$lambda$-pure morphisms in $lambda$-accessible categories are monos, unclear proof
This is Proposition 2.29 from the book Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories by Jiří Adámek and Jiří Rosický.
Above is a proof that $lambda$-pure morphisms in $lambda$-accessible categories are monos. It is unclear to me why do we create new $h$ instead of taking $bar{v}$ in the line -4 and why such a $h$ exists in the canonical diagram of $B$ by the displayed line -5th?
category-theory morphism monomorphisms
edited Dec 18 at 7:20
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32423755
asked Nov 26 at 18:22
user122424
1,0771616
add a comment |
This is Proposition 2.29 from the book Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories by Jiří Adámek and Jiří Rosický.
Above is a proof that $lambda$-pure morphisms in $lambda$-accessible categories are monos. It is unclear to me why do we create new $h$ instead of taking $bar{v}$ in the line -4 and why such a $h$ exists in the canonical diagram of $B$ by the displayed line -5th?
category-theory morphism monomorphisms
edited Dec 18 at 7:20
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32423755
asked Nov 26 at 18:22
user122424
1,0771616
1
I get a link to a Czech page containing a link to an .xps file, whatever that is. It's best to embed your images directly in the post.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 19:44
Can you provide me with a link to an upload site for math.stackexchange? Thank you.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:19
By clicking on the landscape image in the edit mode, you can upload, drag and drop, or copy and paste an image from your computer or from elsewhere on the Internet.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 20:31
I've corrected the above link to point to the page with jpg.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:39
I inserted the image in your question.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 21:52
add a comment |
This is Proposition 2.29 from the book Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories by Jiří Adámek and Jiří Rosický.
Above is a proof that $lambda$-pure morphisms in $lambda$-accessible categories are monos. It is unclear to me why do we create new $h$ instead of taking $bar{v}$ in the line -4 and why such a $h$ exists in the canonical diagram of $B$ by the displayed line -5th?
category-theory morphism monomorphisms
edited Dec 18 at 7:20
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32423755
asked Nov 26 at 18:22
user122424
1,0771616
This is Proposition 2.29 from the book Locally Presentable and Accessible Categories by Jiří Adámek and Jiří Rosický.
Above is a proof that $lambda$-pure morphisms in $lambda$-accessible categories are monos. It is unclear to me why do we create new $h$ instead of taking $bar{v}$ in the line -4 and why such a $h$ exists in the canonical diagram of $B$ by the displayed line -5th?
category-theory morphism monomorphisms
category-theory morphism monomorphisms
edited Dec 18 at 7:20
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32423755
asked Nov 26 at 18:22
user122424
1,0771616
edited Dec 18 at 7:20
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32423755
asked Nov 26 at 18:22
user122424
1,0771616
edited Dec 18 at 7:20
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32423755
edited Dec 18 at 7:20
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32423755
edited Dec 18 at 7:20
Asaf Karagila♦
301k32423755
301k32423755
asked Nov 26 at 18:22
user122424
1,0771616
asked Nov 26 at 18:22
user122424
1,0771616
asked Nov 26 at 18:22
user122424
1,0771616
1,0771616
1
I get a link to a Czech page containing a link to an .xps file, whatever that is. It's best to embed your images directly in the post.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 19:44
Can you provide me with a link to an upload site for math.stackexchange? Thank you.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:19
By clicking on the landscape image in the edit mode, you can upload, drag and drop, or copy and paste an image from your computer or from elsewhere on the Internet.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 20:31
I've corrected the above link to point to the page with jpg.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:39
I inserted the image in your question.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 21:52
add a comment |
1
I get a link to a Czech page containing a link to an .xps file, whatever that is. It's best to embed your images directly in the post.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 19:44
Can you provide me with a link to an upload site for math.stackexchange? Thank you.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:19
By clicking on the landscape image in the edit mode, you can upload, drag and drop, or copy and paste an image from your computer or from elsewhere on the Internet.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 20:31
I've corrected the above link to point to the page with jpg.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:39
I inserted the image in your question.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 21:52
1
1
I get a link to a Czech page containing a link to an .xps file, whatever that is. It's best to embed your images directly in the post.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 19:44
I get a link to a Czech page containing a link to an .xps file, whatever that is. It's best to embed your images directly in the post.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 19:44
Can you provide me with a link to an upload site for math.stackexchange? Thank you.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:19
Can you provide me with a link to an upload site for math.stackexchange? Thank you.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:19
By clicking on the landscape image in the edit mode, you can upload, drag and drop, or copy and paste an image from your computer or from elsewhere on the Internet.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 20:31
By clicking on the landscape image in the edit mode, you can upload, drag and drop, or copy and paste an image from your computer or from elsewhere on the Internet.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 20:31
I've corrected the above link to point to the page with jpg.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:39
I've corrected the above link to point to the page with jpg.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:39
I inserted the image in your question.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 21:52
I inserted the image in your question.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 21:52
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The goal of the first part of the proof is to find a morphism of $lambda$-presentable objects which coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$ to which to apply the assumption of purity on $f$. There is no reason why $bar fp'$ should equal $bar f q'$, so it would be useless to apply purity before constructing $h$. That said, the reason $h$ exists is that the canonical diagram of $B$ is filtered. We have parallel maps $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ in that diagram, and so there must exist a map $h$ in the diagram coequalizing them.
answered Nov 27 at 16:31
Kevin Carlson
32.5k23271
OK. Why do we need coequalizing $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ rather than just precomposing them with $h$ and making them equal by this precomposition?
