on representables, it sends $\hom(-,x)$ to $\hom(x,-)$.

Now I claim that $\iota$ can be extended to a functor.

Namely, say I have a natural transformation of presheaves of $C$, $F\to G$, viewed as $\Delta^1 \to Psh(C)$, then I can extend it to $Psh(\Delta^1) \to Psh(C)$ and the two inclusions $\Delta^{\{i\}}\to \Delta^1$ show that applying my involution $i$ and restricting along $\Delta^1\to Psh(\Delta^1)$ gives me a transformation $\iota G\to \iota F$ (there is an inversion of direction because of $\Delta^1$ vs $(\Delta^1)^{op}$.

Furthermore, by looking at $\Delta^2$, it is easy to see that this really makes $\iota$ into a functor. In particular $\iota : Psh(C)\to Psh(C^{op})^{op}$ is a functor which restricts to the identity along the Yoneda embeddings.

Because $i$ is an involution and not only a functor, you can do the same thing in the opposite direction, and the fact that it's an involution shows that the composite $Psh(C)\to Psh(C^{op})^{op} \to Psh(C)$ is the identity, and same of course in the other direction. In particular, $Psh(C)\simeq Psh(C^{op})^{op}$, which is impossible.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\Pr{\mathit{Pr}}\newcommand\Pres{\mathit{Pres}}$Not an answer, but too long for a comment. Gabriel–Ulmer duality lends some intuition here. For simplicity I consider the finitely presentable case, though it should be clear everything generalises to the non-finite setting. There is a biequivalence between the 2-category $\Pr^L$ and the 2-category $\mathbf{Rex}$ of small finitely cocomplete categories and finitely cocontinuous functors. Since the duality involution on $\mathit{Psh}$ is inherited from that on $\mathbf{Cat}$, it is not a significant generalisation to rephrase the question as follows:

Is there a duality involution on $\mathbf{Rex}$ such that the following square commutes up to pseudonatural equivalence (where the 2-functor $\mathbf{Cat} \to \mathbf{Rex}$ is the free cocompletion under finite colimits)?

$\require{AMScd}\begin{CD} \mathbf{Rex}^{\text{co}} @>{(-)^{\star}}>> \mathbf{Rex} \\ @AAA @AAA \\ \mathbf{Cat}^{\text{co}} @>>{(-)^{\text{op}}}> \mathbf{Cat}. \end{CD}$

In this form, it seems unlikely there will be such a duality involution (certainly taking the opposite category does not work). However, if instead of considering the finitely cocomplete categories, we consider those categories with finite colimits and finite limits, a similar square does commute. By applying Gabriel–Ulmer duality again, we should get a duality involution on the sub-2-category of $\Pres^L$ whose objects have finitely complete subcategories of finitely presentable objects, and whose functors preserve finite limits, which satisfies the (pseudo)commutativity condition you are looking for.

$\endgroup$

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.