You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
How can I see that the codomain fibration in general is not a split fibration? I'm missing something in my calculations, because to me it seems that lifting to is functorial.
A splitting of a fibration is a choice of Cartesian lifting for every pair of an arrow in the base and an object in the fiber over the codomain of ; your proposed splitting ignores the second half of this information. You may be confusing a split fibratjon with a fibration that, as a functor, is a split epimorphism. Certainly the codomain fibration is a split epi and you’ve shown why here.
ah, I see, given I'm not choosing the cartesian lift for , for that I could for instance take a pullback. But then the whole construction is only pseudofunctorial
do you have any non-trivial example of split fibration to keep in mind?
I guess one could skeletalize in this case
You can take a look at the example given by Streicher in Fibered Categories a la Jean Benabou, see Warning 1 under Definition 3.1. The fibration given is the surjective group homomorphism , which is a Grothendieck fibration if we see the groups as one-object categories.
that fibration is not split
This is another example of a NON-split fibration. On the other hand, if you want a split example, you can take the Fam fibration.
Or the domain fibration.
Vincent Moreau said:
This is an example of a NON-split fibration. On the other hand, if you want a split example, you can take the Fam fibration.
This is fibred in sets, right? I would consider this example trivial: every such fibration is split. For the codomain fibration, this would correspond to skeletalizing the category.
If your question is if the fibers are discrete, then it is not the case as soon as the category on which we apply the Fam construction has a non-identity endomorphism. If we call such a morphism , then the morphism lives in the fiber of . Or perhaps I don't understand your question.
The fiber over a set is the category .
oh, okay, I'm not familiar with this I guess I just misunderstood the construction at the 1lab
As a reference, there is Categorical Logic and Type Theory by Jacobs, where the family fibration is described in section 1.2.