– user122424
Nov 27 at 17:28
1
The map $hbar{f}$ coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$, i.e. the equation $(hbar{f})p' = (hbar{f})q'$holds.
– Marc Olschok
Nov 27 at 19:22
Why such an coequalizer exits ? I know, however, that the diagram is filtetred.
– user122424
Nov 28 at 14:53
@user122424 What definition of filtered do you favor? This follows either instantly or quickly from any of them. To be clear, this isn't a coequalizer in the sense of a colimit, it's just an arbitrary cocone over the diagram given by two parallel arrows.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:06
1
@user122424 OK, sorry if my wording confused you. It's common to say that a morphism "coequalizes" two other morphisms without meaning that it's actually a coequalizer. But that language doesn't appear in the Adamek-Rosicky proof, and I was just explaining the argument they had already made. Is everything clear now?
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:53
|
show 3 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014710%2flambda-pure-morphisms-in-lambda-accessible-categories-are-monos-unclear-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The goal of the first part of the proof is to find a morphism of $lambda$-presentable objects which coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$ to which to apply the assumption of purity on $f$. There is no reason why $bar fp'$ should equal $bar f q'$, so it would be useless to apply purity before constructing $h$. That said, the reason $h$ exists is that the canonical diagram of $B$ is filtered. We have parallel maps $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ in that diagram, and so there must exist a map $h$ in the diagram coequalizing them.
answered Nov 27 at 16:31
Kevin Carlson
32.5k23271
OK. Why do we need coequalizing $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ rather than just precomposing them with $h$ and making them equal by this precomposition?
– user122424
Nov 27 at 17:28
1
The map $hbar{f}$ coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$, i.e. the equation $(hbar{f})p' = (hbar{f})q'$holds.
– Marc Olschok
Nov 27 at 19:22
Why such an coequalizer exits ? I know, however, that the diagram is filtetred.
– user122424
Nov 28 at 14:53
@user122424 What definition of filtered do you favor? This follows either instantly or quickly from any of them. To be clear, this isn't a coequalizer in the sense of a colimit, it's just an arbitrary cocone over the diagram given by two parallel arrows.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:06
1
@user122424 OK, sorry if my wording confused you. It's common to say that a morphism "coequalizes" two other morphisms without meaning that it's actually a coequalizer. But that language doesn't appear in the Adamek-Rosicky proof, and I was just explaining the argument they had already made. Is everything clear now?
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:53
|
show 3 more comments
The goal of the first part of the proof is to find a morphism of $lambda$-presentable objects which coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$ to which to apply the assumption of purity on $f$. There is no reason why $bar fp'$ should equal $bar f q'$, so it would be useless to apply purity before constructing $h$. That said, the reason $h$ exists is that the canonical diagram of $B$ is filtered. We have parallel maps $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ in that diagram, and so there must exist a map $h$ in the diagram coequalizing them.
answered Nov 27 at 16:31
Kevin Carlson
32.5k23271
OK. Why do we need coequalizing $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ rather than just precomposing them with $h$ and making them equal by this precomposition?
– user122424
Nov 27 at 17:28
1
The map $hbar{f}$ coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$, i.e. the equation $(hbar{f})p' = (hbar{f})q'$holds.
– Marc Olschok
Nov 27 at 19:22
Why such an coequalizer exits ? I know, however, that the diagram is filtetred.
– user122424
Nov 28 at 14:53
@user122424 What definition of filtered do you favor? This follows either instantly or quickly from any of them. To be clear, this isn't a coequalizer in the sense of a colimit, it's just an arbitrary cocone over the diagram given by two parallel arrows.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:06
1
@user122424 OK, sorry if my wording confused you. It's common to say that a morphism "coequalizes" two other morphisms without meaning that it's actually a coequalizer. But that language doesn't appear in the Adamek-Rosicky proof, and I was just explaining the argument they had already made. Is everything clear now?
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:53
|
show 3 more comments
The goal of the first part of the proof is to find a morphism of $lambda$-presentable objects which coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$ to which to apply the assumption of purity on $f$. There is no reason why $bar fp'$ should equal $bar f q'$, so it would be useless to apply purity before constructing $h$. That said, the reason $h$ exists is that the canonical diagram of $B$ is filtered. We have parallel maps $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ in that diagram, and so there must exist a map $h$ in the diagram coequalizing them.
answered Nov 27 at 16:31
Kevin Carlson
32.5k23271
The goal of the first part of the proof is to find a morphism of $lambda$-presentable objects which coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$ to which to apply the assumption of purity on $f$. There is no reason why $bar fp'$ should equal $bar f q'$, so it would be useless to apply purity before constructing $h$. That said, the reason $h$ exists is that the canonical diagram of $B$ is filtered. We have parallel maps $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ in that diagram, and so there must exist a map $h$ in the diagram coequalizing them.
answered Nov 27 at 16:31
Kevin Carlson
32.5k23271
answered Nov 27 at 16:31
Kevin Carlson
32.5k23271
answered Nov 27 at 16:31
Kevin Carlson
32.5k23271
answered Nov 27 at 16:31
Kevin Carlson
32.5k23271
32.5k23271
OK. Why do we need coequalizing $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ rather than just precomposing them with $h$ and making them equal by this precomposition?
