Mixing
Why is this universal map in a proof of the co-Yoneda lemma actually natural?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I'm attempting to prove that every presheaf is a canonical colimit of representable presheaves by constructing a limiting cocone directly (I'm aware that there are more elegant proofs, but this is more of an exercise).
Most of the proof is fine, but I'm having trouble understanding why a certain map is actually natural.
To fix notation, take a small category $mathbfC$ and let $mathbfy : mathbfC rightarrow widehatmathbfC$ denote the Yoneda embedding and $int P$ the category of elements of $P$. We intend to show that $P cong textcolim left( int P xrightarrowpi_P mathbfC xrightarrowmathbfy widehatmathbfC right)$.
Omitting most of the details, let $left( h_X xrightarrowalpha^X,x P right)_(X, x) in int P$ be the limit cocone.
($alpha^X,x$ is just defined to be the natural transformation corresponding to $x$ under the Yoneda correspondence), and let $left( h_X xrightarrowbeta^X,x Q right)_(X,x) in int P$ be another cone.
One reference defines the universal map $gamma : P rightarrow Q$ by letting $gamma_X(x)$ be the precisely the element of $Q(X)$ that $beta^X,x$ corresponds to under the Yoneda correspondence.
Explicitly, $gamma_X(x) = beta^X,x_X(1_X)$.
This seems perfectly natural (as in "no arbitrary choices") but I fail to see rigorously why it is a natural transformation.
We get the following diagrams for some $f : X rightarrow Y$.
And I fail to see why the two values in the top right should be equal.
I've tried writing down every commutative diagram I can think of at my disposal involving those actors but I can't seem to get the right subscripts in the right places. It's not seeming straightforward why this transformation should be natural.
Of course, like all things Yoneda related, it probably falls out of something simple and fundamental that I'm simply missing. What is the proper reasoning to show that this transformation is natural?
Finally, I'm not sure why the map $gamma$ is unique.
It's easy to show that $gamma circ alpha^X,x = beta^X,x$, but to show that $gamma$ is unique would mean to show that $beta^X,x = gamma circ alpha^X,x = delta circ alpha^X,x$ implies that $gamma = delta$, which amounts to showing that $alpha^X,x$ is an epimorphism, which does not seem to be an automatic conclusion. Why should this map be unique?
category-theory limits-colimits diagram-chasing yoneda-lemma
asked Jul 24 at 4:38
cemulate
501412
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I'm attempting to prove that every presheaf is a canonical colimit of representable presheaves by constructing a limiting cocone directly (I'm aware that there are more elegant proofs, but this is more of an exercise).
Most of the proof is fine, but I'm having trouble understanding why a certain map is actually natural.
To fix notation, take a small category $mathbfC$ and let $mathbfy : mathbfC rightarrow widehatmathbfC$ denote the Yoneda embedding and $int P$ the category of elements of $P$. We intend to show that $P cong textcolim left( int P xrightarrowpi_P mathbfC xrightarrowmathbfy widehatmathbfC right)$.
Omitting most of the details, let $left( h_X xrightarrowalpha^X,x P right)_(X, x) in int P$ be the limit cocone.
($alpha^X,x$ is just defined to be the natural transformation corresponding to $x$ under the Yoneda correspondence), and let $left( h_X xrightarrowbeta^X,x Q right)_(X,x) in int P$ be another cone.
One reference defines the universal map $gamma : P rightarrow Q$ by letting $gamma_X(x)$ be the precisely the element of $Q(X)$ that $beta^X,x$ corresponds to under the Yoneda correspondence.
Explicitly, $gamma_X(x) = beta^X,x_X(1_X)$.
This seems perfectly natural (as in "no arbitrary choices") but I fail to see rigorously why it is a natural transformation.
We get the following diagrams for some $f : X rightarrow Y$.
And I fail to see why the two values in the top right should be equal.
I've tried writing down every commutative diagram I can think of at my disposal involving those actors but I can't seem to get the right subscripts in the right places. It's not seeming straightforward why this transformation should be natural.
Of course, like all things Yoneda related, it probably falls out of something simple and fundamental that I'm simply missing. What is the proper reasoning to show that this transformation is natural?
Finally, I'm not sure why the map $gamma$ is unique.
