20
$\begingroup$

$\DeclareMathOperator\Ind{Ind}$Let $C$ be a (small) category, and $I$ a finite category, is it true that the natural functor $\Ind(C^I) \to \Ind(C)^I$ is an equivalence of categories? where $\Ind$ denotes the category of ind-objects (so the free completion under filtered colimits) and the exponentials are for categories of functors.

This is proved by Lurie in Higher topos theory (proposition 5.3.5.15) when $C$ is an infinity category and $I$ is a finite poset. He gives an example to show that this cannot be generalized to the case of $I$ a finite simplicial set — but finite category is much more restrictive and his example doesn't rule this out at all.

I'm mostly interested in the case where $C$ is a 1-category and already has finite colimits, but I'm curious of any interesting things that can be said more generally.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Being a finite category is both more and less restrictive than being a finite simplicial set... Do you want to restrict to categories whose nerve is a finite simplicial set? Or do you want to allow things like $BC_2$, with finitely many morphisms but infinite nerve? Or do you just want things like the parallel-pair category $\ast \rightrightarrows \bullet$, whose nerve is finite? (For the benefit of others--Lurie's example has $I = \Delta^1 / \partial \Delta^1$, which is a finite simplicial set, but categorically equivalent to the walking endomorphism category $B\mathbb N$, which is infinite.) $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 0:24
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The "Théorème d'approfimation uniforme" on page 55 of Carol Meyer's thesis Completion of categories under certain limits proves a result of this form. Specifically, it says the desired result is true if $I$ is finite has "has no loops". The second condition means that the objects of $I$ have no non-identity endomorphisms. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 0:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This seems unlikely to be true for $I$ a finite group. Take a setting in which there are no free actions on finite objects, but there are free actions on infinite objects. For example, let $C$ be the full subcategory of topological spaces of the form $\mathbb R^n$. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 1:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For an algebraic version: let $C$ be bounded chain complexes all of whose homology is in degree 0. The ind-category has an infinite complex with a free action and the homology not free, but this is not a limit of actions on finite complexes with homology in degree 0, because those actions cannot be free. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 2:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BenWieland I don't fully understand your examples - but given that they seem to contradict the theorem by Makkai cited by Ivan below - I really need to look at them more closely. For the first example, I know that there is no continuous free action of finite groups on $\mathbb{R}^n$, but that's not completely clear to me that there are free action on Ind objects. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 15:17

3 Answers 3

21
$\begingroup$

So, the question appeared more subtle than I initially thoughts so I have written a short paper with more references and the details of what I'm going to say below. It is available here.

Here is the summary:

First, Makkai's theorem cited by Ivan is indeed false. Building on Ben Wieland's comment (thank you very much for this!), one get the following counter-example.

Let $I=B(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z})$ the category with one object $*$ and one non-trivial automorphism satisfying $f^2=1$ and let $C$ be the subcategory of $I \times \omega$ containing all the objects, and all the arrows $(*,n) \to (*,m)$ when $n < m$ but only the identity when $n = m$.

In particular, functors $I \to C$ are all constant, as $C$ has no non-trivial endomorphisms, but there is a non-trivial functor $I \to Ind(C)$: indeed the colimits of the chain of the $(*,n)$ is in the Ind completion, and as a presheaf, it is the pullback along the projection $C \to I$ of the unique representable presheaf, so it comes with a $\mathbb{Z}_2$-action and hence is a non-trivial functor $ I \to Ind(C)$, which doesn't belong to $Ind(C^I)$.

As $C$ has no non-trivial endomorphisms it is Cauchy complete, hence $C$ identifies with the full subcategory of $\omega$-presentable objects of $Ind(C)$ and hence the exponential $Ind(C)^I$ is a counter-example to Makkai's theorem.

Now this construction can be generalized to any category and any ordinal, and this leads to the following theorem:

Theorem: Let $I$ be a category and $\kappa$ be a regular cardinal. The following condition are equivalent.

  1. $I$ is $\kappa$-small, has no non-identity endomorphisms, and its posetal relfection is well-founded.
  2. for all category $C$, the functor $Ind_\kappa(C^I) \to Ind_\kappa(C)^I$ is an equivalence.
  3. for all $\kappa$-accessible category $A$, the category $A^I$ is $\kappa$-accessible with its $\kappa$-presentable objects being the functors from $I$ to $\kappa$-presentable objects of $A$.

In particular, one recovers Lurie's version of the theorem (I mean for 1-categories), as well as Meyer's result mentioned by Peter Haine. Also Makkai theorem is false even for uncountable $\kappa$. But this isn't the end of the story. If we are interested in category with colimits, then everything works more nicely and we get a positive answer to my questions:

Theorem: Let $I$ be a category and $\kappa$ be a regular cardinal. The following conditions are equivalent.