– user122424
Nov 27 at 17:28
1
The map $hbar{f}$ coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$, i.e. the equation $(hbar{f})p' = (hbar{f})q'$holds.
– Marc Olschok
Nov 27 at 19:22
Why such an coequalizer exits ? I know, however, that the diagram is filtetred.
– user122424
Nov 28 at 14:53
@user122424 What definition of filtered do you favor? This follows either instantly or quickly from any of them. To be clear, this isn't a coequalizer in the sense of a colimit, it's just an arbitrary cocone over the diagram given by two parallel arrows.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:06
1
@user122424 OK, sorry if my wording confused you. It's common to say that a morphism "coequalizes" two other morphisms without meaning that it's actually a coequalizer. But that language doesn't appear in the Adamek-Rosicky proof, and I was just explaining the argument they had already made. Is everything clear now?
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:53
|
show 3 more comments
OK. Why do we need coequalizing $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ rather than just precomposing them with $h$ and making them equal by this precomposition?
– user122424
Nov 27 at 17:28
1
The map $hbar{f}$ coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$, i.e. the equation $(hbar{f})p' = (hbar{f})q'$holds.
– Marc Olschok
Nov 27 at 19:22
Why such an coequalizer exits ? I know, however, that the diagram is filtetred.
– user122424
Nov 28 at 14:53
@user122424 What definition of filtered do you favor? This follows either instantly or quickly from any of them. To be clear, this isn't a coequalizer in the sense of a colimit, it's just an arbitrary cocone over the diagram given by two parallel arrows.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:06
1
@user122424 OK, sorry if my wording confused you. It's common to say that a morphism "coequalizes" two other morphisms without meaning that it's actually a coequalizer. But that language doesn't appear in the Adamek-Rosicky proof, and I was just explaining the argument they had already made. Is everything clear now?
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:53
OK. Why do we need coequalizing $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ rather than just precomposing them with $h$ and making them equal by this precomposition?
– user122424
Nov 27 at 17:28
OK. Why do we need coequalizing $bar f p'$ and $bar f q'$ rather than just precomposing them with $h$ and making them equal by this precomposition?
– user122424
Nov 27 at 17:28
1
1
The map $hbar{f}$ coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$, i.e. the equation $(hbar{f})p' = (hbar{f})q'$holds.
– Marc Olschok
Nov 27 at 19:22
The map $hbar{f}$ coequalizes $p'$ and $q'$, i.e. the equation $(hbar{f})p' = (hbar{f})q'$holds.
– Marc Olschok
Nov 27 at 19:22
Why such an coequalizer exits ? I know, however, that the diagram is filtetred.
– user122424
Nov 28 at 14:53
Why such an coequalizer exits ? I know, however, that the diagram is filtetred.
– user122424
Nov 28 at 14:53
@user122424 What definition of filtered do you favor? This follows either instantly or quickly from any of them. To be clear, this isn't a coequalizer in the sense of a colimit, it's just an arbitrary cocone over the diagram given by two parallel arrows.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:06
@user122424 What definition of filtered do you favor? This follows either instantly or quickly from any of them. To be clear, this isn't a coequalizer in the sense of a colimit, it's just an arbitrary cocone over the diagram given by two parallel arrows.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:06
1
1
@user122424 OK, sorry if my wording confused you. It's common to say that a morphism "coequalizes" two other morphisms without meaning that it's actually a coequalizer. But that language doesn't appear in the Adamek-Rosicky proof, and I was just explaining the argument they had already made. Is everything clear now?
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:53
@user122424 OK, sorry if my wording confused you. It's common to say that a morphism "coequalizes" two other morphisms without meaning that it's actually a coequalizer. But that language doesn't appear in the Adamek-Rosicky proof, and I was just explaining the argument they had already made. Is everything clear now?
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 28 at 18:53
|
show 3 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3014710%2flambda-pure-morphisms-in-lambda-accessible-categories-are-monos-unclear-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
I get a link to a Czech page containing a link to an .xps file, whatever that is. It's best to embed your images directly in the post.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 19:44
Can you provide me with a link to an upload site for math.stackexchange? Thank you.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:19
By clicking on the landscape image in the edit mode, you can upload, drag and drop, or copy and paste an image from your computer or from elsewhere on the Internet.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 20:31
I've corrected the above link to point to the page with jpg.
– user122424
Nov 26 at 20:39
I inserted the image in your question.
– Kevin Carlson
Nov 26 at 21:52