4 Limits

Definition 4.1 (Diagram). Let J be a category (almost always small, and often finite). By a diagram of shape J in a category C, we mean a functor D:JC. The objects D(j), jobJ are called vertices of D, and morphisms D(α), αmorJ are called edges of D.

For example, if J is the category

∙      ∙


∙      ∙
a diagram of shape J is a commutative square in C.

If J is instead

∙      ∙

∙      ∙
then a diagram of shape J is a not-necessarily-commutative square.

Definition 4.2 (Cone, limit). Let D:JC be a diagram. A cone over D consists of an object A (its apex) together with morphisms λj:AD(j) for each jobJ (the legs of the cone) such that

            A


λλDjj(′αD)(j)              D (j′)
commutes for each α:jj in J.

A morphism of cones (A,(λj|jobJ))(B,(μj|jobJ)) is a morphism f:AB such that μjf=λj for all j. We have a category Cone(D) of cones over D; a limit for D is a terminal object of Cone(D).

Dually, a colimit for D is an initial cone under D.

PIC

If Δ:C[J,C] is the functor sending A to the constant diagram with all vertices A then a cone over D is a natural transformation ΔAD.

Also, Cone(D) is another name for (ΔD), defined as in Theorem 3.3op.

So by Theorem 3.3, C has limits for all diagrams of shape J if and only if Δ has a right adjoint.

Example 4.3.

Proposition 4.4. Assuming that:

Then

Proof.

Definition 4.5 (Limit preserving / reflecting / creating). Let F:CD be a functor.

  • (a)
    We say F preserves limits of shape J if, given D:JC and a limit cone (L,(λj|jobJ)) for it, (FL,(Fλj|jobJ)) is a limit for FD:JD.
  • (b)
    We say F reflects limits of shape J if given D:JC, any cone over D which maps to a limit cone in D is a limit in C.
  • (c)
    We say F creates limits of shape J if, given D:JC and a limit cone (L,(λj|jobJ)) over FD, there exists a cone over D whose image under F is (L,(λj)), and any such cone is a limit in C.

We say a category C is complete if it has all small limits.

Corollary 4.6. In each of the statements of Proposition 4.4, we may replace ‘C has’ by either ‘D has and G:DC preserves’ or ‘C has and DC creates’.

Proof. Exercise.

Example 4.7.

Remark 4.8. In any category, AfB is monic if and only if

 A       A


11ffAAA       B
is a pullback. Hence, if D has pullbacks, then any monomorphism in [C,D] is pointwise monic, since its pullback along itself is contsructed pointwise.

Lemma 4.9. Assuming that:

Then G preserves all limits which exist in D.

Proof 1. Suppose (FG), and suppose C and D have limits of shape J. Then the diagram

    𝒞           𝒟


FΔΔ[J,F][J,”𝒞”]      [J,”𝒟”]
commutes, and all the functors in it have right adjoints, so
    [J,”𝒟 ”]     [J,”𝒞”]


[JliG,mGJ]𝒟           𝒞
commutes up to isomorphism by Corollary 3.6.

Proof 2. Suppose given D:JD and a limit cone (L,(λj|jobJ)) over it. Give a cone (A,(μj:AGD(j))) over GD, the transposes μj¯:FAD(j) form a cone over D by naturality of the adjunction, so induce a unique μ¯:FAL such that λjμ¯=μj¯ for all j.

Then μ:AGL is the unique morphism satisfying (Gλj)μ=μj for all j.

Lemma 4.10. Assuming that:

Then for each AobC, (AG) has limits of shape J and the forgetful functor (AG)UD creates them.

Proof. Suppose given D:J(AG); write D(j)=(UD(j),fj:AGUD(j)) and let (L,(λj|jobJ)) be a limit for UD. Since the edges of D are morphisms in (AG), the fj form a cone over GUD, so there’s a unique f:AGL satisfying (Gλj)f=fj for all j.

So (L,f) is the unique lifting of L to an object of (AG) which makes the λj into morphisms (L,f)(UD(j),fj) in (AG). The fact that these morphisms form a limit cone is straightforward.

Can we represent an initial object as a limit?

Lemma 4.11. Assuming that:

Then specifying an initial object of C is equivalent to specifying a limit for 1C:CC.

Proof. First suppose I is initial. The unique morphisms IA, AobC, form a cone over 1C, and it’s a limit cone since if (A,(fB:AB|BobC)) is any cone over 1C, then fI is its unique factorisation through the one with apex I.

Conversely, suppose given a limit (I,(fA:IA|AobC)) for 1C. Then I is weakly initial (i.e. it admits morphisms to every object of C); and if g:IA then gfI=fA. In particular, fAfI=fA for all A, so fI is a factorisation of the limit cone through itself, so fI=1I and I is initial.

The ‘primitive’ Adjoint Functor Theorem follows from Lemma 4.10, Lemma 4.11 and Theorem 3.3. But it only applies to preorders (see Example Sheet).

Theorem 4.12 (General Adjoint Functor Theorem). Assuming that:

Then G:DC has a left adjoint if and only if G preserves small limits and satisfies the solution-set condition: for every AobC, there’s a set {(Bi,fi)|iI} of objects of (AG) which is collectively weakly initial.

Proof.

Example 4.13.

Definition 4.14 (Subobject). By a subobject of AobC, we mean a monomorphism AA. We order subobjects by (AA)(AA) if there exists

A′              A′′


        A
We write SubC(A) for this preorder.

We say C is well-powered if every SubC(A) is equivalent to a small poset.

For example, Set is well-powered since the inclusions AA form a representative set of subobjects of A. It is well-copowered since isomorphism classes of epimorphisms AB correspond to equivalence relations on A.

Lemma 4.15. Assuming that:

Then k is monic.

Proof. Suppose given DmlP with kl=km. Then fhl=gkl=gkm=fhm, but f is monic so hl=hm. So l and m are both factorisations of

  D      A


hkllB
through the pullback, and hence l=m.

Theorem 4.16 (Special Adjoint Functor Theorem). Assuming that:

Then G:DC has a left adjoint if and only if it preserves all small limits.

Proof.

Example 4.17. Consider the inclusion KHausITop. Tychonoff’s Theorem says KHaus is closed under (small) products in Top. It’s closed under equalisers, since equalisers of pairs in KHaus are closed inclusions.

So KHaus is complete, and I preserves limits. KHaus and Top are locally small, and KHaus is well-powered since subobjects of X is isomorphic to inclusions of closed subspaces. And KHaus has a coseparator [0,1], by Uryson’s Lemma.

So by Theorem 4.16, I has a left adjoint β.

Remark 4.18.