On the canonical map $text{colim}_I text{lim}_JH(i,j) longrightarrow text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_IH(i,j)$
$begingroup$
I'm working through a proof of the existence of a canonical mapping
$$
mu: text{colim}_I text{lim}_JH(i,j) longrightarrow text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_IH(i,j) tag{1}
$$
induced by a cone $(mu_i: text{lim}_JH(i,-)to text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_I H(i,j))_{i in I}$ with $mu_i$ defined as the map induced by the cone $(mu_{ij})_{j in J}$ defined as
$$
text{lim}_JH(i,-) xrightarrow{pi_j} H(i,j) xrightarrow{iota_i} text{colim}_IH(-,j).
$$
I have yet to show that these are in effect cones: what approach can be taken in order to prove this in the least 'chaotic' way possible? My attempts so far have involved an amount of arrows that I can hardly keep track of, so maybe there is an elegant solution lurking in the corners which I am failing to see.
category-theory proof-explanation limits-colimits
edited Jan 15 at 9:51
Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
asked Jan 15 at 1:26
Guido A.Guido A.
8,0951730
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm working through a proof of the existence of a canonical mapping
$$
mu: text{colim}_I text{lim}_JH(i,j) longrightarrow text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_IH(i,j) tag{1}
$$
induced by a cone $(mu_i: text{lim}_JH(i,-)to text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_I H(i,j))_{i in I}$ with $mu_i$ defined as the map induced by the cone $(mu_{ij})_{j in J}$ defined as
$$
text{lim}_JH(i,-) xrightarrow{pi_j} H(i,j) xrightarrow{iota_i} text{colim}_IH(-,j).
$$
I have yet to show that these are in effect cones: what approach can be taken in order to prove this in the least 'chaotic' way possible? My attempts so far have involved an amount of arrows that I can hardly keep track of, so maybe there is an elegant solution lurking in the corners which I am failing to see.
category-theory proof-explanation limits-colimits
edited Jan 15 at 9:51
Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
asked Jan 15 at 1:26
Guido A.Guido A.
8,0951730
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
In recommend not to start a war with cones, they are messy to keep track of, and since you already obviously assume the existence of limits and colimits over $I,J$, why not just use universal cones? you already got them for free.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 9:31
$begingroup$
Would you mind elaborating? I am not seeing it. I do use universal cones when I talk about $(iota_ipi_j)_j$ but to relate this to universal cones the former should be a cone to begin with, which takes us back to the original question
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 11:20
$begingroup$
Well, all your objects are defined by universal properties over a diagram, I would suggest you forget the cones part and only look at the diagrams! since you have already canonical maps between them (the identities). respectively, you even have already the maps from the limits to the colimits. so you can just piece those together by universal properties. i.e. use the universal property of colimit and limit to build your map.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 11:26
$begingroup$
But isn't that what I am using? A map out of the colimit is given by maps put of every object into $text{lim}text{colim}H$ such that they form a cone, and each of these is a map with a limit as a codomain, so it is universally characterized by maps into each object of it which form a cone. I have already defined this maps (in terms of the universal property of each inner (co) limit) as $mu_{ij} = iota_i pi_j$. Now I want to prove that these are cones, in order to finish off the proof. Am I missing something?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 13:28
$begingroup$
well, you are given that those are cones, by the universal property.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 13:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm working through a proof of the existence of a canonical mapping
$$
mu: text{colim}_I text{lim}_JH(i,j) longrightarrow text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_IH(i,j) tag{1}
$$
induced by a cone $(mu_i: text{lim}_JH(i,-)to text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_I H(i,j))_{i in I}$ with $mu_i$ defined as the map induced by the cone $(mu_{ij})_{j in J}$ defined as
$$
text{lim}_JH(i,-) xrightarrow{pi_j} H(i,j) xrightarrow{iota_i} text{colim}_IH(-,j).
$$
I have yet to show that these are in effect cones: what approach can be taken in order to prove this in the least 'chaotic' way possible? My attempts so far have involved an amount of arrows that I can hardly keep track of, so maybe there is an elegant solution lurking in the corners which I am failing to see.
category-theory proof-explanation limits-colimits
edited Jan 15 at 9:51
Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
asked Jan 15 at 1:26
Guido A.Guido A.
