7 Regular Categories
Definition 7.1 (Image, cover).
We say a category
has images if, for every
in ,
there exists a least
in
through which
factors. We call
the image of ,
and we say
is a cover if its image is .
We write
⇾
to indicate that
is a cover.
Proof.
If is
strong epic, applying the definition to commutative squares of the form
shows
that
is
a
cover.
For the converse, a cover
is epic since it can’t factor through the equaliser of any
with
. To
verify the other condition, suppose given
then the
pullback of
along
is
monic by Lemma
4.15,
and
factors through it, so it’s
an isomorphism. So we get
by composing with the top edge of the
pullback square.
□
Here, if has images, image
facorisation defines a functor :
given
if we
form the image factorisations we get a
unique
making both squares commute.
Definition 7.3 (Regular category).
We say
is regular if it has finite limits and images, and image factorisations are stable under pullback, i.e. if
the left hand square above is a pullback then so are both right hand squares. (This is equivalent to
saying that covers are stable under pullback).
Proposition 7.5.
Assuming that:
Proof.
-
Regular epimorphism implies strong epimorphism by Exercise 21˙4.
-
Suppose ⇾ is a
cover; let
be its kernel-pair, i.e. the pullback of Suppose
given with
; form the
image ⇾ of
. We’ll show
is an isomorphism,
so that is a
factorisation of
through .
is a cover
since is, so we
need to prove
is monic.
Let such
that ;
form the pullback
factors
as ⇾⇾, so
is a cover,
and
is a cover.
Now so
factors
through .
But and
is monic,
so ,
so ,
i.e. .
Also is
epic, so .
□
By a relation
in a category
with finite products, we mean an isomorphism class of subobjects
.
If has images, we define
the composite of
by forming the pullback
forming the
image of .
This is well-defined up to isomorphism and has the
as
-sided
identities.
Lemma 7.6.
Composition of relations in
is associative if and only if
is regular.
Proof.
-
Suppose given ⇽.
Consider the relations
Composing the right hand pair first, we get and
thus we get
Composing the left hand pair first, we begin by forming the pullback and we endup
with the image of ;
so
must be a cover.
-
Suppose given relations .
If we form the pullbacks then both
and
are the
image of .
□
We write for the category whose
objects are those of and whose
morphisms are relations. Note that
is just
as defined in Example 1.3(e).
We have a faithful functor which is
the identity on objects and sends
to (for faithfulness, see
Exercise 4.22(i)). We write
for .
Note that there’s an isomporphism which
is the identity on objects and sends
to ; we denote
this by , and
write
for .
Also, is enriched
over (provided
is locally small, i.e.
is well-powered),
i.e. each
has a partial order which is preserved by composition.
We say is left
adjoint to if
and
.
Proposition 7.7.
is
a left adjoint in if and
only if it is of the form .
Proof.
-
We show : the
composite is just
the kernel-pair
of , and
factors through
it. Also
is the image of so it
contains .
-
Conversely, suppose
has a right adjoint .
In forming ,
we take the pullback So the
image of
contains , so
factors as a cover followed
by a split epimorphism, so
is a cover.
Now, in the pullback
and
are covers, but
the image of is
contained in
so .
But ,
so ,
,
and
. So
is monic, and hence
an isomorphism, so .
□
P. Freyd developed a theory of allegories which have the structure of categories of relations and axiomatised those
allegories for which
the subcategory
is regular.
In a regular category ,
we say a relation
is reflexive if 𝟙,
symmetric if , and
transitive if .
is an equivalence relation if it
has all three properties. For any
in , the
kernel-pair of
is an equivalence relation. We say
an equivalence relation is effective
if it occurs as a kernel-pair, and
is effective regular if all equivalence relations are effective.
is regular but not effective
regular: is a non-effective
equivalence relation on .
Note that an equivalence relation is idempotent in
, and if
is an allegory and
is a class of symmetric
idempotents in then
(as defined in Exercise
1.18) is an allegory; and if
is for a regular
category ,
then:
Proposition 7.8.
Assuming that:
Note that if
is effective regular, its equivalence relations are split idempotents in
: if
is the
kernel-pair of ⇾
then it splits as
(as we saw for
in Exercise 1.19).
In ,
is the power-set
of , the unit is
the mapping of
Example 1.7(c), and .
Note that (isomorphism classes of) subobjects of
are in bijection with morphisms .
C. J. Mikkelses showed that any topos has finite colimits; we’ll give Bob Paré’s proof, which is much
simpler.
Proposition 7.10.
