Definition of generator in an abelian category.











up vote
2
down vote

favorite













Let $mathcal A$ be an abelian category. Let an object $G$ in $mathcal A$ be such that $Homleft(G,unicode{x2013} right)$ is a faithful functor from $mathcal A$ to the category of sets.(I assume that I am working with a category where any family of objects has their coproduct existing inside the category)




Why is the above equivalent to the fact that every object $X$ in $mathcal A$ admits an epimorphism $G^I$ to $X$? (where $I$ is the index category and is arbitrary)(where,$G^I$ is coproduct of copies of $G$ which exists in that category)



I do not see how injectivity of maps getting translated to epimorphism and vice versa? I guess I should start with appropriate short exact sequence and apply appropriate functor to make injectivity translated to epimorphism but I have no clue how to proceed practically, i.e how to make it precise.



Any help from anyone is welcome.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I'm not sure it is. In general Abelian categories one cannot always take arbitrary powers of objects.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 3 at 5:01










  • @lord-shark-the-unknown,sorry I should have mentioned that I am assuming in that category every family of objects(even possibly infinite) has its coproduct in that category.
    – HARRY
    Dec 3 at 5:11






  • 1




    $G^I$ is a weird notation for a possibly infinite coproduct
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:11















up vote
2
down vote

favorite













Let $mathcal A$ be an abelian category. Let an object $G$ in $mathcal A$ be such that $Homleft(G,unicode{x2013} right)$ is a faithful functor from $mathcal A$ to the category of sets.(I assume that I am working with a category where any family of objects has their coproduct existing inside the category)




Why is the above equivalent to the fact that every object $X$ in $mathcal A$ admits an epimorphism $G^I$ to $X$? (where $I$ is the index category and is arbitrary)(where,$G^I$ is coproduct of copies of $G$ which exists in that category)



I do not see how injectivity of maps getting translated to epimorphism and vice versa? I guess I should start with appropriate short exact sequence and apply appropriate functor to make injectivity translated to epimorphism but I have no clue how to proceed practically, i.e how to make it precise.



Any help from anyone is welcome.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I'm not sure it is. In general Abelian categories one cannot always take arbitrary powers of objects.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 3 at 5:01










  • @lord-shark-the-unknown,sorry I should have mentioned that I am assuming in that category every family of objects(even possibly infinite) has its coproduct in that category.
    – HARRY
    Dec 3 at 5:11






  • 1




    $G^I$ is a weird notation for a possibly infinite coproduct
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:11













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let $mathcal A$ be an abelian category. Let an object $G$ in $mathcal A$ be such that $Homleft(G,unicode{x2013} right)$ is a faithful functor from $mathcal A$ to the category of sets.(I assume that I am working with a category where any family of objects has their coproduct existing inside the category)




Why is the above equivalent to the fact that every object $X$ in $mathcal A$ admits an epimorphism $G^I$ to $X$? (where $I$ is the index category and is arbitrary)(where,$G^I$ is coproduct of copies of $G$ which exists in that category)



I do not see how injectivity of maps getting translated to epimorphism and vice versa? I guess I should start with appropriate short exact sequence and apply appropriate functor to make injectivity translated to epimorphism but I have no clue how to proceed practically, i.e how to make it precise.



Any help from anyone is welcome.










share|cite|improve this question
















Let $mathcal A$ be an abelian category. Let an object $G$ in $mathcal A$ be such that $Homleft(G,unicode{x2013} right)$ is a faithful functor from $mathcal A$ to the category of sets.(I assume that I am working with a category where any family of objects has their coproduct existing inside the category)




Why is the above equivalent to the fact that every object $X$ in $mathcal A$ admits an epimorphism $G^I$ to $X$? (where $I$ is the index category and is arbitrary)(where,$G^I$ is coproduct of copies of $G$ which exists in that category)



I do not see how injectivity of maps getting translated to epimorphism and vice versa? I guess I should start with appropriate short exact sequence and apply appropriate functor to make injectivity translated to epimorphism but I have no clue how to proceed practically, i.e how to make it precise.



Any help from anyone is welcome.







category-theory abelian-categories






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 3 at 5:14

























asked Dec 3 at 4:52









HARRY

609




609












  • I'm not sure it is. In general Abelian categories one cannot always take arbitrary powers of objects.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 3 at 5:01










  • @lord-shark-the-unknown,sorry I should have mentioned that I am assuming in that category every family of objects(even possibly infinite) has its coproduct in that category.
    – HARRY
    Dec 3 at 5:11






  • 1




    $G^I$ is a weird notation for a possibly infinite coproduct
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:11


















  • I'm not sure it is. In general Abelian categories one cannot always take arbitrary powers of objects.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Dec 3 at 5:01










  • @lord-shark-the-unknown,sorry I should have mentioned that I am assuming in that category every family of objects(even possibly infinite) has its coproduct in that category.
    – HARRY
    Dec 3 at 5:11






  • 1




    $G^I$ is a weird notation for a possibly infinite coproduct
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:11
















I'm not sure it is. In general Abelian categories one cannot always take arbitrary powers of objects.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Dec 3 at 5:01