8,0951730
$endgroup$
I'm working through a proof of the existence of a canonical mapping
$$
mu: text{colim}_I text{lim}_JH(i,j) longrightarrow text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_IH(i,j) tag{1}
$$
induced by a cone $(mu_i: text{lim}_JH(i,-)to text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_I H(i,j))_{i in I}$ with $mu_i$ defined as the map induced by the cone $(mu_{ij})_{j in J}$ defined as
$$
text{lim}_JH(i,-) xrightarrow{pi_j} H(i,j) xrightarrow{iota_i} text{colim}_IH(-,j).
$$
I have yet to show that these are in effect cones: what approach can be taken in order to prove this in the least 'chaotic' way possible? My attempts so far have involved an amount of arrows that I can hardly keep track of, so maybe there is an elegant solution lurking in the corners which I am failing to see.
category-theory proof-explanation limits-colimits
category-theory proof-explanation limits-colimits
edited Jan 15 at 9:51
Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
asked Jan 15 at 1:26
Guido A.Guido A.
8,0951730
edited Jan 15 at 9:51
Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
asked Jan 15 at 1:26
Guido A.Guido A.
8,0951730
edited Jan 15 at 9:51
Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
edited Jan 15 at 9:51
Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
edited Jan 15 at 9:51
Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
16.2k52444
asked Jan 15 at 1:26
Guido A.Guido A.
8,0951730
asked Jan 15 at 1:26
Guido A.Guido A.
8,0951730
asked Jan 15 at 1:26
Guido A.Guido A.
8,0951730
8,0951730
$begingroup$
In recommend not to start a war with cones, they are messy to keep track of, and since you already obviously assume the existence of limits and colimits over $I,J$, why not just use universal cones? you already got them for free.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 9:31
$begingroup$
Would you mind elaborating? I am not seeing it. I do use universal cones when I talk about $(iota_ipi_j)_j$ but to relate this to universal cones the former should be a cone to begin with, which takes us back to the original question
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 11:20
$begingroup$
Well, all your objects are defined by universal properties over a diagram, I would suggest you forget the cones part and only look at the diagrams! since you have already canonical maps between them (the identities). respectively, you even have already the maps from the limits to the colimits. so you can just piece those together by universal properties. i.e. use the universal property of colimit and limit to build your map.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 11:26
$begingroup$
But isn't that what I am using? A map out of the colimit is given by maps put of every object into $text{lim}text{colim}H$ such that they form a cone, and each of these is a map with a limit as a codomain, so it is universally characterized by maps into each object of it which form a cone. I have already defined this maps (in terms of the universal property of each inner (co) limit) as $mu_{ij} = iota_i pi_j$. Now I want to prove that these are cones, in order to finish off the proof. Am I missing something?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 13:28
$begingroup$
well, you are given that those are cones, by the universal property.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 13:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
In recommend not to start a war with cones, they are messy to keep track of, and since you already obviously assume the existence of limits and colimits over $I,J$, why not just use universal cones? you already got them for free.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 9:31
$begingroup$
Would you mind elaborating? I am not seeing it. I do use universal cones when I talk about $(iota_ipi_j)_j$ but to relate this to universal cones the former should be a cone to begin with, which takes us back to the original question
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 11:20
$begingroup$
Well, all your objects are defined by universal properties over a diagram, I would suggest you forget the cones part and only look at the diagrams! since you have already canonical maps between them (the identities). respectively, you even have already the maps from the limits to the colimits. so you can just piece those together by universal properties. i.e. use the universal property of colimit and limit to build your map.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 11:26
$begingroup$
But isn't that what I am using? A map out of the colimit is given by maps put of every object into $text{lim}text{colim}H$ such that they form a cone, and each of these is a map with a limit as a codomain, so it is universally characterized by maps into each object of it which form a cone. I have already defined this maps (in terms of the universal property of each inner (co) limit) as $mu_{ij} = iota_i pi_j$. Now I want to prove that these are cones, in order to finish off the proof. Am I missing something?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 13:28
$begingroup$
well, you are given that those are cones, by the universal property.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 13:33
$begingroup$
In recommend not to start a war with cones, they are messy to keep track of, and since you already obviously assume the existence of limits and colimits over $I,J$, why not just use universal cones? you already got them for free.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 9:31
$begingroup$
In recommend not to start a war with cones, they are messy to keep track of, and since you already obviously assume the existence of limits and colimits over $I,J$, why not just use universal cones? you already got them for free.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 9:31