Assuming that:
Proof.
We make the assignment
into a functor
and a functor :
given ,
corresponds
to the image of ,
and
corresponds to the pullback of
Given
corresponding
to
,
corresponds to the
image of
and similarly
given
, composing
with
corresponds to
pulling back along
.
Given a pullback square
in
,
commutes, since both ways correspond to the
image of the left vertical composite in
where
both squares are
pullbacks.
Now, as in Example 5.14(d), we have that if
is a coreflexive in ,
then
is a
split coequaliser
coequaliser in
.
Also,
is
self-adjoint on the right, and it
reflects isomorphisms by Exercise 7.17(v). The second assertion follows from
Proposition
5.8(i).
□
Definition 7.11 (Support, totally supported, capital).
-
(a)
-
(b)
We say a
regular category
is
totally supported if every object is well-supported. We say
is
almost totally supported if every object is either well-supported or a strict
initial object, where we
cann an object
strict if every
is an isomorphism. (Given finite
limits, a strict object is
initial since for any
there exists
,
and the
equaliser of any pair
is
).
-
(c)
A representable functor
always preserves limits, so it’s a regular functor if and only if
is
cover-projective (c.f. Definition 2.10).
Lemma 7.12.
Assuming that:
Proof.
Since covers are stable under pullback, we need to show that every ⇾
is split epic. If ,
nothing to prove. If not, the projections
aren’t equal (since their coequaliser is ⇾,
by Proposition 7.5). So there exists
not factoring through their equaliser, so there exists .
□
If is regular, the
full subcategory
of well-supported objects is closed under finite products since
is a pullback, and under
pullbacks of covers since if ⇾
then
and
have the same support.
We write for the category
obtained from by adjoining
a strict initial object :
this is regular and almost totally-supported and the functor
sending all
non-well-supported objects to
is regular (c.f. Exercise 5.19).
Lemma 7.13.
Assuming that:
Proof.
Recall from Exercise 7.17:
regular implies
regular for any ,
and for any
in
pullback along
defines a regular functor ,
which has a left adjoint
sending
to .
And
reflects isomorphisms if and only if
is a cover.
We’ll define
as
where
is easier to describe.
To satisfy the desired conclusion for a single well-supported object ,
enough to take ,
since
acquires a point
not factoring through
for any proper .
More generally, for any finite list
of well-supported objects, we can take .
We define a base to be a finite list
of distinct well-supported objecs of .
We preorder the set
of bases by
if
contains all the members of .
We write
for the product
and if
we write
for the product projection .
This makes
into a functor .
Hence the assignment ,
is ‘almost’ a functor .
We now define :
its objects are pairs
where
is a base and
is an object of .
Morphisms
are represented by pairs
where
is a base containing
and
and
in ,
subject to the relation which identifies
with
if
and the pullback of
to
is isomorphic to .
Clearly, each
sits inside
as a non-full subcategory; so in particular
is a subcategory of ,
is regular, and the inclusions
are isomorphism-reflecting regular functors.
Given a finite diagram in ,
we can choose
such that all edges of the diagram appear as morphisms in ,
and take the limit there, and this is a limit in .
Similarly for images.
Also, if a morphism
becomes an isomorphism in ,
its inverse must live
for some ,
hence
is an isomorphism .
We define :
the induced functor
is still isomorphism reflecting since
is almost totally-supported. □
Lemma 7.14.
Assuming that:
Proof.
Consider the sequence
where each
is obtained from
by the construction of Lemma 7.13.
We define
to be the pseudo-colimit of this sequence: objects are pairs
where ,
and morphisms
are represented by pairs
where
and
in ,
modulo the identification of
with
if
and .
The proof that
is regular, and that the embeddings
are isomorphism-reflecting regular functors, is as in Lemma 7.13.
Given any non-invertible monomorphism
in ,
it lives in
for some ,
so there exists
in
not factoring through .
But if
isn’t monic in ,
the legs
of its kernel-pair aren’t equal, so there exists
not factoring through their equation, so
are distinct but have the same composite with .
So
reflects monomorphisms and hence reflects isomorphisms. □
Theorem 7.15.
Assuming that:
Proof.
Let be a representative
set of subobjects of
in , and
for each
consider the composite
|
where the third factor is the functor of Lemma 7.14 and the fourth is represented by .
Given any non-invertible morphism
in ,
if
is the support of
then
remains non-invertible in
and its codomain is well-supported there, so it remains non-invertible in
and hence in .
So these functors collectively reflect isomorphisms. □
˙