Is my understanding of the diagonal functor correct, and if so, what's the point?












0














Here's a definition of the diagonal functor from my lecture notes:




Let us introduce the diagonal functor $Delta: C rightarrow operatorname{Fun}(I, C)$ given by sending $x in C$ to the constant functor $i mapsto x$ (and morphisms sent to identities).




So define the constant functor $F_x: I rightarrow C$ that maps every $i in operatorname{Ob} I$ to $x in operatorname{Ob} C$ and every morphism $i rightarrow j in I$ to $id_x: x rightarrow x$.



Then consider morphisms $f: x rightarrow y$ in $C$ and $phi: i rightarrow j$ in $I$. According to the above definition, $Delta$ maps $x mapsto F_x, y mapsto F_y$ and it maps $f: xrightarrow y$ to some $Delta_f: F_x(i) rightarrow F_y(j)$. So I guess when the definition above says "morphisms sent to identities" what they mean is that $Delta_f(i) = f$ for all $i in I$.



Then the square with upper row $x = F_x(i) xrightarrow{F_x(phi)=id_x} F_x(j) = x$, and lower row $y = F_y(i) xrightarrow{F_y(phi)=id_y} F_y(j) = y$, and vertical maps $Delta_f(i) = f$ and $Delta_f(j) = f$ commutes trivially, ie. this does seem to be a well-defined functor (modulo a few additional checks, on compositions etc).



Is the above interpretation correct? If so, what motivates this? The square I just constructed is not too illuminating...






category-theory







share|cite|improve this question
























  • "Morphisms sent to identities" is referring to the functor that is produced by the diagonal functor. That is, it is saying $Delta(x)(phi)=id_x$ it is not referring to $Delta$'s action on arrows.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago










  • Conceptually, many important constructs are revealed in category theory to be determined (usually via adjunction) from "trivial"-seeming functors.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago










  • @DerekElkins i was very confused abt the statement in brackets, thx for clarifying
    – gen
    10 hours ago
















0














Here's a definition of the diagonal functor from my lecture notes:




Let us introduce the diagonal functor $Delta: C rightarrow operatorname{Fun}(I, C)$ given by sending $x in C$ to the constant functor $i mapsto x$ (and morphisms sent to identities).




So define the constant functor $F_x: I rightarrow C$ that maps every $i in operatorname{Ob} I$ to $x in operatorname{Ob} C$ and every morphism $i rightarrow j in I$ to $id_x: x rightarrow x$.



Then consider morphisms $f: x rightarrow y$ in $C$ and $phi: i rightarrow j$ in $I$. According to the above definition, $Delta$ maps $x mapsto F_x, y mapsto F_y$ and it maps $f: xrightarrow y$ to some $Delta_f: F_x(i) rightarrow F_y(j)$. So I guess when the definition above says "morphisms sent to identities" what they mean is that $Delta_f(i) = f$ for all $i in I$.



Then the square with upper row $x = F_x(i) xrightarrow{F_x(phi)=id_x} F_x(j) = x$, and lower row $y = F_y(i) xrightarrow{F_y(phi)=id_y} F_y(j) = y$, and vertical maps $Delta_f(i) = f$ and $Delta_f(j) = f$ commutes trivially, ie. this does seem to be a well-defined functor (modulo a few additional checks, on compositions etc).



Is the above interpretation correct? If so, what motivates this? The square I just constructed is not too illuminating...






category-theory







share|cite|improve this question
























  • "Morphisms sent to identities" is referring to the functor that is produced by the diagonal functor. That is, it is saying $Delta(x)(phi)=id_x$ it is not referring to $Delta$'s action on arrows.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago










  • Conceptually, many important constructs are revealed in category theory to be determined (usually via adjunction) from "trivial"-seeming functors.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago










  • @DerekElkins i was very confused abt the statement in brackets, thx for clarifying
    – gen
    10 hours ago














0












0








0







Here's a definition of the diagonal functor from my lecture notes:




Let us introduce the diagonal functor $Delta: C rightarrow operatorname{Fun}(I, C)$ given by sending $x in C$ to the constant functor $i mapsto x$ (and morphisms sent to identities).




So define the constant functor $F_x: I rightarrow C$ that maps every $i in operatorname{Ob} I$ to $x in operatorname{Ob} C$ and every morphism $i rightarrow j in I$ to $id_x: x rightarrow x$.



Then consider morphisms $f: x rightarrow y$ in $C$ and $phi: i rightarrow j$ in $I$. According to the above definition, $Delta$ maps $x mapsto F_x, y mapsto F_y$ and it maps $f: xrightarrow y$ to some $Delta_f: F_x(i) rightarrow F_y(j)$. So I guess when the definition above says "morphisms sent to identities" what they mean is that $Delta_f(i) = f$ for all $i in I$.



