Jump to content

Concrete category: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Major overhaul
minor tidying
Line 1: Line 1:
In [[mathematics]], a '''concrete category''' is commonly understood as a [[category (category theory)|category]] whose objects are [[mathematical structure|structured]] [[set]]s, whose [[morphism]]s are structure-preserving [[function (mathematics)|function]]s, and whose composition operation is composition of functions. The formal definition does not perfectly coincide with this intuition.
In [[mathematics]], a '''concrete category''' is commonly understood as a [[category (category theory)|category]] whose objects are [[mathematical structure|structured]] [[set]]s, whose [[morphism]]s are structure-preserving [[function (mathematics)|function]]s, and whose composition operation is composition of functions. The formal definition does not coincide perfectly with this intuition.


The category of sets and functions [[Category of sets|'''Set''']] is [[trivial (mathematics)|trivially]] a concrete category, since every set can be thought of as carrying a ''trivial structure''.
The category of sets and functions [[Category of sets|'''Set''']] is [[trivial (mathematics)|trivially]] a concrete category, since every set can be thought of as carrying a ''trivial structure''. Further important examples include [[Category of topological spaces|'''Top''']], the category of [[topological space]]s and [[continuous function]]s, and [[Category of groups|'''Grp''']] the category of [[group (mathematics)|groups]] and [[group homomorphism]]s.
Further important examples include [[Category of topological spaces|'''Top''']], the category of [[topological space]]s and [[continuous function]]s, and [[Category of groups|'''Grp''']] the category of [[group (mathematics)|groups]] and [[group homomorphism]]s.


== Definition ==
== Definition ==
Line 18: Line 17:
== Remarks ==
== Remarks ==


* It is important to note that, contrary to intuition, concreteness is not a [[property (philosophy)|property]] which a category may or may not satisfy, but rather a structure with which a category may or may not be equipped.
1. It is important to note that, contrary to intuition, concreteness is not a [[property (philosophy)|property]] which a category may or may not satisfy, but rather a structure with which a category may or may not be equipped. In particular, a category ''C'' may admit several faithful functors into '''Set'''. Hence there may be several concrete categories (''C'',''U'') all corresponding to the same category ''C''.
In particular, a category ''C'' may admit several faithful functors into '''Set'''.
Hence there may be several concrete categories (''C'',''U'') all corresponding to the same category ''C''.


In practice, however, the choice of forgetful functor is often clear and in this case we simply speak of the "concrete category ''C''".
In practice, however, the choice of forgetful functor is often clear and in this case we simply speak of the "concrete category ''C''". For example, "the concrete category '''Set'''" means the pair ('''Set''',''I'') where ''I'' denotes the [[identity functor]] '''Set''' → '''Set'''.
For example, "the concrete category '''Set'''" means the pair ('''Set''',''I'') where ''I'' denotes the [[identity functor]] '''Set''' → '''Set'''.


* The requirement that ''U'' be faithful means that it maps different morphisms between the same objects to different functions.
2. The requirement that ''U'' be faithful means that it maps different morphisms between the same objects to different functions. However, ''U'' may map different objects to the same set and, if this occurs, it will also map different morphisms to the same function.
However, ''U'' may map different objects to the same set and, if this occurs, it may also map different morphisms to the same function.


For example, if ''S'' and ''T'' are two different topologies on the same set ''X'', then
For example, if ''S'' and ''T'' are two different topologies on the same set ''X'', then
(''X'',''S'') and (''X'',''T'') are distinct objects in '''Top''' which the forgetful functor '''Top''' → '''Set''' maps to the same set, namely ''X''.
(''X'',''S'') and (''X'',''T'') are distinct objects in '''Top''' which the forgetful functor '''Top''' → '''Set''' maps to the same set, namely ''X''. Moreover, the identity morphism (''X'',''S'') → (''X'',''S'') and the identity morphism (''X'',''T'') → (''X'',''T'') are considered distinct morphisms in '''Top''', but they have the same underlying function, namely the identity function on ''X''.
Moreover, the identity morphism (''X'',''S'') → (''X'',''S'') and the identity morphism
(''X'',''T'') → (''X'',''T'') are considered distinct morphisms in '''Top''', but they have
the same underlying function, namely the identity function on ''X''.


Similarly, any set with 4 elements can be given two non-isomorphic group structures: one isomorphic to <math>\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}</math>; the other isomorphic to <math>\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}</math>).
Similarly, any set with 4 elements can be given two non-isomorphic group structures: one isomorphic to <math>\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}</math>; the other isomorphic to <math>\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}</math>).
Line 38: Line 30:
== Further examples ==
== Further examples ==


1. Any group ''G'' may be regarded as an ''abstract'' category with one object, <math>\ast</math>,
1. Any group ''G'' may be regarded as an "abstract" category with one object, <math>\ast</math>,
and one morphism for each element of the group. This would not be counted as concrete according to the intuitive notion described at the top of this article. But every faithful [[group action|''G''-set]] (equivalently, every representation of ''G'' as a [[permutation group|group of permutations]]) determines a faithful functor ''G'' → '''Set'''. Since every group acts faithfully on itself, ''G'' can be made into a concrete category in at least one way.
and one morphism for each element of the group.
This would not be counted as concrete according to the intuitive notion described at the top of this article.
But every [[group action|''G''-set]] (equivalently, every representation of ''G'' as a [[permutation group|group of permutations]]) determines a faithful functor ''G'' → '''Set'''.
Since every group acts on itself, ''G'' can be made into a concrete category in at least one way.


2. Similarly, any poset ''P'' may be regarded as an abstract category with a unique arrow ''x'' → ''y'' whenever ''x'' ≤ ''y''.
2. Similarly, any poset ''P'' may be regarded as an abstract category with a unique arrow ''x'' → ''y'' whenever ''x'' ≤ ''y''. This can be made concrete by defining a functor ''D'' : ''P'' → '''Set''' which maps each object ''x'' to <math>D(x)=\{a \in P : a \leq x\}</math> and each arrow ''x'' → ''y'' to the inclusion map <math>D(x) \hookrightarrow D(y)</math>.
This can be made concrete by defining a functor ''D'' : ''P'' → '''Set''' which maps each object ''x'' to <math>D(x)=\{a \in P : a \leq x\}</math> and each arrow ''x'' → ''y'' to the inclusion map <math>D(x) \hookrightarrow D(y)</math>.


3. The category [[Category of relations|'''Rel''']] whose objects are [[set|sets]] and whose morphisms are [[Relation (mathematics)|relations]] may not appear, at first glance, to be concretizable.
3. The category [[Category of relations|'''Rel''']] whose objects are [[set|sets]] and whose morphisms are [[Relation (mathematics)|relations]] may not appear, at first glance, to be concretizable. It is, however, equivalent to a full subcategory of the category '''Sup''' whose objects are [[complete lattices]] and whose morphisms are [[Complete lattice#Morphisms of complete lattices|supremum-preserving maps]].
The latter is concrete, so we can equip '''Rel''' with the composite '''Rel''' → '''Sup''' → '''Set'''. If we do so, then the "underlying set" of an object of '''Rel''' (i.e., a set) is not itself, but rather its [[powerset]]. The "underlying function" of a relation <math>R \subseteq X \times Y</math> in this sense is the function <math>\rho: 2^X \rightarrow 2^Y</math> defined by
It is, however, equivalent to a full subcategory of the category '''Sup''' whose objects are [[complete lattices]] and whose morphisms are [[supremum-preserving maps]].
The latter is concrete, so we can equip '''Rel''' with the composite '''Rel''' → '''Sup''' → '''Set'''. If we do so, then the "underlying set" of an object of '''Rel''' (i.e., a set) is not itself, but rather its [[powerset]].
The "underlying function" of a relation <math>R \subseteq X \times Y</math> in this sense
is the function <math>\rho: 2^X \rightarrow 2^Y</math> defined by
<math>\rho(A)=\{y \in Y : \exists x \in A ((x,y)\in R)\}</math>.
<math>\rho(A)=\{y \in Y : \exists x \in A ((x,y)\in R)\}</math>.


4. For technical reasons, some authors equip the category '''Ban''' of [[Banach spaces]] and [[linear contractions]] not with the "obvious" forgetful functor, but the functor
4. For technical reasons, the category '''Ban'''<sub>1</sub> of [[Banach spaces]] and [[contraction (operator theory)|linear contractions]] is often equipped not with the "obvious" forgetful functor but the functor ''U''<sub>1</sub> : '''Ban'''<sub>1</sub> → '''Set''' which maps a Banach space to its (closed) [[unit ball]].
''U'' : '''Ban''' → '''Set''' which maps a Banach space to its (closed) [[unit ball]].


5. If ''C'' is any small category, then there exists a faithful functor ''P'' : '''Set'''<sup>''C''<sup>op</sup></sup> → '''Set''' which maps a presheaf ''X'' to the product <math>\prod_{c \in \mathrm{ob}C} X(c)</math>. By composing this with the [[Yoneda embedding]] ''Y'':''C'' → '''Set'''<sup>''C''<sup>op</sup></sup> one obtains a faithful functor ''C'' → '''Set'''.
5. If ''C'' is any small category, then there exists a faithful functor
''P'' : '''Set'''<sup>''C''<sup>op</sup></sup> → '''Set''' which maps a presheaf ''X''
to the product <math>\prod_{c \in \mathrm{ob}C} X(c)</math>.
By composing this with the [[Yoneda embedding]]
''Y'':''C'' → '''Set'''<sup>''C''<sup>op</sup></sup>
one obtains a faithful functor ''C'' → '''Set'''.


== A counter-example ==
== A counter-example ==
Line 73: Line 52:


Given a concrete category (''C'',''U'') and an arbitrary set ''N'', let ''U<sup>N</sup>'' be the functor ''C'' → '''Set''' determined by ''U<sup>N</sup>(c) = (U(c))<sup>N</sup>''.
Given a concrete category (''C'',''U'') and an arbitrary set ''N'', let ''U<sup>N</sup>'' be the functor ''C'' → '''Set''' determined by ''U<sup>N</sup>(c) = (U(c))<sup>N</sup>''.
Then a subfunctor of ''U<sup>N</sup>'' is called an ''N-ary predicate'' and a
Then a [[subfunctor]] of ''U<sup>N</sup>'' is called an ''N-ary predicate'' and a
[[natural transformation]] ''U<sup>N</sup>'' → ''U'' an ''N-ary operation''.
[[natural transformation]] ''U<sup>N</sup>'' → ''U'' an ''N-ary operation''.



Revision as of 22:16, 22 February 2008

In mathematics, a concrete category is commonly understood as a category whose objects are structured sets, whose morphisms are structure-preserving functions, and whose composition operation is composition of functions. The formal definition does not coincide perfectly with this intuition.

The category of sets and functions Set is trivially a concrete category, since every set can be thought of as carrying a trivial structure. Further important examples include Top, the category of topological spaces and continuous functions, and Grp the category of groups and group homomorphisms.

Definition

A concrete category is a pair (C,U) such that

The functor U is to be thought of as a forgetful functor, which assigns to every object of C its "underlying set", and to every morphism in C its "underlying function".

A category C is concretizable if there exists a concrete category (C,U); i.e., if there exists a faithful functor from U:CSet.

Remarks

1. It is important to note that, contrary to intuition, concreteness is not a property which a category may or may not satisfy, but rather a structure with which a category may or may not be equipped. In particular, a category C may admit several faithful functors into Set. Hence there may be several concrete categories (C,U) all corresponding to the same category C.

In practice, however, the choice of forgetful functor is often clear and in this case we simply speak of the "concrete category C". For example, "the concrete category Set" means the pair (Set,I) where I denotes the identity functor SetSet.

2. The requirement that U be faithful means that it maps different morphisms between the same objects to different functions. However, U may map different objects to the same set and, if this occurs, it will also map different morphisms to the same function.

For example, if S and T are two different topologies on the same set X, then (X,S) and (X,T) are distinct objects in Top which the forgetful functor TopSet maps to the same set, namely X. Moreover, the identity morphism (X,S) → (X,S) and the identity morphism (X,T) → (X,T) are considered distinct morphisms in Top, but they have the same underlying function, namely the identity function on X.

Similarly, any set with 4 elements can be given two non-isomorphic group structures: one isomorphic to ; the other isomorphic to ).

Further examples

1. Any group G may be regarded as an "abstract" category with one object, , and one morphism for each element of the group. This would not be counted as concrete according to the intuitive notion described at the top of this article. But every faithful G-set (equivalently, every representation of G as a group of permutations) determines a faithful functor GSet. Since every group acts faithfully on itself, G can be made into a concrete category in at least one way.

2. Similarly, any poset P may be regarded as an abstract category with a unique arrow xy whenever xy. This can be made concrete by defining a functor D : PSet which maps each object x to and each arrow xy to the inclusion map .

3. The category Rel whose objects are sets and whose morphisms are relations may not appear, at first glance, to be concretizable. It is, however, equivalent to a full subcategory of the category Sup whose objects are complete lattices and whose morphisms are supremum-preserving maps. The latter is concrete, so we can equip Rel with the composite RelSupSet. If we do so, then the "underlying set" of an object of Rel (i.e., a set) is not itself, but rather its powerset. The "underlying function" of a relation in this sense is the function defined by .

4. For technical reasons, the category Ban1 of Banach spaces and linear contractions is often equipped not with the "obvious" forgetful functor but the functor U1 : Ban1Set which maps a Banach space to its (closed) unit ball.

5. If C is any small category, then there exists a faithful functor P : SetCopSet which maps a presheaf X to the product . By composing this with the Yoneda embedding Y:CSetCop one obtains a faithful functor CSet.

A counter-example

The category hTop, where the objects are topological spaces and the morphisms are homotopy classes of continuous functions, is an example of a category that is not concretizable. While the objects are sets (with additional structure), the morphisms are not actual functions between them, but rather classes of functions. The fact that there does not exist any faithful functor from hTop to Set was first proven by Peter Freyd.

Implicit structure of concrete categories

Given a concrete category (C,U) and an arbitrary set N, let UN be the functor CSet determined by UN(c) = (U(c))N. Then a subfunctor of UN is called an N-ary predicate and a natural transformation UNU an N-ary operation.

Relative concreteness

It is possible to replace the category Set by an arbitrary category X (sometimes called the base category) in the definition of concrete category. In this case, we say that (C,U) is a concrete category over X.

In this context, a concrete category over Set is sometimes called a construct.

It is sometimes useful to think of the models of a theory with N sorts as forming a concrete category over SetN.

References

  • Adámek, Jiří, Herrlich, Horst, & Strecker, George E.; (1990). Abstract and Concrete Categories (4.2MB PDF). Originally publ. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-60922-6. (now free on-line edition).
  • Freyd, Peter; (1970). Homotopy is not concrete. Originally published in: The Steenrod Algebra and its Applications, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics Vol. 168. Republished in a free on-line journal: Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories, No. 6 (2004), with the permission of Springer-Verlag.