Re: exponentiating by a small presheaf

[Paul Levy <p.b.levy@bham.ac.uk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3215 bytes --]

Thanks, Steve, but I wrote [C^op,Set] to mean the category of all presheaves.
I didn’t know that this notation is sometimes used for the category of small presheaves (e.g. in Rosický’s paper).
Best regards,
Paul

From: Steve Lack <steve.lack@mq.edu.au>
Date: Tuesday, 21 January 2025 at 00:11
To: Paul Levy (Computer Science) <p.b.levy@bham.ac.uk>
Cc: Categories mailing list <categories@mq.edu.au>
Subject: Re: exponentiating by a small presheaf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organisation. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Paul,

I agree that if H(-@a) is small then it does the job, but why should it be small? Take H to be the representable C(-,b); then this would say that C(-@a,b) is small. If it is small, then the general case follows. This is Proposition 1 of Rosicky’s “Cartesian closed exact completions”. For various generalizations, including the non-cartesian case, see Section 7 of my paper “Limits of small functors” with Brian Day (Example 7.4 refers to the Rosicky result).

Of course if C is actually cartesian closed then C(-@a,b) is not just small but representable.

As far as I can tell, in Saville’s thesis, the bicategory B corresponding to your C is itself supposed to be small (at least relative to Cat).

Best,

Steve.



On 21 Jan 2025, at 4:38 AM, Paul Levy <p.b.levy@bham.ac.uk> wrote:

Dear all,
Let C be a locally small category.  A functor C^op -> Set that’s a colimit of representables is called a “small presheaf”.
Here are two observations.

  1.  Let C be cartesian.  In the cartesian category [C^op, Set], any small presheaf is exponentiating.
  2.  More generally, let C be monoidal.  In the multicategory [C^op, Set], any small presheaf is exponentiating.
To see (1), it suffices to prove it for a representable presheaf.  Explicitly, a presheaf H exponentiated by C(-,a) is H(- * a).  The construction of (2) is similar.
Has either result appeared in the literature?  At least for the special case of a representable presheaf?
Best regards,
Paul
PS there’s a 2-categorical version of (1) at the start of Section 6.2 of Saville’s thesis:
https://philipsaville.co.uk/thesis-for-screen.pdf<https://url.au.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/9D6VCOMK7Ycp0zx1BFEfDSGBVj0?domain=philipsaville.co.uk>
Another related result is the cartesian closure of the category of containers:
https://pblevy.github.io/papers/hocont.pdf<https://url.au.m.mimecastprotect.com/s/ApsWCP7L1NfKo8XzLS0hxSxU7SA?domain=pblevy.github.io>



You're receiving this message because you're a member of the Categories mailing list group from Macquarie University. To take part in this conversation, reply all to this message.

View group files<https://outlook.office365.com/owa/categories@mq.edu.au/groupsubscription.ashx?source=EscalatedMessage&action=files&GuestId=4eb9b40c-9b3a-48a5-9781-836e5a171e8b>   |   Leave group<https://outlook.office365.com/owa/categories@mq.edu.au/groupsubscription.ashx?source=EscalatedMessage&action=leave&GuestId=4eb9b40c-9b3a-48a5-9781-836e5a171e8b>   |   Learn more about Microsoft 365 Groups<https://aka.ms/o365g>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 11600 bytes --]