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.
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 and with are both Cartesian over the same map, then there is a unique vertical isomorphism with .
So let be a functor. To say that in are both Cartesian over means that if:
and such that
then there exist uniquely determined maps in such that and
I don't know where to begin, so I specialize to the case where is the codomain fibration , and now I can think about how everything works inside :
The UP of Cartesian morphisms gives me two pullbacks over the same cospan and pullbacks are unique up to isomorphism so this works.
So then this should also work for assuming 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.
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 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.
Re the specific exercise: the general tactic to prove such things is to pit the two UP of and against each other, leveraging uniqueness to show that the two universal arrows you get are necessarily inverse to each other.
I'll leave it to you from here. If you want more hints/a detailed solution just ask.
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.
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 then we say the lift is of along to .
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 is a cartesian lifting of , but this doesn't look like the regular lift.
For consistency it seems it would be more appropriate to say that we are lifting along or I could even understand lifting "up" to , but not "of to " because is just the image of under . This is consistent with the book, but why are we calling lifting of to as (translating " to " from nLab to " to " with the names I used)?
Is the codomain of the lift the object in my diagram? I think your hint is saying that the lift of is unique as it exists as an object of ? 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.
It is also a lift, but at a higher level: lifting a functor between categories, rather than a morphism within a category.
Putting aside the fibration condition, let's say is any functor. There's a category called which consists of two objects and and a single nonidentity morphism . Giving a functor from to is the same as giving a morphism of , namely, the image of the nonidentity morphism of . So, we can identify a morphism of with a functor . Then finding a morphism of with is the same as lifting to a functor .
Think I need another hint
Actually I think this should work
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!
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