Sunday, 20 July 2008

ct.category theory - Can epi/mono for natural transformations be checked pointwise?

Theo, the answer is basically "yes". It's a qualified "yes", but only very lightly qualified.



Precisely: if a natural transformation between functors mathcalCtomathcalD is pointwise epi then it's epi. The converse doesn't always hold, but it does if mathcalD has pushouts. Dually, pointwise mono implies mono, and conversely if mathcalD has pullbacks.



The context for this --- and an answer to your more general question --- is the slogan




(Co)limits are computed pointwise.




You have, let's say, two functors F,G:mathcalCtomathcalD, and you want to compute their product in the functor category mathcalDmathcalC. Assuming that mathcalD has products, the product of F and G is computed in the simplest possible way, the 'pointwise' way: the value of the product FtimesG at an object AinmathcalC is simply the product F(A)timesG(A) in mathcalD. The same goes for any other shape of limit or colimit.



For a statement of this, see for instance 5.1.5--5.1.8 of these notes. (It's probably in Categories for the Working Mathematician too.) See also sheet 9, question 1 at the page linked to. For the connection between monos and pullbacks (or epis and pushouts), see 4.1.31.



You do have to impose this condition that mathcalD has all (co)limits of the appropriate shape (pushouts in the case of your original question). Kelly came up with some example of an epi in mathcalDmathcalC that isn't pointwise epi; necessarily, his mathcalD doesn't have all pushouts.

No comments:

Post a Comment