$begingroup$
Would you mind elaborating? I am not seeing it. I do use universal cones when I talk about $(iota_ipi_j)_j$ but to relate this to universal cones the former should be a cone to begin with, which takes us back to the original question
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 11:20
$begingroup$
Would you mind elaborating? I am not seeing it. I do use universal cones when I talk about $(iota_ipi_j)_j$ but to relate this to universal cones the former should be a cone to begin with, which takes us back to the original question
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 11:20
$begingroup$
Well, all your objects are defined by universal properties over a diagram, I would suggest you forget the cones part and only look at the diagrams! since you have already canonical maps between them (the identities). respectively, you even have already the maps from the limits to the colimits. so you can just piece those together by universal properties. i.e. use the universal property of colimit and limit to build your map.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 11:26
$begingroup$
Well, all your objects are defined by universal properties over a diagram, I would suggest you forget the cones part and only look at the diagrams! since you have already canonical maps between them (the identities). respectively, you even have already the maps from the limits to the colimits. so you can just piece those together by universal properties. i.e. use the universal property of colimit and limit to build your map.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 11:26
$begingroup$
But isn't that what I am using? A map out of the colimit is given by maps put of every object into $text{lim}text{colim}H$ such that they form a cone, and each of these is a map with a limit as a codomain, so it is universally characterized by maps into each object of it which form a cone. I have already defined this maps (in terms of the universal property of each inner (co) limit) as $mu_{ij} = iota_i pi_j$. Now I want to prove that these are cones, in order to finish off the proof. Am I missing something?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 13:28
$begingroup$
But isn't that what I am using? A map out of the colimit is given by maps put of every object into $text{lim}text{colim}H$ such that they form a cone, and each of these is a map with a limit as a codomain, so it is universally characterized by maps into each object of it which form a cone. I have already defined this maps (in terms of the universal property of each inner (co) limit) as $mu_{ij} = iota_i pi_j$. Now I want to prove that these are cones, in order to finish off the proof. Am I missing something?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 13:28
$begingroup$
well, you are given that those are cones, by the universal property.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 13:33
$begingroup$
well, you are given that those are cones, by the universal property.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 13:33
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I think the shortest way is to use two ingredients :
- the identification between functors $H:Itimes Jto C$ and functors $Ito C^J$
- the functoriality of (co)limits.
Indeed if you think of $H$ as a functor $Ito C^J$, taking its colimit gives you a cone
$$H(i,j) xrightarrow{iota_i} text{colim}_IH(-,j).$$
in the functor category $C^J$.
Then you can apply the functor $lim_J$ on this cone to directly obtain the cone
$$(mu_i: text{lim}_JH(i,-)to text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_I H(i,j))_{i in I}$$
in the category $C$. From there you get the canonical mapping $mu$, as you say in your question.
answered Jan 15 at 14:00
Arnaud D.Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I have been looking at your post for a while but I can't seem to complete the missing details. What do you mean by applying the limit functor to both sides? Shouldn't we first have to construct some morphism in $C^J$ to which we could apply this functor to?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 17:15
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. It is already in $C^J$, in fact. But I was probably too concise. I've edited a little bit, I hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 18:45
$begingroup$
I was misinterpreting the former statement: I see how we can form maps $mu_i$ in this way. But how can one say that this is a cone?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 20:28
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. Cones are commutative diagrams (or natural transformation to a constant functor, if you prefer), so they are preserved by functors.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 21:26
$begingroup$
This result confused me beyond the usual, I see it now! Thanks so much for your patience and the additional details :)
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 22:04
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: "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
});
}
});
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3073969%2fon-the-canonical-map-textcolim-i-textlim-jhi-j-longrightarrow-textli%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 think the shortest way is to use two ingredients :
- the identification between functors $H:Itimes Jto C$ and functors $Ito C^J$
- the functoriality of (co)limits.
Indeed if you think of $H$ as a functor $Ito C^J$, taking its colimit gives you a cone
$$H(i,j) xrightarrow{iota_i} text{colim}_IH(-,j).$$
in the functor category $C^J$.
