Hom, Limits and Colimits












0














Let $I$ be a small category and $C$ a category. Suppose that
$$ Hom_C ( A, lim_{ leftarrow I} D_i) cong lim_{leftarrow I} Hom(A,D_i) $$ for $A in C$ and $D: I rightarrow C$ when the expression above makes sense. Is it true that for the same $A$ and $D$ we have
$$ Hom ( lim_{ rightarrow I} D_i, A) cong lim_{leftarrow I} Hom(D_i,A)?$$



I was wondering if this is true, but I couldn't figured out a solution. Could someone give me a hint or an answer?






category-theory







share|cite|improve this question






















  • These are true for all $A$ and $D$ (if the limit or colimit of $D$ exists) by definition of (co)limit.
    – Arnaud D.
    Nov 29 at 13:57


















0














Let $I$ be a small category and $C$ a category. Suppose that
$$ Hom_C ( A, lim_{ leftarrow I} D_i) cong lim_{leftarrow I} Hom(A,D_i) $$ for $A in C$ and $D: I rightarrow C$ when the expression above makes sense. Is it true that for the same $A$ and $D$ we have
$$ Hom ( lim_{ rightarrow I} D_i, A) cong lim_{leftarrow I} Hom(D_i,A)?$$



I was wondering if this is true, but I couldn't figured out a solution. Could someone give me a hint or an answer?






category-theory







share|cite|improve this question






















  • These are true for all $A$ and $D$ (if the limit or colimit of $D$ exists) by definition of (co)limit.
    – Arnaud D.
    Nov 29 at 13:57
















0












0








0







Let $I$ be a small category and $C$ a category. Suppose that
$$ Hom_C ( A, lim_{ leftarrow I} D_i) cong lim_{leftarrow I} Hom(A,D_i) $$ for $A in C$ and $D: I rightarrow C$ when the expression above makes sense. Is it true that for the same $A$ and $D$ we have
$$ Hom ( lim_{ rightarrow I} D_i, A) cong lim_{leftarrow I} Hom(D_i,A)?$$



I was wondering if this is true, but I couldn't figured out a solution. Could someone give me a hint or an answer?






category-theory







share|cite|improve this question













Let $I$ be a small category and $C$ a category. Suppose that
$$ Hom_C ( A, lim_{ leftarrow I} D_i) cong lim_{leftarrow I} Hom(A,D_i) $$ for $A in C$ and $D: I rightarrow C$ when the expression above makes sense. Is it true that for the same $A$ and $D$ we have
$$ Hom ( lim_{ rightarrow I} D_i, A) cong lim_{leftarrow I} Hom(D_i,A)?$$



I was wondering if this is true, but I couldn't figured out a solution. Could someone give me a hint or an answer?






category-theory




category-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 29 at 13:46









H R

1608




1608












  • These are true for all $A$ and $D$ (if the limit or colimit of $D$ exists) by definition of (co)limit.
    – Arnaud D.
    Nov 29 at 13:57




















  • These are true for all $A$ and $D$ (if the limit or colimit of $D$ exists) by definition of (co)limit.
    – Arnaud D.
    Nov 29 at 13:57


















These are true for all $A$ and $D$ (if the limit or colimit of $D$ exists) by definition of (co)limit.
– Arnaud D.
Nov 29 at 13:57






These are true for all $A$ and $D$ (if the limit or colimit of $D$ exists) by definition of (co)limit.
– Arnaud D.
Nov 29 at 13:57












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














First off: both your statements, given the existence of the (co)limits in question, are true and easy to find in standard literature. Furthermore, assuming that we only know the first statement, we can conclude the second by applying the first to the opposite functor $D^text{op}: I^text{op} to D^text{op}$:



Taking the opposite category converts limits into colimits and vice versa. I.e., denoting the same objects in the opposite category with $D_i^text{op}$, we have $lim_{rightarrow I^text{op}}(D_i^text{op}) = (lim_{leftarrow I} D_i)^text{op}$, or in more modern notation, $lim D^text{op} = (text{colim} D)^text{op}$, where by $(lim D)^text{op}$ I mean the corresponding cocone in the opposite category. Thus the second isomorphism is derived as follows:



$$
Hom_C ( lim_{ rightarrow I} D_i, A) = Hom_{C^text{op}}(A, lim_{ leftarrow I^text{op}} D_i^text{op}) cong lim_{ leftarrow I^text{op}} Hom_{C^text{op}}(A, D_i^text{op}) = lim_{leftarrow I} Hom_C(D_i,A)
$$