It's easy to show that $gamma circ alpha^X,x = beta^X,x$, but to show that $gamma$ is unique would mean to show that $beta^X,x = gamma circ alpha^X,x = delta circ alpha^X,x$ implies that $gamma = delta$, which amounts to showing that $alpha^X,x$ is an epimorphism, which does not seem to be an automatic conclusion. Why should this map be unique?
category-theory limits-colimits diagram-chasing yoneda-lemma
asked Jul 24 at 4:38
cemulate
501412
You need to use the fact that each of your cocones is... a cocone, and that $beta^X,x$ is a natural transformation. For unicity, you have $gammacirc alpha^X,x=deltacirc alpha^X,x$ for all $X,x$ !
– Max
Jul 24 at 8:57
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I'm attempting to prove that every presheaf is a canonical colimit of representable presheaves by constructing a limiting cocone directly (I'm aware that there are more elegant proofs, but this is more of an exercise).
Most of the proof is fine, but I'm having trouble understanding why a certain map is actually natural.
To fix notation, take a small category $mathbfC$ and let $mathbfy : mathbfC rightarrow widehatmathbfC$ denote the Yoneda embedding and $int P$ the category of elements of $P$. We intend to show that $P cong textcolim left( int P xrightarrowpi_P mathbfC xrightarrowmathbfy widehatmathbfC right)$.
Omitting most of the details, let $left( h_X xrightarrowalpha^X,x P right)_(X, x) in int P$ be the limit cocone.
($alpha^X,x$ is just defined to be the natural transformation corresponding to $x$ under the Yoneda correspondence), and let $left( h_X xrightarrowbeta^X,x Q right)_(X,x) in int P$ be another cone.
One reference defines the universal map $gamma : P rightarrow Q$ by letting $gamma_X(x)$ be the precisely the element of $Q(X)$ that $beta^X,x$ corresponds to under the Yoneda correspondence.
Explicitly, $gamma_X(x) = beta^X,x_X(1_X)$.
This seems perfectly natural (as in "no arbitrary choices") but I fail to see rigorously why it is a natural transformation.
We get the following diagrams for some $f : X rightarrow Y$.
And I fail to see why the two values in the top right should be equal.
I've tried writing down every commutative diagram I can think of at my disposal involving those actors but I can't seem to get the right subscripts in the right places. It's not seeming straightforward why this transformation should be natural.
Of course, like all things Yoneda related, it probably falls out of something simple and fundamental that I'm simply missing. What is the proper reasoning to show that this transformation is natural?
Finally, I'm not sure why the map $gamma$ is unique.
It's easy to show that $gamma circ alpha^X,x = beta^X,x$, but to show that $gamma$ is unique would mean to show that $beta^X,x = gamma circ alpha^X,x = delta circ alpha^X,x$ implies that $gamma = delta$, which amounts to showing that $alpha^X,x$ is an epimorphism, which does not seem to be an automatic conclusion. Why should this map be unique?
category-theory limits-colimits diagram-chasing yoneda-lemma
asked Jul 24 at 4:38
cemulate
501412
I'm attempting to prove that every presheaf is a canonical colimit of representable presheaves by constructing a limiting cocone directly (I'm aware that there are more elegant proofs, but this is more of an exercise).
Most of the proof is fine, but I'm having trouble understanding why a certain map is actually natural.
To fix notation, take a small category $mathbfC$ and let $mathbfy : mathbfC rightarrow widehatmathbfC$ denote the Yoneda embedding and $int P$ the category of elements of $P$. We intend to show that $P cong textcolim left( int P xrightarrowpi_P mathbfC xrightarrowmathbfy widehatmathbfC right)$.
Omitting most of the details, let $left( h_X xrightarrowalpha^X,x P right)_(X, x) in int P$ be the limit cocone.
($alpha^X,x$ is just defined to be the natural transformation corresponding to $x$ under the Yoneda correspondence), and let $left( h_X xrightarrowbeta^X,x Q right)_(X,x) in int P$ be another cone.
One reference defines the universal map $gamma : P rightarrow Q$ by letting $gamma_X(x)$ be the precisely the element of $Q(X)$ that $beta^X,x$ corresponds to under the Yoneda correspondence.
Explicitly, $gamma_X(x) = beta^X,x_X(1_X)$.
This seems perfectly natural (as in "no arbitrary choices") but I fail to see rigorously why it is a natural transformation.
We get the following diagrams for some $f : X rightarrow Y$.
And I fail to see why the two values in the top right should be equal.
