4 Limits
Definition 4.1 (Diagram).
Let
be a category (almost always small, and often finite). By a diagram of shape
in a category ,
we mean a functor .
The objects ,
are called vertices of ,
and morphisms ,
are called edges of .
For example, if
is the category
a diagram of shape
is a commutative
square in .
If is
instead
then a diagram
of shape is
a not-necessarily-commutative square.
Definition 4.2 (Cone, limit).
Let
be a diagram. A cone over
consists of an object (its
apex) together with morphisms
for each
(the legs of the cone) such that
commutes
for each
in
.
A morphism of cones
is a morphism
such that for
all . We have a
category of cones
over ; a limit
for is a terminal
object of .
Dually, a colimit for
is an initial cone under .
If is the functor sending
to the constant diagram
with all vertices then a
cone over is a natural
transformation .
Also, is another
name for , defined
as in Theorem 3.3.
So by Theorem 3.3, has limits
for all diagrams of shape
if and only if
has a right adjoint.
Example 4.3.
-
(a)
Suppose .
If ,
then ,
so a limit for
is a terminal object.
-
(b)
If , a diagram
of shape
is a pair ,
and a cone over it is a span A
limit for it is a categorical coproduct
Dually, a colimit for it is a coproduct
-
(c)
If is a (small) discrete
category, a (co)limit for
is a (co)product
().
-
(d)
If is
, then a diagram
of shape is a
parallel pair .
A cone over it consists of satisfying
, or equivalently
of satisfying
. So a limit
for is an
equaliser for ,
as defined in Example 2.6(g).
-
(e)
If is
then a diagram
of shape
is a cospan A cone
over it has
legs, but if we omit the (redundant) middle one, it’s a span
completing the cospan to a commutative square.
A limit for
is called a
pullback for .
If
has binary products and equalisers, we can construct pullbacks by forming the equaliser
. Dually,
colimits of shape
are called pushouts.
-
(f)
If is the
-element with
, a diagram of
shape is an object
equipped with an idempotent
. A limit (respectively colimit)
for is the monic (respectively
epic) part of a splitting of .
Note that the functor
in Example 3.2(e) is ,
so this explains the coincidence of left and right adjoints.
-
(g)
Suppose
is the ordered set of natural numbers. A diagram of shape
is a
direct sequence
and a colimit for it is called a direct limit .
Dually, we have inverse sequences
and their limits are called inverse limits.
For example in topology, an infinite dimensional CW-complex
is the direct limit
of its -skeletons
. In algebra, the
ring of -adic
integers is the limit of the inverse sequence
in .
Proposition 4.4.
Assuming that:
Then
Proof.
-
(i) & (ii)
Let
be a diagram. Form the products
We have morphisms
defined by
and for
all . Let
be an equaliser
for . The
morphisms form
a cone over ,
since for any
we have
|
It is a limit: given any cone
over ,
the
form a cone over the discrete diagram with vertices
, so they induce
a unique .
Then since
the s form a
cone over ,
so factors
uniquely as , and
is the unique
factorisation of
through .
-
(iii)
If is a terminal
object of , then
we can construct
as the pullback of Then we can
construct
as .
To form an equaliser of ,
consider the pullback of
Any cone over this
has .
So a limit cone has the universal property of an equaliser for
.
□
Definition 4.5 (Limit preserving / reflecting / creating).
Let
be a
functor.
-
(a)
We say
preserves limits of shape
if, given
and a limit
cone
for it,
is a
limit for
.
-
(b)
-
(c)
We say
creates limits of shape
if, given
and a
limit cone
over
,
there exists a
cone over
whose image under
is
,
and any such
cone is a
limit in
.
We say a category
is complete if it has all small limits.
Corollary 4.6.
In each of the statements of Proposition 4.4, we may replace
‘ has’ by
either ‘
has and
preserves’ or ‘
has and
creates’.
Example 4.7.
-
(a)
The functor
creates all small limits: given a family of groups ,
there’s a unique structure on
making the projections into homomorphisms, and it’s a product in .
Similarly for equalisers. But
doesn’t preserve or reflect coproducts.
-
(b)
The forgetful functor
preserves small limits and colimits, but doesn’t reflect them.
-
(c)
The inclusion
reflects coproducts, but doesn’t preserve them.
A coproduct
in
is nonabelian if both
and
are nontrivial. So the only cones in
thot could map to coproduct cones in
are those where either
or
is trivial. But if
then
in either category.
-
(d)
If
is a reflective subcategory of ,
the inclusion
creates any limits which exist.
Given
and a limit cone
for it in ,
the morphisms
(where
is the left adjoint, and
is the unit) form a cone over ,
so they induce a unique .
Now
is
since it’s a factorisation of the limit through itself. So ,
i.e.
is a factorisation of
through itself, so .
So the
form a limit cone in ,
and hence in .
-
(e)
If
has limits of shape ,
so does
for any ,
and the forgetful functor
creates them (strictly).
Given ,
we can regard it as a functor .