Then you can apply the functor $lim_J$ on this cone to directly obtain the cone
$$(mu_i: text{lim}_JH(i,-)to text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_I H(i,j))_{i in I}$$
in the category $C$. From there you get the canonical mapping $mu$, as you say in your question.
answered Jan 15 at 14:00
Arnaud D.Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I have been looking at your post for a while but I can't seem to complete the missing details. What do you mean by applying the limit functor to both sides? Shouldn't we first have to construct some morphism in $C^J$ to which we could apply this functor to?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 17:15
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. It is already in $C^J$, in fact. But I was probably too concise. I've edited a little bit, I hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 18:45
$begingroup$
I was misinterpreting the former statement: I see how we can form maps $mu_i$ in this way. But how can one say that this is a cone?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 20:28
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. Cones are commutative diagrams (or natural transformation to a constant functor, if you prefer), so they are preserved by functors.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 21:26
$begingroup$
This result confused me beyond the usual, I see it now! Thanks so much for your patience and the additional details :)
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 22:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the shortest way is to use two ingredients :
- the identification between functors $H:Itimes Jto C$ and functors $Ito C^J$
- the functoriality of (co)limits.
Indeed if you think of $H$ as a functor $Ito C^J$, taking its colimit gives you a cone
$$H(i,j) xrightarrow{iota_i} text{colim}_IH(-,j).$$
in the functor category $C^J$.
Then you can apply the functor $lim_J$ on this cone to directly obtain the cone
$$(mu_i: text{lim}_JH(i,-)to text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_I H(i,j))_{i in I}$$
in the category $C$. From there you get the canonical mapping $mu$, as you say in your question.
answered Jan 15 at 14:00
Arnaud D.Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I have been looking at your post for a while but I can't seem to complete the missing details. What do you mean by applying the limit functor to both sides? Shouldn't we first have to construct some morphism in $C^J$ to which we could apply this functor to?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 17:15
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. It is already in $C^J$, in fact. But I was probably too concise. I've edited a little bit, I hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 18:45
$begingroup$
I was misinterpreting the former statement: I see how we can form maps $mu_i$ in this way. But how can one say that this is a cone?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 20:28
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. Cones are commutative diagrams (or natural transformation to a constant functor, if you prefer), so they are preserved by functors.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 21:26
$begingroup$
This result confused me beyond the usual, I see it now! Thanks so much for your patience and the additional details :)
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 22:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think the shortest way is to use two ingredients :
- the identification between functors $H:Itimes Jto C$ and functors $Ito C^J$
- the functoriality of (co)limits.
Indeed if you think of $H$ as a functor $Ito C^J$, taking its colimit gives you a cone
$$H(i,j) xrightarrow{iota_i} text{colim}_IH(-,j).$$
in the functor category $C^J$.
Then you can apply the functor $lim_J$ on this cone to directly obtain the cone
$$(mu_i: text{lim}_JH(i,-)to text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_I H(i,j))_{i in I}$$
in the category $C$. From there you get the canonical mapping $mu$, as you say in your question.
answered Jan 15 at 14:00
Arnaud D.Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
$endgroup$
I think the shortest way is to use two ingredients :
- the identification between functors $H:Itimes Jto C$ and functors $Ito C^J$
- the functoriality of (co)limits.
Indeed if you think of $H$ as a functor $Ito C^J$, taking its colimit gives you a cone
$$H(i,j) xrightarrow{iota_i} text{colim}_IH(-,j).$$
in the functor category $C^J$.
Then you can apply the functor $lim_J$ on this cone to directly obtain the cone
$$(mu_i: text{lim}_JH(i,-)to text{lim}_Jtext{colim}_I H(i,j))_{i in I}$$
in the category $C$. From there you get the canonical mapping $mu$, as you say in your question.
answered Jan 15 at 14:00
Arnaud D.Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
edited Jan 15 at 18:42
answered Jan 15 at 14:00
Arnaud D.Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
answered Jan 15 at 14:00
Arnaud D.Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
answered Jan 15 at 14:00
Arnaud D.Arnaud D.