Then the square with upper row $x = F_x(i) xrightarrow{F_x(phi)=id_x} F_x(j) = x$, and lower row $y = F_y(i) xrightarrow{F_y(phi)=id_y} F_y(j) = y$, and vertical maps $Delta_f(i) = f$ and $Delta_f(j) = f$ commutes trivially, ie. this does seem to be a well-defined functor (modulo a few additional checks, on compositions etc).



Is the above interpretation correct? If so, what motivates this? The square I just constructed is not too illuminating...






category-theory







share|cite|improve this question















Here's a definition of the diagonal functor from my lecture notes:




Let us introduce the diagonal functor $Delta: C rightarrow operatorname{Fun}(I, C)$ given by sending $x in C$ to the constant functor $i mapsto x$ (and morphisms sent to identities).




So define the constant functor $F_x: I rightarrow C$ that maps every $i in operatorname{Ob} I$ to $x in operatorname{Ob} C$ and every morphism $i rightarrow j in I$ to $id_x: x rightarrow x$.



Then consider morphisms $f: x rightarrow y$ in $C$ and $phi: i rightarrow j$ in $I$. According to the above definition, $Delta$ maps $x mapsto F_x, y mapsto F_y$ and it maps $f: xrightarrow y$ to some $Delta_f: F_x(i) rightarrow F_y(j)$. So I guess when the definition above says "morphisms sent to identities" what they mean is that $Delta_f(i) = f$ for all $i in I$.



Then the square with upper row $x = F_x(i) xrightarrow{F_x(phi)=id_x} F_x(j) = x$, and lower row $y = F_y(i) xrightarrow{F_y(phi)=id_y} F_y(j) = y$, and vertical maps $Delta_f(i) = f$ and $Delta_f(j) = f$ commutes trivially, ie. this does seem to be a well-defined functor (modulo a few additional checks, on compositions etc).



Is the above interpretation correct? If so, what motivates this? The square I just constructed is not too illuminating...






category-theory




category-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 15 hours ago









Shaun

8,805113680




8,805113680










asked 16 hours ago









gen

4332521




4332521












  • "Morphisms sent to identities" is referring to the functor that is produced by the diagonal functor. That is, it is saying $Delta(x)(phi)=id_x$ it is not referring to $Delta$'s action on arrows.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago










  • Conceptually, many important constructs are revealed in category theory to be determined (usually via adjunction) from "trivial"-seeming functors.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago










  • @DerekElkins i was very confused abt the statement in brackets, thx for clarifying
    – gen
    10 hours ago


















  • "Morphisms sent to identities" is referring to the functor that is produced by the diagonal functor. That is, it is saying $Delta(x)(phi)=id_x$ it is not referring to $Delta$'s action on arrows.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago










  • Conceptually, many important constructs are revealed in category theory to be determined (usually via adjunction) from "trivial"-seeming functors.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago










  • @DerekElkins i was very confused abt the statement in brackets, thx for clarifying
    – gen
    10 hours ago
















"Morphisms sent to identities" is referring to the functor that is produced by the diagonal functor. That is, it is saying $Delta(x)(phi)=id_x$ it is not referring to $Delta$'s action on arrows.
– Derek Elkins
10 hours ago




"Morphisms sent to identities" is referring to the functor that is produced by the diagonal functor. That is, it is saying $Delta(x)(phi)=id_x$ it is not referring to $Delta$'s action on arrows.
– Derek Elkins
10 hours ago












Conceptually, many important constructs are revealed in category theory to be determined (usually via adjunction) from "trivial"-seeming functors.
– Derek Elkins
10 hours ago




Conceptually, many important constructs are revealed in category theory to be determined (usually via adjunction) from "trivial"-seeming functors.
– Derek Elkins
10 hours ago












@DerekElkins i was very confused abt the statement in brackets, thx for clarifying
– gen
10 hours ago




@DerekElkins i was very confused abt the statement in brackets, thx for clarifying
– gen
10 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














Your interpretation is correct.



It seems like a trivial functor, but it's actually very useful—for example, a category $mathcal{C}$ has all limits (resp. colimits) of shape $mathcal{I}$ if and only if the diagonal functor $Delta : mathcal{C} to mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C})$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint:
$$mathrm{colim} dashv Delta dashv mathrm{lim}$$



A specific instance of this is when $mathcal{I} = mathbf{0}$ is the empty category. Then $mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C}) cong mathbf{1}$, the terminal category, and then the corresponding diagonal functor is just the unique functor $mathcal{C} to mathbf{1}$. This functor has a right (resp. left) adjoint if and only if $mathcal{C}$ has a terminal (resp. initial) object.