  1. $I$ is $\kappa$-small.
  2. for all category $C$ with $\kappa$-small colimits, the functor $Ind_\kappa(C^I) \to Ind_\kappa(C)^I$ is an equivalence.
  3. for all locally $\kappa$-presentable category $A$, the category $A^I$ is locally $\kappa$-presentable, with its $\kappa$-presentable objects being the functors from $I$ to $\kappa$-presentable objects of $A$.

The proofs of these and additional details are in the paper linked above.

It seems Makkai's theorem was used in a few places in the literature - but from what I can tell, all uses I've seen are covered by these two theorems.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Are you still planning to write up your notes about this result? I am interested in reading them. $\endgroup$
    – varkor
    Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 9:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Varkor Yes I am, they are almost done but I need to finish grading exams first ;-) if you would like to see a draft, send me an email. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 12:06
  • $\begingroup$ No rush, I was just curious :) I'm happy to wait until they're ready. $\endgroup$
    – varkor
    Commented Apr 17, 2023 at 23:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe you'll be interested by the fact that a special case of the first theorem also appears as Proposition 8.8.5 in Exposé i in SGA 4 (the category $I$ is called "rigid" if it has no non-identity endomorphism). $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 5, 2023 at 4:42
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @varkor : The paper is now available :-) $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 14, 2023 at 13:09
11
$\begingroup$

Yes. This follows directly from 5.1 in Strong conceptual completeness for first-order logic by Makkai (1988, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, doi:10.1016/0168-0072(88)90019-X).

$\endgroup$
6
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I guess it only shows it for Cauchy complete categories, but I'm happy with this. Thanks! $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 4, 2023 at 15:05
  • $\begingroup$ So... at this point, I neither fully understand Makkai's proof nor the counter-example proposed by Ben Wieland, so I'm really not sure of anything ^^ $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 5, 2023 at 23:49
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't accessibility require all countable filtering colimits? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2023 at 1:10
  • $\begingroup$ @BenWieland yes but only in the sense that Ind(C) have them. Being $\omega$-accessible is equivalent to be of the form Ind(C) for C any category and the $\omega$-presentable objects of Ind(C) are the retracts of objects of $C$. So If Makkai's theorem is correct (which I'm seriously starting to doubt due to your remarks) this implies the results in the question - at least in the case where $C$ is Cauchy complete ( = all idempotent splits) I need to think more to figure out if your example does really contradicts this, but it definitely feels like it does... $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2023 at 18:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @BenWieland : yes, but the idea is to use Makkai's result to Ind(C), which is always accessible, and deduce the result in my question for C when C is Cauchy complete. But I'm now convinced that Makkai's theorem is false thanks to your exemples (well, small modification so that they are Cauchy complete). I'll add some details in the next few days. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 8, 2023 at 17:29
3
$\begingroup$

This short answer is a complement to Simon's detailed answer. In Simon's answer he considers arbitrary $\kappa$-accessible categories $A$ (in the first theorem) and locally $\kappa$-presentable ones (in the second theorem).

There is an intermediate case arising when a $\kappa$-accessible category $A$ has colimits of all $\lambda$-indexed chains, for some fixed infinite cardinal $\lambda<\kappa$. (This presumes that $\kappa$ is uncountable.) A $\lambda$-indexed chain in $A$ is a functor $\lambda\longrightarrow A$, where the ordered set $\lambda$ is interpreted as a category.

Theorem: Let $\kappa$ be a regular cardinal, $\lambda<\kappa$ be a smaller infinite cardinal, and $A$ be a $\kappa$-accessible category with colimits of $\lambda$-indexed chains. Let $I$ be a $\kappa$-small category. Then the category $A^I$ is $\kappa$-accessible, and the $\kappa$-presentable objects of $A^I$ are the functors from $I$ to the $\kappa$-presentable objects of $A$.

References: this is Theorem 6.1 from my new preprint "Notes on limits of accessible categories", https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.16773 .

Prior art: the Pseudocolimit Theorem of Raptis and Rosicky, https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3042 , http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/30/19/30-19abs.html , Section 2, is a somewhat similar and related result. This is based on Proposition 3.1 from the paper of Chorny and Rosicky, https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0605 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpaa.2012.01.015 .

In fact, the idea goes back, at least, as far as the unpublished 1977 preprint of Friedrich Ulmer "Bialgebras in locally presentable categories" (Univ. of Wuppertal), Theorem 3.8 and Corollary 3.9.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Do you have a copy of "Bialgebras in locally presentable categories" you might be able to share? I have previously looked for the preprint without success. $\endgroup$
    – varkor
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 4:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @varkor Yes, I have a copy I got from Rosicky yesterday. It is a bit bulky (four .zip files, several megabytes each). If you are not in a hurry, I will post the files on my homepage when I come to my office, and give the link here. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 5:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @varkor I put the files of Ulmer's preprint on my homepage at math.cas.cz/~positselski (rubric "Old manuscript file share"). Please let me know if you have any problem downloading them. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 8:56
  • $\begingroup$ Wonderful, thank you so much! $\endgroup$
    – varkor
    Commented Oct 27, 2023 at 19:14

You must log in to answer this question.

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