1

This is Exercise II.6 of Mac Lane and Moerdijk's, "Sheaves in Geometry and Logic [. . .]". According to the first few pages of this Approach0 search, it is new to MSE.

The Details:

The functors $\Lambda$ and $\Gamma$ are discussed in the following:

Both of which are my questions.

Definition: A functor is left exact if it preserves all finite limits.

In Mac Lane's "Categories for the Working Mathematician," p. 201, we have the following.

[A functor] $T$ is left exact if and only if it is addictive and $\ker (Tf)=T(\ker f)$ for all $f$: the last condition is equivalent to the requirement that $T$ preserves short left exact sequences.

Here additive means that $T: A\to B$ is such that $A, B$ are ${\rm Ab}$-categories and

$$T(f+f')=T(f)+T(f')$$

for any parallel pair $f, f': b\to c$ in $A$, where an ${\rm Ab}$-category $C$ is a category such that each hom-set $C(p,q)$ is an additive abelian group and for which composition is bilinear: For arrows $p, p':x\to y$ and $q,q': y\to z$,

$$\begin{align} (q+q')\circ(p+p')&=(q\circ p)+(q\circ p') \\ &+(q'\circ p)+(q'\circ p'). \end{align}$$

The Question:

Prove that the functors $\Gamma$ and $\Lambda$ and hence the associated sheaf functor

$$\Gamma\Lambda: \mathbf{Sets}^{\mathcal{O}(X)^{{\rm op}}}\to {\rm Sh}(X)$$

are each left exact.

Thoughts & Context:

The notion of a limit I am familiar with is in terms of cones and universal properties with respect to a diagram category, like on p. 21 of Mac Lane and Moerdijk. The reason I'm putting this in this section of the question (instead of The Details above) is because it's been a while since I've worked with limits, so it fits better in the context of the question.

I can (sort of) see why, if $\Gamma$ and $\Lambda$ each preserve limits, then so would $\Gamma\Lambda$.

This is the sort of question I think I could answer myself if I had more time.

I think a line of attack would be to use Proposition 3.2 of the n-lab page on exact functors:

A functor between categories with finite limits preserves finite limits if and only if:

Please help :)


Edit: I don't think I can answer this without help.


I think I have to find the terminal object (binary products, equalisers, resp.) of the domains of each of $\Gamma$, $\Lambda$, and the associated sheaf functor then show that they each map them to that (terminal object, binary products, equalisers, resp.) of their codomains.

Shaun
  • 47,747
  • 8
    While you’ve linked to other relevant questions, in fact you haven’t really demonstrated any effort of your own on this problem. It’s not an appropriate use of MSE to ask somebody to completely solve a problem for you just because you feel you don’t have the time. And it is certainly not in your best interests as somebody trying to learn topos theory not to have a crystal clear understanding of what it means that a functor should preserve finite limits. – Kevin Carlson Feb 29 '20 at 18:26
  • That's a fair comment, @KevinCarlson. It's worse than you make it sound, too, since, as you probably know by now, I've been relying on MSE a lot lately. I'm sorry. I'll work some more towards this question myself in the meantime, but I'll keep this open. – Shaun Feb 29 '20 at 18:31
  • 4
    Sounds good. I know I've said this before, but let me just repeat once more that most of your questions stem from problems with general category theory, not with topos theory-it looks like a very slow and unpleasant process trying to learn topos theory without sufficient background. – Kevin Carlson Feb 29 '20 at 19:36
  • 1
    I've amended the question, @KevinCarlson. I don't think I can answer it myself. After a couple of days, I have got nowhere. I realise that I might be asking for an answer that other users might not want to give due to what might appear to be a lack of effort; therefore, I have incentivised it with a bounty. I am keen to move on to the next question. As for the lack of experience with category theory: I'm trying my best. Goldblatt's book covers some of the prerequisites, as does Mac Lane and Moerdijk's. I'm confident I could find additional material if needs be. – Shaun Mar 03 '20 at 18:20
  • Okay, @KevinCarlson; I'm still stuck. My understanding of $\Lambda$ is a little hazy. Would you help me, please? – Shaun Mar 06 '20 at 09:54
  • You need to ask a specific question. You’ve already accepted an answer elsewhere on the site in which $\Lambda$ was re-explained to you, so I have no way of identifying what it is that’s hazy to you. – Kevin Carlson Mar 06 '20 at 17:12
  • The exercise is to prove the three functors are each left exact, @KevinCarlson. I haven't got my bearings yet; I'm sorry. The answer you're referring to made sense at the time I accepted it (or at least I thought it did). I'm not sure what $\Lambda$ does to the morphisms in its domain nor what $\Lambda$'s codomain is. Perhaps it's just a confidence issue. I don't know. It's fun to think about though. I'd really appreciate a hand with how to implement the approach from n-Lab's Proposition 3.2. I'd also like to move on to other questions while the ideas are still fresh in my head. – Shaun Mar 06 '20 at 17:24
  • 1
    the codomain in is the slice category of topological spaces over $X$. If $f:A\to B$ is a morphism of presheaves with $s\in A(U)$ then for each $x\in U$, we have a point $(s,x)$ in $\Lambda A$. Then $\Lambda f((s,x))=(f_U(s),x)$. As for the proof, I might start with the terminal object. – Kevin Carlson Mar 06 '20 at 18:11
  • Thank you, @KevinCarlson. There's still time for you to earn the bounty if you'd like to provide an answer :) – Shaun Mar 10 '20 at 00:15
  • Aren't you tempted, @KevinCarlson? – Shaun Mar 11 '20 at 01:02
  • What's with the downvote? I'm really trying here! – Shaun Mar 11 '20 at 01:49
  • 2
    No, not really, for reasons explained in my past comments on your questions. I assume that’s also the reason for the downvote, which is not mine-you may be trying hard at this problem, but nevertheless you have no idea where to start, and so the question lacks sufficient context and evidence of effort. One more, the reason you don’t know where to start is that you skipped the prerequisite material to topos theory. That’s the last l’ll be saying about that. – Kevin Carlson Mar 11 '20 at 05:44
  • I've added some content from "Categories for the Working Mathematician," @KevinCarlson; I feel no closer to answering the question though. Do you have any hints? – Shaun Mar 26 '20 at 14:20
  • 1
    You have said what you think you have to do, so, have you found any of those finite limits? The additive version of left exactness is not relevant here as these categories are not additive. – Kevin Carlson Mar 26 '20 at 15:16
  • No, not yet, @KevinCarlson. I have focused on the prerequisites. As for the additive version: well, that's how Mac Lane defines left exactness in "Categories for the Working Mathematician," unless I'm mistaken. (I'm sorry to be a bother.) – Shaun Mar 26 '20 at 15:26
  • 1
    No worries, that's a confusing point-different authors, and perhaps the same authors in different works, may define "left exact" to mean any finite-limit-preserving functor, or more specially to mean such a functor whose domain is abelian, in which case left exactness amounts to preservation of kernels. With that, it seems you have the prerequisites together and you're ready to start trying to prove the claim. – Kevin Carlson Mar 26 '20 at 16:01