Another instance is when $mathcal{I} = 2$ is the discrete category with two objects. Then $mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C}) cong mathcal{C}^2$, and the diagonal functor $mathcal{C} to mathcal{C}^2$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint if and only if $mathcal{C}$ has binary products (resp. coproducts).






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I've reversed Shaun's edit. I used unbolded $2$ on purpose for the discrete category with two objects, to distinguish it from $mathbf{2}$, which is the category with two objects and a unique morphism between them.
    – Clive Newstead
    15 hours ago










  • I often use $1+1$ to avoid such ambiguity.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago













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%2f3061591%2fis-my-understanding-of-the-diagonal-functor-correct-and-if-so-whats-the-point%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














Your interpretation is correct.



It seems like a trivial functor, but it's actually very useful—for example, a category $mathcal{C}$ has all limits (resp. colimits) of shape $mathcal{I}$ if and only if the diagonal functor $Delta : mathcal{C} to mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C})$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint:
$$mathrm{colim} dashv Delta dashv mathrm{lim}$$



A specific instance of this is when $mathcal{I} = mathbf{0}$ is the empty category. Then $mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C}) cong mathbf{1}$, the terminal category, and then the corresponding diagonal functor is just the unique functor $mathcal{C} to mathbf{1}$. This functor has a right (resp. left) adjoint if and only if $mathcal{C}$ has a terminal (resp. initial) object.



Another instance is when $mathcal{I} = 2$ is the discrete category with two objects. Then $mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C}) cong mathcal{C}^2$, and the diagonal functor $mathcal{C} to mathcal{C}^2$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint if and only if $mathcal{C}$ has binary products (resp. coproducts).






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I've reversed Shaun's edit. I used unbolded $2$ on purpose for the discrete category with two objects, to distinguish it from $mathbf{2}$, which is the category with two objects and a unique morphism between them.
    – Clive Newstead
    15 hours ago










  • I often use $1+1$ to avoid such ambiguity.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago


















2














Your interpretation is correct.



It seems like a trivial functor, but it's actually very useful—for example, a category $mathcal{C}$ has all limits (resp. colimits) of shape $mathcal{I}$ if and only if the diagonal functor $Delta : mathcal{C} to mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C})$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint:
$$mathrm{colim} dashv Delta dashv mathrm{lim}$$



A specific instance of this is when $mathcal{I} = mathbf{0}$ is the empty category. Then $mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C}) cong mathbf{1}$, the terminal category, and then the corresponding diagonal functor is just the unique functor $mathcal{C} to mathbf{1}$. This functor has a right (resp. left) adjoint if and only if $mathcal{C}$ has a terminal (resp. initial) object.



Another instance is when $mathcal{I} = 2$ is the discrete category with two objects. Then $mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C}) cong mathcal{C}^2$, and the diagonal functor $mathcal{C} to mathcal{C}^2$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint if and only if $mathcal{C}$ has binary products (resp. coproducts).






share|cite|improve this answer























  • I've reversed Shaun's edit. I used unbolded $2$ on purpose for the discrete category with two objects, to distinguish it from $mathbf{2}$, which is the category with two objects and a unique morphism between them.
    – Clive Newstead
    15 hours ago










  • I often use $1+1$ to avoid such ambiguity.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago
















2












2








2






Your interpretation is correct.



It seems like a trivial functor, but it's actually very useful—for example, a category $mathcal{C}$ has all limits (resp. colimits) of shape $mathcal{I}$ if and only if the diagonal functor $Delta : mathcal{C} to mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C})$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint:
$$mathrm{colim} dashv Delta dashv mathrm{lim}$$



A specific instance of this is when $mathcal{I} = mathbf{0}$ is the empty category. Then $mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C}) cong mathbf{1}$, the terminal category, and then the corresponding diagonal functor is just the unique functor $mathcal{C} to mathbf{1}$. This functor has a right (resp. left) adjoint if and only if $mathcal{C}$ has a terminal (resp. initial) object.



Another instance is when $mathcal{I} = 2$ is the discrete category with two objects. Then $mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C}) cong mathcal{C}^2$, and the diagonal functor $mathcal{C} to mathcal{C}^2$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint if and only if $mathcal{C}$ has binary products (resp. coproducts).






share|cite|improve this answer














Your interpretation is correct.