I'm not sure it is. In general Abelian categories one cannot always take arbitrary powers of objects.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Dec 3 at 5:01












@lord-shark-the-unknown,sorry I should have mentioned that I am assuming in that category every family of objects(even possibly infinite) has its coproduct in that category.
– HARRY
Dec 3 at 5:11




@lord-shark-the-unknown,sorry I should have mentioned that I am assuming in that category every family of objects(even possibly infinite) has its coproduct in that category.
– HARRY
Dec 3 at 5:11




1




1




$G^I$ is a weird notation for a possibly infinite coproduct
– Max
Dec 3 at 8:11




$G^I$ is a weird notation for a possibly infinite coproduct
– Max
Dec 3 at 8:11










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










Suppose there is an epimorphism $p:G^Ito X$ and suppose $f:Xto Y$ is a morphism which becomes $0$ after applying the functor $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$. This means that for every morphism $g:Gto X$, $fg=0$. In particular, by taking $g$ to be each of the inclusion maps $Gto G^I$ composed with $p$, this implies $fp=0$. Since $p$ is an epimorphism, this implies $f=0$. Thus if such an epimorphism $p$ exists for every $X$, $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful.



Conversely, suppose $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful and let $X$ be an object. Let $I=operatorname{Hom}(G,X)$ and let $p:G^Ito X$ be the unique morphism such that for each $iin I$, the composition of $p$ with the $i$th inclusion map $Gto G^I$ is $i:Gto X$. I claim $p$ is an epimorphism. To show this, it suffices to show that if $f:Xto Y$ is a morphism such that $fp=0$, then $f=0$. But given any such $f$, by composing with the inclusion maps $Gto G^I$ we see that $fi=0$ for all $i:Gto X$. This means that $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ sends $f$ to $0$ and thus $f=0$ since $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I first thought your answer was wrong because of the notation $G^I$ which seems weird for a (possibly infinite) coproduct. Perhaps you could write a word about it ?
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:12










  • @Max,I tried to put $(I)$ there but somehow it did not work.sorry for the notation,but later I explained what it stands for.
    – HARRY
    Dec 3 at 8:40










  • @HARRY : yes of course, that's how I realized that the answer was actually correct (and having seen Eric's answers over time it seemed weird that he'd make this sort of mistake)
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:50











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',
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%2f3023649%2fdefinition-of-generator-in-an-abelian-category%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








up vote
3
down vote



accepted










Suppose there is an epimorphism $p:G^Ito X$ and suppose $f:Xto Y$ is a morphism which becomes $0$ after applying the functor $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$. This means that for every morphism $g:Gto X$, $fg=0$. In particular, by taking $g$ to be each of the inclusion maps $Gto G^I$ composed with $p$, this implies $fp=0$. Since $p$ is an epimorphism, this implies $f=0$. Thus if such an epimorphism $p$ exists for every $X$, $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful.



Conversely, suppose $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful and let $X$ be an object. Let $I=operatorname{Hom}(G,X)$ and let $p:G^Ito X$ be the unique morphism such that for each $iin I$, the composition of $p$ with the $i$th inclusion map $Gto G^I$ is $i:Gto X$. I claim $p$ is an epimorphism. To show this, it suffices to show that if $f:Xto Y$ is a morphism such that $fp=0$, then $f=0$. But given any such $f$, by composing with the inclusion maps $Gto G^I$ we see that $fi=0$ for all $i:Gto X$. This means that $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ sends $f$ to $0$ and thus $f=0$ since $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I first thought your answer was wrong because of the notation $G^I$ which seems weird for a (possibly infinite) coproduct. Perhaps you could write a word about it ?
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:12










  • @Max,I tried to put $(I)$ there but somehow it did not work.sorry for the notation,but later I explained what it stands for.
    – HARRY
    Dec 3 at 8:40










  • @HARRY : yes of course, that's how I realized that the answer was actually correct (and having seen Eric's answers over time it seemed weird that he'd make this sort of mistake)
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:50















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










Suppose there is an epimorphism $p:G^Ito X$ and suppose $f:Xto Y$ is a morphism which becomes $0$ after applying the functor $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$. This means that for every morphism $g:Gto X$, $fg=0$. In particular, by taking $g$ to be each of the inclusion maps $Gto G^I$ composed with $p$, this implies $fp=0$. Since $p$ is an epimorphism, this implies $f=0$. Thus if such an epimorphism $p$ exists for every $X$, $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful.