For each ,
is a diagram of shape
in ,
so has a limit .
Given
in ,
the composites
form a cone over ,
so induce a unique .
Functoriality of
follows fro uniqueness, and this is the unique way of making
into a functor which lifts the
to a cone in .
The fact that it’s a limit cone is straightforward.
Lemma 4.9.
Assuming that:
Proof 1.
Suppose ,
and suppose
and have limits
of shape .
Then the diagram
commutes, and all the
functors in it have
right adjoints, so
commutes up to isomorphism by Corollary
3.6.
□
Proof 2.
Suppose given
and a limit cone
over it. Give a cone
over ,
the transposes
form a cone over
by naturality of the adjunction, so induce a unique
such that
for all .
Then
is the unique morphism satisfying
for all .
□
Lemma 4.10.
Assuming that:
Then for each
,
has
limits of
shape
and the
forgetful
functor
creates them.
Proof.
Suppose given ;
write
and let
be a limit for .
Since the edges of
are morphisms in ,
the
form a cone over ,
so there’s a unique
satisfying
for all .
So
is the unique lifting of
to an object of
which makes the
into morphisms
in .
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:
Proof.
First suppose
is initial. The unique morphisms ,
,
form a cone over ,
and it’s a limit cone since if
is any cone over ,
then
is its unique factorisation through the one with apex .
Conversely, suppose given a limit
for .
Then
is weakly initial (i.e. it admits morphisms to every object of );
and if
then .
In particular,
for all ,
so
is a factorisation of the limit cone through itself, so
and
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 has a
left
adjoint if and only if
preserves
small limits and satisfies the
solution-set condition: for every
, there’s
a set
of
objects of
which is collectively
weakly initial.
Proof.
-
preserves limits by Lemma 4.9, and
is a singleton solution-set for each .
-
By Lemma 4.10, the categories
are complete, and they’re locally small since
is.
So we need to show: if
is complete and locally small, and has a weakly initial set ,
then it has an initial object. First form ;
then
is weakly initial. Now form the limit of the diagram with vertices
and ,
with the morphisms
being all endomorphisms of .
Writing
for this,
is still weakly initial. Suppose given ;
let
be their equaliser. There exists some .
Now ,
but we also have ,
so .
But
is monic, so we get ,
so
is split epic, and hence .
□
Example 4.13.
-
(a)
Consider the forgetful functor .
has and
preserves all small limits by Example 4.7(a), and
is locally small. Given ,
any
factors through
where
is the subgroup generated by .
Also .
Let
be a set of this cardinality: considering all subsets ,
all group structures on
and all functions ,
we get a solution-set at .
-
(b)
Let
be the category of complete lattices (posets with all joins and all meets).
creates limits just like .
In 1965, A. Hales showed that there exist arbitrarily large complete lattices generated by 3 element
subsets, so the solution-set condition fails for .
Now also that
doesn’t have a coproduct for 3 copies of .
Definition 4.14 (Subobject).
By a subobject of ,
we mean a monomorphism .
We order subobjects by
if there exists
We
write
for this preorder.
We say is
well-powered if every
is equivalent to a small poset.
For example, is well-powered
since the inclusions form a
representative set of subobjects of .
It is well-copowered since isomorphism classes of epimorphisms
correspond to
equivalence relations on .
Lemma 4.15.
Assuming that:
Proof.
Suppose given
with .
Then ,
but is
monic so .
So and
are
both factorisations of
through the
pullback, and hence
.
□
Theorem 4.16 (Special Adjoint Functor Theorem).
Assuming that:
Proof.
-
is Lemma 4.9.
-
Let .
As in Theorem 4.12,
inherits completeness and locally smallness from :
it also inherits well-poweredness since subobjects of
in
are those
in
such that
factors through .
(Note that the forgetful functor
preserves monomorphisms by Remark 4.8). And if
is a coseparating set for ,
then
is a coseparating set for .
So we need to show: if
is complete, locally small and well-powered and has a coseparating set
, then
has an initial
object. First form ;
now consider the limit of the diagram
whose edges are a representative
set of subobjects of .
If is the apex of the
limit cone, the legs
of the limit cone are all monic by the argument of Lemma 4.15, and in particular
is monic, and it’s a
least subobject of .
If we had , their
equaliser would be
a subobject of
contained in , so
is an isomorphism,
and hence .
Given any form
the product
over all pairs
with and the
morphism
with for all
. Since the
are coseparating,
is monic. We
also have
defined by
for all .
Form the pullback
then
is monic by
Lemma 4.15, so
factors as and
hence we have .
So
is initial. □
Remark 4.18.
-
(a)
The construction in Theorem 4.16 is closely parallel to Čech’s original construction of .
Given a space, Čech constructs
and the map
defined by .
Then he takes
to be the closure of the image of ,
i.e. the smallest subobject of
in .
-
(b)
We could have constructed
using Theorem 4.12: to get a solution-set for
at an object
of ,
note that any continuous
factors as
where
is the closure of the image of ,
and then since
has a dense subspace of cardinality ,
we have .