It seems like a trivial functor, but it's actually very useful—for example, a category $mathcal{C}$ has all limits (resp. colimits) of shape $mathcal{I}$ if and only if the diagonal functor $Delta : mathcal{C} to mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C})$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint:
$$mathrm{colim} dashv Delta dashv mathrm{lim}$$



A specific instance of this is when $mathcal{I} = mathbf{0}$ is the empty category. Then $mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C}) cong mathbf{1}$, the terminal category, and then the corresponding diagonal functor is just the unique functor $mathcal{C} to mathbf{1}$. This functor has a right (resp. left) adjoint if and only if $mathcal{C}$ has a terminal (resp. initial) object.



Another instance is when $mathcal{I} = 2$ is the discrete category with two objects. Then $mathrm{Fun}(mathcal{I}, mathcal{C}) cong mathcal{C}^2$, and the diagonal functor $mathcal{C} to mathcal{C}^2$ has a right (resp. left) adjoint if and only if $mathcal{C}$ has binary products (resp. coproducts).







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 15 hours ago

























answered 15 hours ago









Clive Newstead

50.6k474133




50.6k474133












  • I've reversed Shaun's edit. I used unbolded $2$ on purpose for the discrete category with two objects, to distinguish it from $mathbf{2}$, which is the category with two objects and a unique morphism between them.
    – Clive Newstead
    15 hours ago










  • I often use $1+1$ to avoid such ambiguity.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago




















  • I've reversed Shaun's edit. I used unbolded $2$ on purpose for the discrete category with two objects, to distinguish it from $mathbf{2}$, which is the category with two objects and a unique morphism between them.
    – Clive Newstead
    15 hours ago










  • I often use $1+1$ to avoid such ambiguity.
    – Derek Elkins
    10 hours ago


















I've reversed Shaun's edit. I used unbolded $2$ on purpose for the discrete category with two objects, to distinguish it from $mathbf{2}$, which is the category with two objects and a unique morphism between them.
– Clive Newstead
15 hours ago




I've reversed Shaun's edit. I used unbolded $2$ on purpose for the discrete category with two objects, to distinguish it from $mathbf{2}$, which is the category with two objects and a unique morphism between them.
– Clive Newstead
15 hours ago












I often use $1+1$ to avoid such ambiguity.
– Derek Elkins
10 hours ago






I often use $1+1$ to avoid such ambiguity.
– Derek Elkins
10 hours ago




















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%2f3061591%2fis-my-understanding-of-the-diagonal-functor-correct-and-if-so-whats-the-point%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

Mario Kart Wii

Image
Please consider supporting The Cutting Room Floor on Patreon. Thanks for all your support! Mario Kart Wii From The Cutting Room Floor Jump to: navigation, search Mario Kart Wii Developer : Nintendo Publisher : Nintendo Platform : Wii Released in JP : April 10, 2008 Released in US : April 27, 2008 Released in EU : April 11, 2008 Released in AU : April 24, 2008 Released in KR : April 30, 2009 This game has unused animations. This game has unused areas. This game has unused code. This game has unused objects. This game has unused modes / minigames. This game has unused graphics. This game has unused models. This game has unused items. This game has unused music. This game has regional differences. This game has a notes page This game has a prerelease article Mario Kart Wii is the sixth game in the series (not counting Arcade editions), which intro
Read more

What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

Image
5 Does "Dominus providebit" mean "The Lord will provide" or "The Lord provides"? I once had a bit of an argument with a guy who studied Latin over that. It's an inscription that appears on the rim of some old Swiss coins that I have. meaning latin-to-english-translation grammar-identification share | improve this question edited Jan 18 at 15:27 V2Blast 105 4 asked Jan 17 at 22:49 Donald K. Donald K. 26 1
Read more

Antonio Litta Visconti Arese

Image
Antonio Litta Visconti Arese I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò In carica 1797 – 1820 Predecessore Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Successore Alfonso Litta Visconti Arese Trattamento Sua grazia Altri titoli Duca Litta Conte del Regno napoleonico d'Italia Patrizio milanese Don Nascita Milano, 2 maggio 1748 Morte Milano, 14 agosto 1820 Dinastia Litta Visconti Arese Padre Pompeo Litta Visconti Arese Madre Maria Elisabetta Visconti Borromeo Consorte Barbara Barbiano di Belgioioso Religione cattolicesimo Antonio Litta Visconti Arese , I duca Litta, VII marchese di Gambolò (Milano, 2 maggio 1748 – Milano, 14 agosto 1820), è stato un nobile e politico italiano. Composizione "Il pastore svizzero" di Pietro Morlacchi, con dedica Indice 1 Biografia 2 Onorificenze 3 Araldica 4 Albero genealogico 5 Note 6 Altri progetti Biografia | Antonio Litta Visco
Read more