Category Theory
Zulip Server
Archive

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.


Stream: learning: questions

Topic: uniqueness of Cartesian maps


view this post on Zulip Olli (Apr 19 2021 at 19:39):

I am having trouble the very first exercise of the book Categorical Logic and Type Theory:

Prove: Cartesian liftings are unique up-to-isomorphism (in a slice): if ff and ff' with cod(f)=cod(f)cod(f) = cod(f') are both Cartesian over the same map, then there is a unique vertical isomorphism ϕ:XX\phi: X \simeq X' with fϕ=ff' \circ \phi = f.

So let p:EBp : \mathbb{E} \to \mathbb{B} be a functor. To say that f:XY,f:XYf : X \to Y, f' : X' \to Y in E\mathbb{E} are both Cartesian over u:B(I,J)u: \mathbb{B}(I,J) means that if:

pf=pf=upf = pf' = u and g:E(Z,Y),w:B(pZ,I)\forall g : \mathbb{E}(Z,Y), \forall w : \mathbb{B}(pZ, I) such that pg=uwpg = u \circ w

then there exist uniquely determined maps h:ZX,h:ZXh: Z \to X, h': Z \to X' in B\mathbb{B} such that ph=ph=wph = ph' = w and fh=g,fh=gf \circ h = g, f' \circ h' = g

image.png

I don't know where to begin, so I specialize to the case where pp is the codomain fibration cod:SetSetcod : Set^{\to} \to Set, and now I can think about how everything works inside SetSet:

image.png

The UP of Cartesian morphisms gives me two pullbacks over the same cospan IJYI \to J \leftarrow Y and pullbacks are unique up to isomorphism so this works.

So then this should also work for cod:BBcod : \mathbb{B}^{\to} \to \mathbb{B} assuming B\mathbb{B} has pullbacks, because I can again flatten things down to the base category and work there. Now the proposition mentions Cartesian liftings are unique up-to-isomorphism (in a slice).

Does this mean that just from knowing that a map is Cartesian means that the fibers of the functor are always in slice categories, in which case this same strategy should always work? I don't see how this follows just from the definition of a Cartesian map, although all the examples I have seen so far in the book do fit this pattern.

view this post on Zulip Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Apr 19 2021 at 21:31):

A cartesian lift is unique only once its codomain is fixed, and by unique we mean unique up to unique iso. But iso... in which category? In the slice of E\mathbb E over the chosen codomain. I believe this is what Jacobs means here, not that every fibration has slices as fibers :)
This is a general pattern in UP: the objects are determined by unique isomorphism but that iso is in a specific category, e.g. co/limits are determined up to unique iso of co/cones. Which category one has to look at is usually something one can infer from the rest of the definition, so hardly explicitly mentioned as here.

view this post on Zulip Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Apr 19 2021 at 21:33):

Re the specific exercise: the general tactic to prove such things is to pit the two UP of ff and ff' against each other, leveraging uniqueness to show that the two universal arrows you get are necessarily inverse to each other.

view this post on Zulip Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Apr 19 2021 at 21:34):

I'll leave it to you from here. If you want more hints/a detailed solution just ask.

view this post on Zulip Olli (Apr 20 2021 at 11:21):

Thanks for the reply. Think I need to spend a bit more time thinking about this, but I won't ask for any more hints for now.

view this post on Zulip Olli (Apr 21 2021 at 17:34):

I have a question about the term "lift".

As I understand, a regular lift is connecting a cospan into a commuting triangle, so for example if the result is g=fhg = f \circ h then we say the lift is of gg along hh to ff.

Are cartesian lifts a version of a lift as described here? I am confused because going with the names in my diagram, the terminology in the book says that a cartesian morphism f:XYf : X \to Y is a cartesian lifting of uu, but this doesn't look like the regular lift.

For consistency it seems it would be more appropriate to say that we are lifting gg along ww or I could even understand lifting ww "up" to E\mathbb{E}, but not "of uu to ff" because uu is just the image of ff under pp. This is consistent with the book, but why are we calling lifting of uu to YY as ff (translating "ff to ee" from nLab to "uu to YY" with the names I used)?

Is the codomain of the lift the object YY in my diagram? I think your hint is saying that the lift of uu is unique as it exists as an object of E/Y\mathbb{E}/Y? I still don't see how to get the proof from this right away, but it took me a while to clear my confusion about the lifting issue first, so it might be not that far from reach, assuming this is all correct now.

view this post on Zulip Reid Barton (Apr 21 2021 at 17:59):

It is also a lift, but at a higher level: lifting a functor between categories, rather than a morphism within a category.

view this post on Zulip Reid Barton (Apr 21 2021 at 18:02):

Putting aside the fibration condition, let's say p:CDp : C \to D is any functor. There's a category called [1][1] which consists of two objects 00 and 11 and a single nonidentity morphism 010 \to 1. Giving a functor from [1][1] to DD is the same as giving a morphism of DD, namely, the image of the nonidentity morphism of [1][1]. So, we can identify a morphism uu of DD with a functor u:[1]Du : [1] \to D. Then finding a morphism ff of CC with p(f)=up(f) = u is the same as lifting u:[1]Du : [1] \to D to a functor f:[1]Cf : [1] \to C.

view this post on Zulip Olli (Apr 22 2021 at 07:45):

Think I need another hint

view this post on Zulip Olli (Apr 22 2021 at 16:24):

Actually I think this should work

view this post on Zulip Olli (Apr 22 2021 at 16:24):

20210422_232323.jpg

view this post on Zulip John Baez (Apr 22 2021 at 17:23):

That looks good! Whenever you have two things with a universal property you play them off against each other in this general way and show they're isomorphic. I always tell the story of the two cowboys who both claim to be the fastest gun in the West. To settle who is best they fight a duel. And if they both win, they're isomorphic!

view this post on Zulip Olli (Apr 22 2021 at 17:50):

Yeah it should have been more obvious after @Matteo Capucci (he/him) 's hint but I had to first work out a simpler example of this with pullbacks before it properly clicked what I was supposed to do