1 Answers1

1

Recall:

$\Lambda : \newcommand\O{\mathcal{O}}\newcommand\Set{\mathbf{set}}\newcommand\op{\mathrm{op}} [\O(X)^\op,\Set] \to \newcommand\Etale{\mathbf{Etale}}\Etale(X)$ sends a presheaf to its associated etale bundle of germs.

$\Gamma : \newcommand\Bund{\mathbf{Bund}} \Bund(X) := \newcommand\Top{\mathbf{Top}}\Top/X \to \newcommand\Sh{\mathbf{Sh}}\Sh(X)$ sends an $X$-bundle to its sheaf of sections.

We'll show that they both preserve (binary) pullbacks and terminal objects. I'm going to use $=$ when sometimes I mean natural isomorphism for notational simplicity.

Terminal objects:

The terminal presheaf is $*$, where $*(U) = \{*\}$ for all $U$. Every stalk at any point $x$ has a unique germ, $*_x$, so $\Lambda(*)$ has underlying set isomorphic to $X$, and the open sets are the sets of the form $\{(x,*_x) : x\in U\}$, with $U$ open in $X$. Thus $\Lambda(*)$ is the trivial bundle $\mathrm{id}_X : X\to X$, which is the terminal object in $\Bund(X)$, and hence also $\Etale(X)$.

There is a unique section of the trivial bundle for any open set $U$, namely the inclusion $U\hookrightarrow X$, so $\Gamma(\newcommand\id{\operatorname{id}}\id_X) = *$, where $*$ is the terminal presheaf, but now regarded as a sheaf.

Pullbacks

Let $F,G,T$ be presheaves, with morphisms $f:F\to T \leftarrow G : g$, and let $F\times_T G$ be the pullback. Since limits commute with filtered colimits, for each $x\in X$, we have $(F\times_T G)_x = F_x\times_{T_x} G_x$, so as sets over $X$, $\Lambda(F\times_T G)$ and $\Lambda(F)\times_{\Lambda(T)}\Lambda(G)$ agree. We just need to check that their topologies are also the same. However, the open sets in $\Lambda(F\times_T G)$ are generated by the sections $s\in (F\times_T G(U))$ for all $U$, and these are the same as elements $(x,y)$ with $fx=gy$ of $F(U)\times_{T(U)} G(U)$, since limits in presheaves are computed pointwise. And these (you can check) generate the open sets in $\Lambda(F)\times_{\Lambda(T)}\Lambda(G)$. Thus the topologies are the same.

Now the pullback in $\Top/X$ is the ordinary pullback in $\Top$. Let $F : A\to X$, $G:B\to X$, and $T:C\to X$ be bundles, and $f:F\to T$ and $g:G\to T$ be maps of bundles. A section $\Gamma(F\times_T G)(U)$ is a bundle map $\sigma :U \to F\times_T G$, where $U:U\hookrightarrow X$ is the bundle representing the inclusion of the open set $U$. So $$\begin{align} \Gamma(F\times_T G)(U) &= \Top/X(U,F\times_T G)\\ & =\Top/X(U,F)\times_{\Top/X(U,T)}\Top/X(U,G) \\ &=\left(\Gamma(F)\times_{\Gamma(T)}\Gamma(G)\right)(U), \end{align}$$ since limits in sheaves are still computed pointwise. Thus $\Gamma(F\times_T G) \cong \Gamma(F)\times_{\Gamma(T)} \Gamma(G)$.

End note

You should be slightly careful and check that the morphisms defining the limit cones map correctly under the functors, but I'll leave that to you to check.

Shaun
  • 47,747
jgon
  • 29,394