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.
Write for the category of -endofunctors and for the full subcategory of polynomials, and let be the evaluation-at-1 functor . restricted to is a fibration, whose fibres are . I'm trying to figure out whether on arbitrary endofunctors is also a fibration, and if so, what its fibres are
I have a candidate for cartesian lifting, which has to take a functor and a function to a functor with the property that . But there's a lot of details I need to check, so I'm going to ask here in case anybody already knows the answer
For polynomials (ie. coproducts of representables) , cartesian liftings are given by . So the obvious thing to do is to try to replicate that but for general colimits of representables. As far as I can tell, the way to do this is to take the category of elements and its projection , and then (where the colimit is over because we are talking about copresheaves as colimits of covariant representables instead of the more common version... but I'm not very confident at this bit)
Then colimits of presheaves are computed pointwise, so , the set of connected components of
Next, I convinced myself that the connected components functor is probably a fibration (but I haven't been able to find any reference for that, which makes me very suspcious). Namely, every category can be canonically decomposed as a coproduct of categories where each is connected, and then for a function there is an obvious definition of
So, if I have a function , I can form the category , whose set of connected components is and which is equipped with a universal functor . And with all that I can finally write my candidate definition for cartesian lifting:
There's potentially many mistakes in all that, and even if everything works I also have no idea where I'd start with calculating the fibres, so I'm dumping it all here just in case somebody already knows the answer
One thing that's easy to notice is that if is a fibration then its fibres must be locally large, since is. In fact the only way I know how to prove the magical fact that is locally small is to equip it with the fibration and noticing that the fibres are all locally small
I know the answer is yes but I don't have a full write up of that (I have a partial write up in §6 here)
You might want to check Mordeijk and Joyal's paper(s) on open/étale maps. That fibration is related to those, when you write you see why this is a topos-theoretic concept.
Specifically the functor given by evaluation at the terminal object of has a special property I forgot the name of. Alas...
One thing that makes me slightly suspicious (I'm trying to poke holes before I commit to doing a whole load of calculation) is that is not a topos (and neither is the smaller full subcategory of functors of the form , for which evaluation-at-1 is also a fibration), so this makes it sound like there's a strange coincidence where evaluation-at-1 can be a fibration for 2 different reasons
uhm I think the reason is the same, the fact it is not a topos is not clearly relevant. when I said topos-theoretic concept I didn't mean that it's exclusive to topoi, but that it is relevant for topoi.
For polynomials (ie. coproducts of representables) , cartesian liftings are given by . So the obvious thing to do is to try to replicate that but for general colimits of representables. As far as I can tell, the way to do this is to take the category of elements and its projection , and then (where the colimit is over because we are talking about copresheaves as colimits of covariant representables instead of the more common version... but I'm not very confident at this bit)
As an aside, I'm a bit uneasy about the large limit taken here, but maybe one can make things nicer by restricting to small copreseheaves.