So no, existence of $lim D$ does not imply existence of $text{colim} D$, but only of $text{colim} D^text{op}$. But if it exists, this shows that your second isomorphism directly follows from the first.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • But the existance of $lim_{leftarrow I} D_i$ implies the existance of $lim_{rightarrow I} D_i$?
    – H R
    Nov 29 at 16:07












  • No, it doen't. I'll extend my answer soon.
    – Gnampfissimo
    Nov 29 at 17:37











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018637%2fhom-limits-and-colimits%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














First off: both your statements, given the existence of the (co)limits in question, are true and easy to find in standard literature. Furthermore, assuming that we only know the first statement, we can conclude the second by applying the first to the opposite functor $D^text{op}: I^text{op} to D^text{op}$:



Taking the opposite category converts limits into colimits and vice versa. I.e., denoting the same objects in the opposite category with $D_i^text{op}$, we have $lim_{rightarrow I^text{op}}(D_i^text{op}) = (lim_{leftarrow I} D_i)^text{op}$, or in more modern notation, $lim D^text{op} = (text{colim} D)^text{op}$, where by $(lim D)^text{op}$ I mean the corresponding cocone in the opposite category. Thus the second isomorphism is derived as follows:



$$
Hom_C ( lim_{ rightarrow I} D_i, A) = Hom_{C^text{op}}(A, lim_{ leftarrow I^text{op}} D_i^text{op}) cong lim_{ leftarrow I^text{op}} Hom_{C^text{op}}(A, D_i^text{op}) = lim_{leftarrow I} Hom_C(D_i,A)
$$



So no, existence of $lim D$ does not imply existence of $text{colim} D$, but only of $text{colim} D^text{op}$. But if it exists, this shows that your second isomorphism directly follows from the first.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • But the existance of $lim_{leftarrow I} D_i$ implies the existance of $lim_{rightarrow I} D_i$?
    – H R
    Nov 29 at 16:07












  • No, it doen't. I'll extend my answer soon.
    – Gnampfissimo
    Nov 29 at 17:37
















2














First off: both your statements, given the existence of the (co)limits in question, are true and easy to find in standard literature. Furthermore, assuming that we only know the first statement, we can conclude the second by applying the first to the opposite functor $D^text{op}: I^text{op} to D^text{op}$:



Taking the opposite category converts limits into colimits and vice versa. I.e., denoting the same objects in the opposite category with $D_i^text{op}$, we have $lim_{rightarrow I^text{op}}(D_i^text{op}) = (lim_{leftarrow I} D_i)^text{op}$, or in more modern notation, $lim D^text{op} = (text{colim} D)^text{op}$, where by $(lim D)^text{op}$ I mean the corresponding cocone in the opposite category. Thus the second isomorphism is derived as follows:



$$
Hom_C ( lim_{ rightarrow I} D_i, A) = Hom_{C^text{op}}(A, lim_{ leftarrow I^text{op}} D_i^text{op}) cong lim_{ leftarrow I^text{op}} Hom_{C^text{op}}(A, D_i^text{op}) = lim_{leftarrow I} Hom_C(D_i,A)
$$



So no, existence of $lim D$ does not imply existence of $text{colim} D$, but only of $text{colim} D^text{op}$. But if it exists, this shows that your second isomorphism directly follows from the first.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • But the existance of $lim_{leftarrow I} D_i$ implies the existance of $lim_{rightarrow I} D_i$?
    – H R
    Nov 29 at 16:07












  • No, it doen't. I'll extend my answer soon.
    – Gnampfissimo
    Nov 29 at 17:37














2












2








2






First off: both your statements, given the existence of the (co)limits in question, are true and easy to find in standard literature. Furthermore, assuming that we only know the first statement, we can conclude the second by applying the first to the opposite functor $D^text{op}: I^text{op} to D^text{op}$:



Taking the opposite category converts limits into colimits and vice versa. I.e., denoting the same objects in the opposite category with $D_i^text{op}$, we have $lim_{rightarrow I^text{op}}(D_i^text{op}) = (lim_{leftarrow I} D_i)^text{op}$, or in more modern notation, $lim D^text{op} = (text{colim} D)^text{op}$, where by $(lim D)^text{op}$ I mean the corresponding cocone in the opposite category. Thus the second isomorphism is derived as follows:



$$
Hom_C ( lim_{ rightarrow I} D_i, A) = Hom_{C^text{op}}(A, lim_{ leftarrow I^text{op}} D_i^text{op}) cong lim_{ leftarrow I^text{op}} Hom_{C^text{op}}(A, D_i^text{op}) = lim_{leftarrow I} Hom_C(D_i,A)
$$



