For each topos $\mathbb E$ let $\mathcal O(\mathbb E)$ be the locally presentable category of objects in $\mathbb E$. We can make $\mathcal O$ into a contravariant functor to the category of locally presentable categories (with morphisms being cocontinuous) by assigning to each geometric morphism $(f^\*, f_\*)$ the functor $f^\*$. By [Mac Lane, Moerdijk: Sheaves in Geometry and Logic] this functor is representable, that is there is a topos $\mathbb A$, called the object classifier, such that there is a natural equivalence $$ \mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb E, \mathbb A) \to \mathcal O(\mathbb E). $$ Now I wonder whether $\mathcal O$ has a right adjoint, which I want to call $\operatorname{Spec}$ due to the analogy with algebraic geometry, that is whether there exists a contravariant functor $\operatorname{Spec}$ from the category of locally presentable categories to the category of topoi (with geometric morphisms) such that there is a natural equivalence $$ \mathrm{Hom}(\mathbb E, \operatorname{Spec}\mathcal C) \to \mathrm{Hom}(\mathcal C, \mathcal O(\mathbb E)) $$ of categories.

(Here, topos shall mean Grothendieck topos.)

  • $\begingroup$ I guess you want to cut down to small categories C, in order to get a Spec(C) satisfying your requirements. When C is small, the theory of diagrams on C is a geometric theory, and therefore has a classifying topos Spec(C). So (modulo the size question), I think the answer to your question must be yes. But I'll let others more expert than me answer. $\endgroup$ Jan 10, 2012 at 9:35
  • $\begingroup$ You should be willing to change one of the $\mathrm{Hom}$ to something else, such as "continuous functors". But I'll let others more expert than me answer. $\endgroup$ Jan 10, 2012 at 10:32
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I like your question. But I'll let others more expert than me answer. $\endgroup$ Jan 10, 2012 at 11:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Tom: You are right; in my question I am a bit sloppy when it comes to size issues. @Andrej: Do you possibly mean cocontinuous? I will changed my question to address both comments in a manner that is hopefully helpful. $\endgroup$ Jan 10, 2012 at 11:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Martin: For the moment, the analogy is just formal to me. For the topos that I write $\mathbb{A}$ Mac Lane and Moerdijk write $S[U]$ in analogy to a polynomial ring because the set of morphisms from the polynomial algebra over a ground ring to another algebra is just the set of elements of that other algebra as the category of morphisms from a topos to $S[U]$ is the category of objects of that topos. I doesn't like that notation too much as one has to turn arrows around so that one should introduce, at least formally, somewhere a $\operatorname{Spec}$. $\endgroup$ Jan 10, 2012 at 21:44

1 Answer 1


This is described in the paper

Bunge and Carboni, The symmetric topos, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 105:233-249, 1995.

which describes the sense in which the construction you call Spec is analogous to the symmetric algebra construction.

Bunge and Carboni give a biadjunction between the bicategory R, which is the opposite of the bicategory of Grothendieck toposes, and the bicategory A of locally presentable categories and cocontinuous functors (equivalently, left adjoints).


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.