up | next | prev | ptail | tail |
The following definition is basic in what follows in this section. Here, unless otherwise provided, we shall assume that , , etc., are small -categories.
Definition 5.1 (Cones). Let . A map is called a cone from the base to the vertex (or simply a cone in to ) if satisfies the following:
Given the cone we denote by the the vertex of and for each , the morphism is called the component of at . The cone is said to be proper [normal] if satisfies the condition Con-3 [respectively Con-4] below:
Since is an (order) embedding of into , it is clear that the statement Con-3 is equivalent to
(16) |
It is useful to observe that a sufficient condition for the cone to be proper is that there exists such that is surjective (that is, ). It follows that any normal cone is proper.
Let [respectively , and ] denote the set of all cones [respectively proper and normal] cones in . Then
When is normal we write
(17) |
Therefore the cone is normal if and only if .
Recall that the preorder is a subcategory of so that the inclusion is a functor of to . Any cone in in the sense of the definition above, is a natural transformation from the base to the constant functor of at vertex ; that is, a cone in the sense of classical category theory (see for example, MacLane [1971]).
Given a cone in and a morphism the map defined, for all , by:
(18) |
is clearly a cone with vertex . Furthermore, if is a pair of composable morphisms with ,we have:
(19) |
The construction given in Equation (18) is especially useful when is proper.
Proposition 5.1. Let be a proper cone in and . Then the cone is prooper if and only if is surjective.
Proof. Suppose that where is surjective. Since is proper, Con-3 or equivalently, Equation (16) hold. Thus
Since by Equation (18), is the map sending to , we have
Let . Since the map is surjective there is such that . Since the cone is proper, by Cone-3, there is such that . This implies that for some . Then . Therefore .
Therefore by Cone-3, is proper.
Suppose that the cone is proper. By Cone-3 we have
Hence, for there is such that . Then there exist such that where ). Therefore is surjective. The fact that is an -category now shows that is surjective.
Recall that denote the set of all proper cones in . For , let
(20) |
By Proposition 5.1 is a unique proper cone with vertex . Therefore this defines a binary operation in .
Proposition 5.2. Let be a small -category. Then is a semigroup with respect to the binary composition defined by Equation (20).
Proof. It is sufficient to show that the binary composition defined by Equation (20) is associative. Let and . Then
Thus . If then by Proposition 5.1 . Thus is a semigroup.
Let be an -categorywith forgetful functor . Since is a subcategory of the small category and is (small) complete, the functor has the direct limit [see MacLane, 1971, page 105]. The direct-limit of consists of a set, which is denoted by , and a cone (the universal or limiting cone) from the base to the vertex [see Nambooripad, 1994, page 11 for details]. If is the inclusion functor , then we write for the limit if the category in which the limit is evaluvated is clear from the context. In particular, unless otherwise stated explicitly, will stand for the direct limit of the inclusion functor (evaluvated in ). We use these notations in the following lemma which provides a convenient representation for .
Proposition 5.3. Suppose that be an -category. Define
(21a) |
and let be the function defined, for all , by
(21b) |
Then is a proper cone from the base to the vertex and
(21c) |
If , then there is a unique map such that
(22) |
Furthermore, the cone is proper if and only if is surjective.
Proof. Since is an order embedding we see that the map is a cone from the base to the vertex . We prove that is universal. Suppose that is a cone from the base to the vertex . For each define
Since, by Equation (21a), is the union of sets , is defined for all . If , , then by the axiom (S:c) of Definition 3.1 there is such that , and . Since, as noted above, is inclusion preserving and is a cone on we have
This shows that is a map. The definition of shows that, for all ,
Thus the following diagram commutes
(23) |
for all . To prove the uniqueness of , suppose that is another map such that
for all which implies that . Therefore the cone is universal from the base to the vertex .
Let . Since is universal from to there is a unique map making the digram Definition 24 commute or equivalently, Equation (22) holds.
(24) |
Suppose that is a smigroup and let be a subcategory of with images. Let be the natural forgetful functor. By Propositions 4.1 and 4.2, is an -category with respect to the foregetful functor . Vertices of are -modules and so defined by Equation (21a) carries a unique module structure such that is a module morphism for each . Furthermore, as in Proposition 5.3, the map is a cone from the base to the vertex which is universal. It follows that is the direct limit evaluvated in . If then we can show similarly that is the direct limit evaluvated in . Thus we have:
Proposition 5.4. Let be a smigroup. Suppose that [or ] and that and are defined by Equations (21a) and (21b). Then Equation (21c) holds in which the direct limit is evaluvated in if [or in if ].
As above, let be a -category with forgetful functor . If [or ], and are module morphisms [translations of ideals] for every . The equation above shows that the map is a module morphism [translations of ideals]. Define on as follows:
(25) |
It is clear that, for each , is a transformation of . We have
Proposition 5.5. Let be a -category. For each , let be defined by Equation (25). Then
is a faithful representation of the semigroup by transformations on .
Proof. We shall show that is a homomorphism. Let . By Equation (20),
Hence, for all , we have
by Equation (25). Therefore .
Assume that and .
For let
The result above shows that each induces a map
(26) |
of the set to the set . The partial transformation of will be called the translation induced by . Notice that . Hence, in the following, we may restrict our consideration to translations induced by surjections.
Let . For each and for , define
Clearly, is a set for all and by the uniqueness of epimorphic component, is a map of the set to for .
In the following we use some standard constructions and terminologies of category theory; see MacLane [1971, Sections III.2 and III.3] and Nambooripad [1994, Sections I.2 and I.3]. In particular, given two functors we write if and only if
is a natural transformation.
Proposition 5.6. For each , Equations (27a) and (27b) defines an inclusion preserving covariant functor . Moreover, there is a unique natural isomorphism
Consequently, is a representable functor and represents it.
Proof. Let and . Then by Equations (27a) and (27b),
If then it follows readily from Equation (27b) that
In particular, . In view of the remarks following Equation (27b), this shows that is an inclusion preserving covariant functor.‘
To prove the remaining statements, by Yoneda lemma see [MacLane, 1971, Section III.2] and Nambooripad [1994, section I.2], it is sufficient to show that is universal element for in . Thus we must show that given any , there is a unique such that
By Equation (27b), the above equation holds for the choice . To see that this choice is unique, assum that also satisfies this equation. Then, again by Equation (27b), we have . Since is proper, . Choose . By Equation (18), we have
since is surjective (see Equation (17)). Hence and so, . This completes the proof.
The functor is called the covariant -functor etermined by the cone .
up | next | prev | ptail | top |