So no, existence of $lim D$ does not imply existence of $text{colim} D$, but only of $text{colim} D^text{op}$. But if it exists, this shows that your second isomorphism directly follows from the first.






share|cite|improve this answer














First off: both your statements, given the existence of the (co)limits in question, are true and easy to find in standard literature. Furthermore, assuming that we only know the first statement, we can conclude the second by applying the first to the opposite functor $D^text{op}: I^text{op} to D^text{op}$:



Taking the opposite category converts limits into colimits and vice versa. I.e., denoting the same objects in the opposite category with $D_i^text{op}$, we have $lim_{rightarrow I^text{op}}(D_i^text{op}) = (lim_{leftarrow I} D_i)^text{op}$, or in more modern notation, $lim D^text{op} = (text{colim} D)^text{op}$, where by $(lim D)^text{op}$ I mean the corresponding cocone in the opposite category. Thus the second isomorphism is derived as follows:



$$
Hom_C ( lim_{ rightarrow I} D_i, A) = Hom_{C^text{op}}(A, lim_{ leftarrow I^text{op}} D_i^text{op}) cong lim_{ leftarrow I^text{op}} Hom_{C^text{op}}(A, D_i^text{op}) = lim_{leftarrow I} Hom_C(D_i,A)
$$



So no, existence of $lim D$ does not imply existence of $text{colim} D$, but only of $text{colim} D^text{op}$. But if it exists, this shows that your second isomorphism directly follows from the first.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Nov 29 at 18:20

























answered Nov 29 at 13:57









Gnampfissimo

18011




18011












  • But the existance of $lim_{leftarrow I} D_i$ implies the existance of $lim_{rightarrow I} D_i$?
    – H R
    Nov 29 at 16:07












  • No, it doen't. I'll extend my answer soon.
    – Gnampfissimo
    Nov 29 at 17:37


















  • But the existance of $lim_{leftarrow I} D_i$ implies the existance of $lim_{rightarrow I} D_i$?
    – H R
    Nov 29 at 16:07












  • No, it doen't. I'll extend my answer soon.
    – Gnampfissimo
    Nov 29 at 17:37
















But the existance of $lim_{leftarrow I} D_i$ implies the existance of $lim_{rightarrow I} D_i$?
– H R
Nov 29 at 16:07






But the existance of $lim_{leftarrow I} D_i$ implies the existance of $lim_{rightarrow I} D_i$?
– H R
Nov 29 at 16:07














No, it doen't. I'll extend my answer soon.
– Gnampfissimo
Nov 29 at 17:37




No, it doen't. I'll extend my answer soon.
– Gnampfissimo
Nov 29 at 17:37


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018637%2fhom-limits-and-colimits%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Berounka

Image
Berounka.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Caractéristiques Longueur 139  km Bassin 8 861  km 2 Bassin collecteur Elbe Débit moyen ? Cours Source Confluence de la Mže et de la Radbuza · Localisation Pilsen · Altitude 305  m · Coordonnées 49° 45′ 13″ N, 13° 23′ 24″ E Confluence Vltava · Localisation Prague · Altitude 187  m · Coordonnées 49° 59′ 43″ N, 14° 24′ 04″ E Géographie Pays traversés   République tchèque modifier   La Berounka est une rivière de la République tchèque. Elle porte le nom de Mže depuis sa source en Allemagne près de la frontière jusqu'à sa confluence avec la Radbuza à Plzeň. Elle continue ensuite sous le nom de Berounka jusqu'à sa confluence avec la Vltava, près de Prague. La rivière est une destination prisée pour les amateurs de canoë, qui appréc
Read more

Fiat S.p.A.

Image
Cet article court présente un sujet plus développé dans : Fiat et Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Fiat S.p.A. Fiat S.p.A. ( Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino , acronyme FIAT) est un groupe, notamment connu comme société-mère du constructeur automobile italien, Fiat. Portail des entreprises Portail de Turin Portail de l’automobile This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here
Read more

Type 'String' is not a subtype of type 'int' of 'index'

Image
up vote 0 down vote favorite My App can authenticate successfully when debugging against the Android emulator, but if I try to authenticate using debugging against the physical device (with same OS version), an error message appears after more than one minute waiting: Exception has occurred. _TypeError (type 'String' is not a subtype of type 'int' of 'index') The error message points to the following code: if (responseJson[AuthUtils.authTokenKey] != null) { AuthUtils.insertDetails( userNameController.text, passwordController.text, responseJson); ... } else { ... }; And in the DEBUG CONSOLE I get the following: I/flutter ( 9531): Auth: SocketException: OS Error: Connection timed out, errno = 110, address = example.com, port = 3897
Read more