Conversely, suppose $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful and let $X$ be an object. Let $I=operatorname{Hom}(G,X)$ and let $p:G^Ito X$ be the unique morphism such that for each $iin I$, the composition of $p$ with the $i$th inclusion map $Gto G^I$ is $i:Gto X$. I claim $p$ is an epimorphism. To show this, it suffices to show that if $f:Xto Y$ is a morphism such that $fp=0$, then $f=0$. But given any such $f$, by composing with the inclusion maps $Gto G^I$ we see that $fi=0$ for all $i:Gto X$. This means that $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ sends $f$ to $0$ and thus $f=0$ since $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I first thought your answer was wrong because of the notation $G^I$ which seems weird for a (possibly infinite) coproduct. Perhaps you could write a word about it ?
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:12










  • @Max,I tried to put $(I)$ there but somehow it did not work.sorry for the notation,but later I explained what it stands for.
    – HARRY
    Dec 3 at 8:40










  • @HARRY : yes of course, that's how I realized that the answer was actually correct (and having seen Eric's answers over time it seemed weird that he'd make this sort of mistake)
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:50













up vote
3
down vote



accepted







up vote
3
down vote



accepted






Suppose there is an epimorphism $p:G^Ito X$ and suppose $f:Xto Y$ is a morphism which becomes $0$ after applying the functor $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$. This means that for every morphism $g:Gto X$, $fg=0$. In particular, by taking $g$ to be each of the inclusion maps $Gto G^I$ composed with $p$, this implies $fp=0$. Since $p$ is an epimorphism, this implies $f=0$. Thus if such an epimorphism $p$ exists for every $X$, $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful.



Conversely, suppose $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful and let $X$ be an object. Let $I=operatorname{Hom}(G,X)$ and let $p:G^Ito X$ be the unique morphism such that for each $iin I$, the composition of $p$ with the $i$th inclusion map $Gto G^I$ is $i:Gto X$. I claim $p$ is an epimorphism. To show this, it suffices to show that if $f:Xto Y$ is a morphism such that $fp=0$, then $f=0$. But given any such $f$, by composing with the inclusion maps $Gto G^I$ we see that $fi=0$ for all $i:Gto X$. This means that $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ sends $f$ to $0$ and thus $f=0$ since $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful.






share|cite|improve this answer












Suppose there is an epimorphism $p:G^Ito X$ and suppose $f:Xto Y$ is a morphism which becomes $0$ after applying the functor $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$. This means that for every morphism $g:Gto X$, $fg=0$. In particular, by taking $g$ to be each of the inclusion maps $Gto G^I$ composed with $p$, this implies $fp=0$. Since $p$ is an epimorphism, this implies $f=0$. Thus if such an epimorphism $p$ exists for every $X$, $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful.



Conversely, suppose $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful and let $X$ be an object. Let $I=operatorname{Hom}(G,X)$ and let $p:G^Ito X$ be the unique morphism such that for each $iin I$, the composition of $p$ with the $i$th inclusion map $Gto G^I$ is $i:Gto X$. I claim $p$ is an epimorphism. To show this, it suffices to show that if $f:Xto Y$ is a morphism such that $fp=0$, then $f=0$. But given any such $f$, by composing with the inclusion maps $Gto G^I$ we see that $fi=0$ for all $i:Gto X$. This means that $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ sends $f$ to $0$ and thus $f=0$ since $operatorname{Hom}(G,-)$ is faithful.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 3 at 5:36









Eric Wofsey

177k12202327




177k12202327












  • I first thought your answer was wrong because of the notation $G^I$ which seems weird for a (possibly infinite) coproduct. Perhaps you could write a word about it ?
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:12










  • @Max,I tried to put $(I)$ there but somehow it did not work.sorry for the notation,but later I explained what it stands for.
    – HARRY
    Dec 3 at 8:40










  • @HARRY : yes of course, that's how I realized that the answer was actually correct (and having seen Eric's answers over time it seemed weird that he'd make this sort of mistake)
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:50


















  • I first thought your answer was wrong because of the notation $G^I$ which seems weird for a (possibly infinite) coproduct. Perhaps you could write a word about it ?
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:12










  • @Max,I tried to put $(I)$ there but somehow it did not work.sorry for the notation,but later I explained what it stands for.
    – HARRY
    Dec 3 at 8:40










  • @HARRY : yes of course, that's how I realized that the answer was actually correct (and having seen Eric's answers over time it seemed weird that he'd make this sort of mistake)
    – Max
    Dec 3 at 8:50
















I first thought your answer was wrong because of the notation $G^I$ which seems weird for a (possibly infinite) coproduct. Perhaps you could write a word about it ?
– Max
Dec 3 at 8:12




I first thought your answer was wrong because of the notation $G^I$ which seems weird for a (possibly infinite) coproduct. Perhaps you could write a word about it ?
– Max
Dec 3 at 8:12












@Max,I tried to put $(I)$ there but somehow it did not work.sorry for the notation,but later I explained what it stands for.
– HARRY
Dec 3 at 8:40




@Max,I tried to put $(I)$ there but somehow it did not work.sorry for the notation,but later I explained what it stands for.
– HARRY
Dec 3 at 8:40












@HARRY : yes of course, that's how I realized that the answer was actually correct (and having seen Eric's answers over time it seemed weird that he'd make this sort of mistake)
– Max
Dec 3 at 8:50




@HARRY : yes of course, that's how I realized that the answer was actually correct (and having seen Eric's answers over time it seemed weird that he'd make this sort of mistake)
– Max
Dec 3 at 8:50


















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%2f3023649%2fdefinition-of-generator-in-an-abelian-category%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

Bressuire

Cabo Verde

Gyllenstierna