6
$\begingroup$

$\def\colim{\operatorname{colim}} \def\hom{\operatorname{Hom}}$Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a category and let $S$ be a class of morphisms of $\mathcal{C}$ that is a left multiplicative system. The localization of $\mathcal{C}$ with respect to $S$ is a category $S^{-1}\mathcal{C}$ with same objects as $\mathcal{C}$ and where a morphism $X\to Y$ in $S^{-1}\mathcal{C}$ is a pair of maps $X\xrightarrow{f}Y'\xleftarrow{s}Y$ in $\mathcal{C}$, with $s\in S$, modulo a certain equivalence relation (cf. 04VB).

Fact. $S^{-1}\mathcal{C}$ is not locally small in general (even when $\mathcal{C}$ is) [ref].

The localization $S^{-1}\mathcal{C}$ comes equipped with a canonical localization functor $Q:\mathcal{C}\to S^{-1}\mathcal{C}$. In Gabriel, Zisman, Calculus of Fractions and Homotopy Theory, Proposition I.3.1 states that $Q$ preserves finite direct limits. Actually, their proof works for finite colimits, as it is stated and done with the same proof in the Stacks Project 05Q2. The proof boils down to noticing $$ \label{hom_loc}\tag{1} \operatorname{Hom}_{S^{-1}\mathcal{C}}(X,Y)=\underset{(Y\to Y')\in Y/S}{\colim}\hom_\mathcal{C}(X,Y') $$ (see 05Q0 for the definition of $Y/S$) and then using that

$(*)$ finite limits commute with filtered colimits in the category of sets.

Here's the big but: in the colimit \eqref{hom_loc} the category $Y/S$ is a not small category in general, so we cannot apply $(*)$ to something that may not be a set! The Stacks Project has a funny way of dealing with this: for them, by default all categories are small (unless one works with certain specific categories) 0013. So 05Q2 constitutes a sound proof, for one assumes $\mathcal{C}$ is small. The problem is Gabriel and Zisman's proof: they do it for a possibly non-small category, so I don't see how one can get something meaningful now.

Even though it is not clear in which category the colimit is taken over, formula \eqref{hom_loc} shows up in the nLab and Verdier's thesis, Corollaire 2.2.4.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I would say every category of small in a sufficiently large universe, so it works. Size issues are only important when it comes to relative sizes. $\endgroup$
    – Jonas Frey
    Commented Mar 19 at 17:10
  • $\begingroup$ @JonasFrey Do you mean "every category is small in a sufficiently large universe"? If yes, what is the meaning of these words? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 19 at 17:55
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that's what I mean! It's a foundational principle promoted eg by Grothendieck: categories whose collections of objects are "classes" in the ZF-sense of the world, are very unwieldy, so instead of using them we postulate a Grothendieck universe and say that everything inside the universe is small, and things outside are not (necessarily). This way even the "large" objects are set-sized, and can be manipulated without foundational problems. $\endgroup$
    – Jonas Frey
    Commented Mar 19 at 18:51
  • $\begingroup$ @JonasFrey Thanks for the explanation ^^. Do you know any reference for these ideas? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 20 at 7:17
  • $\begingroup$ @ElíasGuisadoVillalgordo Try ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Grothendieck+universe. The assertion (*) is correct in ZFC + enough Grothendieck universes. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 20 at 9:18

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .