Has the Isbell–Freyd criterion ever been used to check that a category is concretisable?Can the Category of...
Has the Isbell–Freyd criterion ever been used to check that a category is concretisable?
Can the Category of Schemes be Concretized?Does the product (by an object) in an abelian category ever have a right adjoint?Methods for constructing Frobenius structuresWhat are the correct axioms for a “weakly associative monoidal functor”?Direct construction of cocontinuous functors on Mod(A)The main theorems of category theory and their applicationsWhen an abelian category has enough flat objects?Where else has Proposition B1.3.17 in the Elephant been proved?When must it be sets rather than proper classes, or vice-versa, outside of foundational mathematics?Constructing pointwise Kan extensions as adjoints to some functorWhat is the point of pointwise Kan extensions?
$begingroup$
Isbell gave, in Two set-theoretic theorems in categories (1964), a necessary criterion for categories to be concretisable (i.e. to admit some faithful functor into sets). Freyd, in Concreteness (1973), showed that Isbell’s criterion is also sufficient.
My question is: Has anyone ever used Isbell’s criterion to check that a category is concretisable?
I’m interested not only in seeing the theorem is formally invoked in print, to show some category is concretisable — though of course that would be a perfect answer, if it’s happened. What I’m also interested in, and suspect is more likely to have occurred, is if anyone’s found the criterion useful as a heuristic for checking whether a category is concretisable, in a situation where one wants it to be concrete but finding a suitable functor is not totally trivial. (I’m imagining a situation similar to the adjoint functor theorems: they give very useful quick heuristics for guessing whether adjoints exist, but if they suggest an adjoint does exist, usually there’s an explicit construction as well, so they’re used as heuristics much more often than they’re formally invoked in print.)
What I’m not so interested in is uses of the criterion to confirm that an expected non-concretisable category is indeed non-concretisable — I’m after cases where it’s used in expectation of a positive answer.
ct.category-theory
asked 3 hours ago
Peter LeFanu LumsdainePeter LeFanu Lumsdaine
8,65413868
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Isbell gave, in Two set-theoretic theorems in categories (1964), a necessary criterion for categories to be concretisable (i.e. to admit some faithful functor into sets). Freyd, in Concreteness (1973), showed that Isbell’s criterion is also sufficient.
My question is: Has anyone ever used Isbell’s criterion to check that a category is concretisable?
I’m interested not only in seeing the theorem is formally invoked in print, to show some category is concretisable — though of course that would be a perfect answer, if it’s happened. What I’m also interested in, and suspect is more likely to have occurred, is if anyone’s found the criterion useful as a heuristic for checking whether a category is concretisable, in a situation where one wants it to be concrete but finding a suitable functor is not totally trivial. (I’m imagining a situation similar to the adjoint functor theorems: they give very useful quick heuristics for guessing whether adjoints exist, but if they suggest an adjoint does exist, usually there’s an explicit construction as well, so they’re used as heuristics much more often than they’re formally invoked in print.)
What I’m not so interested in is uses of the criterion to confirm that an expected non-concretisable category is indeed non-concretisable — I’m after cases where it’s used in expectation of a positive answer.
ct.category-theory
asked 3 hours ago
Peter LeFanu LumsdainePeter LeFanu Lumsdaine
8,65413868
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
I really like this question, let me just say that when the category has finite limits the criterion simplifies to "the category is regular-well-powered".
$endgroup$
– Ivan Di Liberti
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm intrigued by your comments about the adjoint functor theorems. I would have said that they are invoked quite often in print, especially when dealing with locally presentable categories whose adjoint functor theorem is particularly simple (any cocontinuous functor has a right adjoint, and any continuous accessible functor has a left adjoint).
$endgroup$
– Mike Shulman
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Isbell gave, in Two set-theoretic theorems in categories (1964), a necessary criterion for categories to be concretisable (i.e. to admit some faithful functor into sets). Freyd, in Concreteness (1973), showed that Isbell’s criterion is also sufficient.
My question is: Has anyone ever used Isbell’s criterion to check that a category is concretisable?
I’m interested not only in seeing the theorem is formally invoked in print, to show some category is concretisable — though of course that would be a perfect answer, if it’s happened. What I’m also interested in, and suspect is more likely to have occurred, is if anyone’s found the criterion useful as a heuristic for checking whether a category is concretisable, in a situation where one wants it to be concrete but finding a suitable functor is not totally trivial. (I’m imagining a situation similar to the adjoint functor theorems: they give very useful quick heuristics for guessing whether adjoints exist, but if they suggest an adjoint does exist, usually there’s an explicit construction as well, so they’re used as heuristics much more often than they’re formally invoked in print.)