I've tried writing down every commutative diagram I can think of at my disposal involving those actors but I can't seem to get the right subscripts in the right places. It's not seeming straightforward why this transformation should be natural.
Of course, like all things Yoneda related, it probably falls out of something simple and fundamental that I'm simply missing. What is the proper reasoning to show that this transformation is natural?
Finally, I'm not sure why the map $gamma$ is unique.
It's easy to show that $gamma circ alpha^X,x = beta^X,x$, but to show that $gamma$ is unique would mean to show that $beta^X,x = gamma circ alpha^X,x = delta circ alpha^X,x$ implies that $gamma = delta$, which amounts to showing that $alpha^X,x$ is an epimorphism, which does not seem to be an automatic conclusion. Why should this map be unique?
category-theory limits-colimits diagram-chasing yoneda-lemma
asked Jul 24 at 4:38
cemulate
501412
edited Jul 24 at 5:05
asked Jul 24 at 4:38
cemulate
501412
asked Jul 24 at 4:38
cemulate
501412
asked Jul 24 at 4:38
cemulate
501412
501412
You need to use the fact that each of your cocones is... a cocone, and that $beta^X,x$ is a natural transformation. For unicity, you have $gammacirc alpha^X,x=deltacirc alpha^X,x$ for all $X,x$ !
– Max
Jul 24 at 8:57
add a comment |Â
You need to use the fact that each of your cocones is... a cocone, and that $beta^X,x$ is a natural transformation. For unicity, you have $gammacirc alpha^X,x=deltacirc alpha^X,x$ for all $X,x$ !
– Max
Jul 24 at 8:57
You need to use the fact that each of your cocones is... a cocone, and that $beta^X,x$ is a natural transformation. For unicity, you have $gammacirc alpha^X,x=deltacirc alpha^X,x$ for all $X,x$ !
– Max
Jul 24 at 8:57
You need to use the fact that each of your cocones is... a cocone, and that $beta^X,x$ is a natural transformation. For unicity, you have $gammacirc alpha^X,x=deltacirc alpha^X,x$ for all $X,x$ !
– Max
Jul 24 at 8:57
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
So what you want is to prove that
$$beta_X^X,P(f)(y)(1_X)=Q(f)(beta_Y^Y,y(1_Y)).tag1label1$$
For this, you can use the fact that the maps $(beta^X,x)_(X,x)in int P$ form a cocone, which tells you that, since $f$ defines a map $(X,P(f)(y))to (Y,y)$ in $int P$, you have $beta^X,P(f)(y)=beta^Y,ycirc mathbfy(f)$. In particular, the left-hand side in eqref1 is equal to
$$beta_X^Y,y(mathbfy(f)_X(1_Y))=beta_X^Y,y(f).$$
Moreover, you can use the fact that $beta^Y,y:h_X=mathbfC(_,X)Rightarrow Q$ is natural : this tells you in particular that $Q(f)circ beta^Y,y_Y=beta^Y,y_Xcirc h_Y(f)$, and thus the right-hand side of eqref1 is equal to
$$beta^Y,y_X(h_Y(f)(1_Y))=beta_X^Y,y(f).$$
This confirms that the two sides are equal.
As for the uniqueness, assume that $delta$ is a natural transformation $PRightarrow Q$ such that $deltacircalpha^X,x=beta^X,x$ for all $(X,x)in int P$. Note that, by definition of the cocone $(alpha^X,x)_(X,x)in int P$ and thanks to the Yoneda lemma, we have $alpha^X,x_X(1_X)=x$ for all $X$ and all $xin P(X)$. In particular,
$$delta_X(x)=delta_X(alpha^X,x_X(1_X))=beta_X^X,x(1_X)=gamma_X(x),$$
hence $delta=gamma$.
answered Jul 24 at 11:53
Arnaud D.
14.7k52141
Ah, I had tried combining the naturality square and the cocone triangle for the $beta$'s but I hadn't thought of meeting in the middle like that! As for the uniqueness, I think I was just looking at it from the wrong angle - your argument is quick and simple. Thanks!