16.2k52444
16.2k52444
$begingroup$
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I have been looking at your post for a while but I can't seem to complete the missing details. What do you mean by applying the limit functor to both sides? Shouldn't we first have to construct some morphism in $C^J$ to which we could apply this functor to?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 17:15
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. It is already in $C^J$, in fact. But I was probably too concise. I've edited a little bit, I hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 18:45
$begingroup$
I was misinterpreting the former statement: I see how we can form maps $mu_i$ in this way. But how can one say that this is a cone?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 20:28
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. Cones are commutative diagrams (or natural transformation to a constant functor, if you prefer), so they are preserved by functors.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 21:26
$begingroup$
This result confused me beyond the usual, I see it now! Thanks so much for your patience and the additional details :)
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 22:04
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I have been looking at your post for a while but I can't seem to complete the missing details. What do you mean by applying the limit functor to both sides? Shouldn't we first have to construct some morphism in $C^J$ to which we could apply this functor to?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 17:15
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. It is already in $C^J$, in fact. But I was probably too concise. I've edited a little bit, I hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 18:45
$begingroup$
I was misinterpreting the former statement: I see how we can form maps $mu_i$ in this way. But how can one say that this is a cone?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 20:28
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. Cones are commutative diagrams (or natural transformation to a constant functor, if you prefer), so they are preserved by functors.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 21:26
$begingroup$
This result confused me beyond the usual, I see it now! Thanks so much for your patience and the additional details :)
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 22:04
$begingroup$
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I have been looking at your post for a while but I can't seem to complete the missing details. What do you mean by applying the limit functor to both sides? Shouldn't we first have to construct some morphism in $C^J$ to which we could apply this functor to?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 17:15
$begingroup$
Thanks for taking the time to answer. I have been looking at your post for a while but I can't seem to complete the missing details. What do you mean by applying the limit functor to both sides? Shouldn't we first have to construct some morphism in $C^J$ to which we could apply this functor to?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 17:15
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. It is already in $C^J$, in fact. But I was probably too concise. I've edited a little bit, I hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 18:45
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. It is already in $C^J$, in fact. But I was probably too concise. I've edited a little bit, I hope it's better now.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 18:45
$begingroup$
I was misinterpreting the former statement: I see how we can form maps $mu_i$ in this way. But how can one say that this is a cone?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 20:28
$begingroup$
I was misinterpreting the former statement: I see how we can form maps $mu_i$ in this way. But how can one say that this is a cone?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 20:28
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. Cones are commutative diagrams (or natural transformation to a constant functor, if you prefer), so they are preserved by functors.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 21:26
$begingroup$
@GuidoA. Cones are commutative diagrams (or natural transformation to a constant functor, if you prefer), so they are preserved by functors.
$endgroup$
– Arnaud D.
Jan 15 at 21:26
$begingroup$
This result confused me beyond the usual, I see it now! Thanks so much for your patience and the additional details :)
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 22:04
$begingroup$
This result confused me beyond the usual, I see it now! Thanks so much for your patience and the additional details :)
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 22:04
add a comment |
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.
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3073969%2fon-the-canonical-map-textcolim-i-textlim-jhi-j-longrightarrow-textli%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
$begingroup$
In recommend not to start a war with cones, they are messy to keep track of, and since you already obviously assume the existence of limits and colimits over $I,J$, why not just use universal cones? you already got them for free.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 9:31
$begingroup$
Would you mind elaborating? I am not seeing it. I do use universal cones when I talk about $(iota_ipi_j)_j$ but to relate this to universal cones the former should be a cone to begin with, which takes us back to the original question
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 11:20
$begingroup$
Well, all your objects are defined by universal properties over a diagram, I would suggest you forget the cones part and only look at the diagrams! since you have already canonical maps between them (the identities). respectively, you even have already the maps from the limits to the colimits. so you can just piece those together by universal properties. i.e. use the universal property of colimit and limit to build your map.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 11:26
$begingroup$
But isn't that what I am using? A map out of the colimit is given by maps put of every object into $text{lim}text{colim}H$ such that they form a cone, and each of these is a map with a limit as a codomain, so it is universally characterized by maps into each object of it which form a cone. I have already defined this maps (in terms of the universal property of each inner (co) limit) as $mu_{ij} = iota_i pi_j$. Now I want to prove that these are cones, in order to finish off the proof. Am I missing something?
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Jan 15 at 13:28
$begingroup$
well, you are given that those are cones, by the universal property.
$endgroup$
– Enkidu
Jan 15 at 13:33