What I’m not so interested in is uses of the criterion to confirm that an expected non-concretisable category is indeed non-concretisable — I’m after cases where it’s used in expectation of a positive answer.
ct.category-theory
asked 3 hours ago
Peter LeFanu LumsdainePeter LeFanu Lumsdaine
8,65413868
$endgroup$
Isbell gave, in Two set-theoretic theorems in categories (1964), a necessary criterion for categories to be concretisable (i.e. to admit some faithful functor into sets). Freyd, in Concreteness (1973), showed that Isbell’s criterion is also sufficient.
My question is: Has anyone ever used Isbell’s criterion to check that a category is concretisable?
I’m interested not only in seeing the theorem is formally invoked in print, to show some category is concretisable — though of course that would be a perfect answer, if it’s happened. What I’m also interested in, and suspect is more likely to have occurred, is if anyone’s found the criterion useful as a heuristic for checking whether a category is concretisable, in a situation where one wants it to be concrete but finding a suitable functor is not totally trivial. (I’m imagining a situation similar to the adjoint functor theorems: they give very useful quick heuristics for guessing whether adjoints exist, but if they suggest an adjoint does exist, usually there’s an explicit construction as well, so they’re used as heuristics much more often than they’re formally invoked in print.)
What I’m not so interested in is uses of the criterion to confirm that an expected non-concretisable category is indeed non-concretisable — I’m after cases where it’s used in expectation of a positive answer.
ct.category-theory
ct.category-theory
asked 3 hours ago
Peter LeFanu LumsdainePeter LeFanu Lumsdaine
8,65413868
asked 3 hours ago
Peter LeFanu LumsdainePeter LeFanu Lumsdaine
8,65413868
asked 3 hours ago
Peter LeFanu LumsdainePeter LeFanu Lumsdaine
8,65413868
asked 3 hours ago
Peter LeFanu LumsdainePeter LeFanu Lumsdaine
8,65413868
asked 3 hours ago
Peter LeFanu LumsdainePeter LeFanu Lumsdaine
8,65413868
8,65413868
3
$begingroup$
I really like this question, let me just say that when the category has finite limits the criterion simplifies to "the category is regular-well-powered".
$endgroup$
– Ivan Di Liberti
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm intrigued by your comments about the adjoint functor theorems. I would have said that they are invoked quite often in print, especially when dealing with locally presentable categories whose adjoint functor theorem is particularly simple (any cocontinuous functor has a right adjoint, and any continuous accessible functor has a left adjoint).
$endgroup$
– Mike Shulman
1 hour ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
I really like this question, let me just say that when the category has finite limits the criterion simplifies to "the category is regular-well-powered".
$endgroup$
– Ivan Di Liberti
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm intrigued by your comments about the adjoint functor theorems. I would have said that they are invoked quite often in print, especially when dealing with locally presentable categories whose adjoint functor theorem is particularly simple (any cocontinuous functor has a right adjoint, and any continuous accessible functor has a left adjoint).
$endgroup$
– Mike Shulman
1 hour ago
3
3
$begingroup$
I really like this question, let me just say that when the category has finite limits the criterion simplifies to "the category is regular-well-powered".
$endgroup$
– Ivan Di Liberti
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I really like this question, let me just say that when the category has finite limits the criterion simplifies to "the category is regular-well-powered".
$endgroup$
– Ivan Di Liberti
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm intrigued by your comments about the adjoint functor theorems. I would have said that they are invoked quite often in print, especially when dealing with locally presentable categories whose adjoint functor theorem is particularly simple (any cocontinuous functor has a right adjoint, and any continuous accessible functor has a left adjoint).
$endgroup$
– Mike Shulman
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I'm intrigued by your comments about the adjoint functor theorems. I would have said that they are invoked quite often in print, especially when dealing with locally presentable categories whose adjoint functor theorem is particularly simple (any cocontinuous functor has a right adjoint, and any continuous accessible functor has a left adjoint).
$endgroup$
– Mike Shulman
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I did this once with the category of schemes in response to this question, with help from Laurent Moret-Bailly. But then Zhen Lin Low pointed out there's an obvious concretizing functor. Maybe it wasn't so obvious until we were sure it was there, though. So I suppose this falls under the "useful heuristic" category. In practice, the Isbell-Freyd criterion translated the problem into something more concrete (pardon the pun!) which an algebraic geometer had a sense for how to answer. At the time, I didn't know enough algebraic geometry to answer this question on my own, so translating it into more geometric language which I could ask somebody else was an essential step for me.