– cemulate
Jul 24 at 16:51
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
So what you want is to prove that
$$beta_X^X,P(f)(y)(1_X)=Q(f)(beta_Y^Y,y(1_Y)).tag1label1$$
For this, you can use the fact that the maps $(beta^X,x)_(X,x)in int P$ form a cocone, which tells you that, since $f$ defines a map $(X,P(f)(y))to (Y,y)$ in $int P$, you have $beta^X,P(f)(y)=beta^Y,ycirc mathbfy(f)$. In particular, the left-hand side in eqref1 is equal to
$$beta_X^Y,y(mathbfy(f)_X(1_Y))=beta_X^Y,y(f).$$
Moreover, you can use the fact that $beta^Y,y:h_X=mathbfC(_,X)Rightarrow Q$ is natural : this tells you in particular that $Q(f)circ beta^Y,y_Y=beta^Y,y_Xcirc h_Y(f)$, and thus the right-hand side of eqref1 is equal to
$$beta^Y,y_X(h_Y(f)(1_Y))=beta_X^Y,y(f).$$
This confirms that the two sides are equal.
As for the uniqueness, assume that $delta$ is a natural transformation $PRightarrow Q$ such that $deltacircalpha^X,x=beta^X,x$ for all $(X,x)in int P$. Note that, by definition of the cocone $(alpha^X,x)_(X,x)in int P$ and thanks to the Yoneda lemma, we have $alpha^X,x_X(1_X)=x$ for all $X$ and all $xin P(X)$. In particular,
$$delta_X(x)=delta_X(alpha^X,x_X(1_X))=beta_X^X,x(1_X)=gamma_X(x),$$
hence $delta=gamma$.
answered Jul 24 at 11:53
Arnaud D.
14.7k52141
Ah, I had tried combining the naturality square and the cocone triangle for the $beta$'s but I hadn't thought of meeting in the middle like that! As for the uniqueness, I think I was just looking at it from the wrong angle - your argument is quick and simple. Thanks!
– cemulate
Jul 24 at 16:51
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
So what you want is to prove that
$$beta_X^X,P(f)(y)(1_X)=Q(f)(beta_Y^Y,y(1_Y)).tag1label1$$
For this, you can use the fact that the maps $(beta^X,x)_(X,x)in int P$ form a cocone, which tells you that, since $f$ defines a map $(X,P(f)(y))to (Y,y)$ in $int P$, you have $beta^X,P(f)(y)=beta^Y,ycirc mathbfy(f)$. In particular, the left-hand side in eqref1 is equal to
$$beta_X^Y,y(mathbfy(f)_X(1_Y))=beta_X^Y,y(f).$$
Moreover, you can use the fact that $beta^Y,y:h_X=mathbfC(_,X)Rightarrow Q$ is natural : this tells you in particular that $Q(f)circ beta^Y,y_Y=beta^Y,y_Xcirc h_Y(f)$, and thus the right-hand side of eqref1 is equal to
$$beta^Y,y_X(h_Y(f)(1_Y))=beta_X^Y,y(f).$$
This confirms that the two sides are equal.
As for the uniqueness, assume that $delta$ is a natural transformation $PRightarrow Q$ such that $deltacircalpha^X,x=beta^X,x$ for all $(X,x)in int P$. Note that, by definition of the cocone $(alpha^X,x)_(X,x)in int P$ and thanks to the Yoneda lemma, we have $alpha^X,x_X(1_X)=x$ for all $X$ and all $xin P(X)$. In particular,
$$delta_X(x)=delta_X(alpha^X,x_X(1_X))=beta_X^X,x(1_X)=gamma_X(x),$$
hence $delta=gamma$.
answered Jul 24 at 11:53
Arnaud D.
14.7k52141
Ah, I had tried combining the naturality square and the cocone triangle for the $beta$'s but I hadn't thought of meeting in the middle like that! As for the uniqueness, I think I was just looking at it from the wrong angle - your argument is quick and simple. Thanks!
– cemulate
Jul 24 at 16:51
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
So what you want is to prove that
$$beta_X^X,P(f)(y)(1_X)=Q(f)(beta_Y^Y,y(1_Y)).tag1label1$$
For this, you can use the fact that the maps $(beta^X,x)_(X,x)in int P$ form a cocone, which tells you that, since $f$ defines a map $(X,P(f)(y))to (Y,y)$ in $int P$, you have $beta^X,P(f)(y)=beta^Y,ycirc mathbfy(f)$. In particular, the left-hand side in eqref1 is equal to
$$beta_X^Y,y(mathbfy(f)_X(1_Y))=beta_X^Y,y(f).$$
Moreover, you can use the fact that $beta^Y,y:h_X=mathbfC(_,X)Rightarrow Q$ is natural : this tells you in particular that $Q(f)circ beta^Y,y_Y=beta^Y,y_Xcirc h_Y(f)$, and thus the right-hand side of eqref1 is equal to
$$beta^Y,y_X(h_Y(f)(1_Y))=beta_X^Y,y(f).$$
This confirms that the two sides are equal.