It helped that, as Ivan Di Liberti points out in the comments, the criterion is especially simple in a finitely-complete category.
answered 2 hours ago
Tim CampionTim Campion
14.1k355125
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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: "504"
};
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
});
}
});
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324557%2fhas-the-isbell-freyd-criterion-ever-been-used-to-check-that-a-category-is-concre%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
$begingroup$
I did this once with the category of schemes in response to this question, with help from Laurent Moret-Bailly. But then Zhen Lin Low pointed out there's an obvious concretizing functor. Maybe it wasn't so obvious until we were sure it was there, though. So I suppose this falls under the "useful heuristic" category. In practice, the Isbell-Freyd criterion translated the problem into something more concrete (pardon the pun!) which an algebraic geometer had a sense for how to answer. At the time, I didn't know enough algebraic geometry to answer this question on my own, so translating it into more geometric language which I could ask somebody else was an essential step for me.
It helped that, as Ivan Di Liberti points out in the comments, the criterion is especially simple in a finitely-complete category.
answered 2 hours ago
Tim CampionTim Campion
14.1k355125
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I did this once with the category of schemes in response to this question, with help from Laurent Moret-Bailly. But then Zhen Lin Low pointed out there's an obvious concretizing functor. Maybe it wasn't so obvious until we were sure it was there, though. So I suppose this falls under the "useful heuristic" category. In practice, the Isbell-Freyd criterion translated the problem into something more concrete (pardon the pun!) which an algebraic geometer had a sense for how to answer. At the time, I didn't know enough algebraic geometry to answer this question on my own, so translating it into more geometric language which I could ask somebody else was an essential step for me.
It helped that, as Ivan Di Liberti points out in the comments, the criterion is especially simple in a finitely-complete category.
answered 2 hours ago
Tim CampionTim Campion
14.1k355125
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I did this once with the category of schemes in response to this question, with help from Laurent Moret-Bailly. But then Zhen Lin Low pointed out there's an obvious concretizing functor. Maybe it wasn't so obvious until we were sure it was there, though. So I suppose this falls under the "useful heuristic" category. In practice, the Isbell-Freyd criterion translated the problem into something more concrete (pardon the pun!) which an algebraic geometer had a sense for how to answer. At the time, I didn't know enough algebraic geometry to answer this question on my own, so translating it into more geometric language which I could ask somebody else was an essential step for me.
It helped that, as Ivan Di Liberti points out in the comments, the criterion is especially simple in a finitely-complete category.
answered 2 hours ago
Tim CampionTim Campion
14.1k355125
$endgroup$
I did this once with the category of schemes in response to this question, with help from Laurent Moret-Bailly. But then Zhen Lin Low pointed out there's an obvious concretizing functor. Maybe it wasn't so obvious until we were sure it was there, though. So I suppose this falls under the "useful heuristic" category. In practice, the Isbell-Freyd criterion translated the problem into something more concrete (pardon the pun!) which an algebraic geometer had a sense for how to answer. At the time, I didn't know enough algebraic geometry to answer this question on my own, so translating it into more geometric language which I could ask somebody else was an essential step for me.
It helped that, as Ivan Di Liberti points out in the comments, the criterion is especially simple in a finitely-complete category.
answered 2 hours ago
Tim CampionTim Campion
14.1k355125
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Tim CampionTim Campion
14.1k355125
answered 2 hours ago
Tim CampionTim Campion
14.1k355125
answered 2 hours ago
Tim CampionTim Campion
14.1k355125
14.1k355125
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- 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.
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
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324557%2fhas-the-isbell-freyd-criterion-ever-been-used-to-check-that-a-category-is-concre%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
Required, but never shown
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
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
3
$begingroup$
I really like this question, let me just say that when the category has finite limits the criterion simplifies to "the category is regular-well-powered".
$endgroup$
– Ivan Di Liberti
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm intrigued by your comments about the adjoint functor theorems. I would have said that they are invoked quite often in print, especially when dealing with locally presentable categories whose adjoint functor theorem is particularly simple (any cocontinuous functor has a right adjoint, and any continuous accessible functor has a left adjoint).
$endgroup$
– Mike Shulman
1 hour ago