As for the uniqueness, assume that $delta$ is a natural transformation $PRightarrow Q$ such that $deltacircalpha^X,x=beta^X,x$ for all $(X,x)in int P$. Note that, by definition of the cocone $(alpha^X,x)_(X,x)in int P$ and thanks to the Yoneda lemma, we have $alpha^X,x_X(1_X)=x$ for all $X$ and all $xin P(X)$. In particular,
$$delta_X(x)=delta_X(alpha^X,x_X(1_X))=beta_X^X,x(1_X)=gamma_X(x),$$
hence $delta=gamma$.
answered Jul 24 at 11:53
Arnaud D.
14.7k52141
So what you want is to prove that
$$beta_X^X,P(f)(y)(1_X)=Q(f)(beta_Y^Y,y(1_Y)).tag1label1$$
For this, you can use the fact that the maps $(beta^X,x)_(X,x)in int P$ form a cocone, which tells you that, since $f$ defines a map $(X,P(f)(y))to (Y,y)$ in $int P$, you have $beta^X,P(f)(y)=beta^Y,ycirc mathbfy(f)$. In particular, the left-hand side in eqref1 is equal to
$$beta_X^Y,y(mathbfy(f)_X(1_Y))=beta_X^Y,y(f).$$
Moreover, you can use the fact that $beta^Y,y:h_X=mathbfC(_,X)Rightarrow Q$ is natural : this tells you in particular that $Q(f)circ beta^Y,y_Y=beta^Y,y_Xcirc h_Y(f)$, and thus the right-hand side of eqref1 is equal to
$$beta^Y,y_X(h_Y(f)(1_Y))=beta_X^Y,y(f).$$
This confirms that the two sides are equal.
As for the uniqueness, assume that $delta$ is a natural transformation $PRightarrow Q$ such that $deltacircalpha^X,x=beta^X,x$ for all $(X,x)in int P$. Note that, by definition of the cocone $(alpha^X,x)_(X,x)in int P$ and thanks to the Yoneda lemma, we have $alpha^X,x_X(1_X)=x$ for all $X$ and all $xin P(X)$. In particular,
$$delta_X(x)=delta_X(alpha^X,x_X(1_X))=beta_X^X,x(1_X)=gamma_X(x),$$
hence $delta=gamma$.
answered Jul 24 at 11:53
Arnaud D.
14.7k52141
answered Jul 24 at 11:53
Arnaud D.
14.7k52141
answered Jul 24 at 11:53
Arnaud D.
14.7k52141
answered Jul 24 at 11:53
Arnaud D.
14.7k52141
14.7k52141
Ah, I had tried combining the naturality square and the cocone triangle for the $beta$'s but I hadn't thought of meeting in the middle like that! As for the uniqueness, I think I was just looking at it from the wrong angle - your argument is quick and simple. Thanks!
– cemulate
Jul 24 at 16:51
add a comment |Â
Ah, I had tried combining the naturality square and the cocone triangle for the $beta$'s but I hadn't thought of meeting in the middle like that! As for the uniqueness, I think I was just looking at it from the wrong angle - your argument is quick and simple. Thanks!
– cemulate
Jul 24 at 16:51
Ah, I had tried combining the naturality square and the cocone triangle for the $beta$'s but I hadn't thought of meeting in the middle like that! As for the uniqueness, I think I was just looking at it from the wrong angle - your argument is quick and simple. Thanks!
– cemulate
Jul 24 at 16:51
Ah, I had tried combining the naturality square and the cocone triangle for the $beta$'s but I hadn't thought of meeting in the middle like that! As for the uniqueness, I think I was just looking at it from the wrong angle - your argument is quick and simple. Thanks!
– cemulate
Jul 24 at 16:51
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2861015%2fwhy-is-this-universal-map-in-a-proof-of-the-co-yoneda-lemma-actually-natural%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
You need to use the fact that each of your cocones is... a cocone, and that $beta^X,x$ is a natural transformation. For unicity, you have $gammacirc alpha^X,x=deltacirc alpha^X,x$ for all $X,x$ !
– Max
Jul 24 at 8:57