Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2012 iii Paper 23 5 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
For the covariant category in this part, put and . Its global-sections functor is , the limit of the diagram. If is also an inverse image, it is a left adjoint and preserves all small colimits.
Consider the canonical pointwise-surjective mapAt , the summand contains , so is an epimorphism. In a presheaf topos epimorphisms are regular, and a colimit-preserving functor preserves their coequalizer presentations. Thus is surjective. Since preserves coproducts, some summand has a global element, yielding a section of its unique map . The constant singleton functor is a retract of a covariant representable.
Conversely, if is such a retract in a category, is a retract of , which is evaluation at by the Yoneda lemma. Evaluation preserves colimits pointwise. The colimit comparison for a retract functor is a retract of the evaluation comparison; a retract of an isomorphism is an isomorphism, so preserves all small colimits. It also preserves finite limits because it is representable. A right adjoint can be constructed byFor , precomposition gives , and applying and then gives . The presentation of every functor as a colimit of representables gives . Hence , so is an inverse image and the topos is local.
The retract condition has a precise interpretation as the initial object criterion for a covariant local topos. Write the section as a natural family . Naturality says for every . Put . Then and every satisfies . In the idempotent completion of , the object is initial: an arrow from it to must satisfy , and the identities force ; this arrow exists because and .
Conversely an initial object in the idempotent completion gives that natural family and the retract. ThereforeIf is already idempotent-complete, this is equivalent to an initial object in itself, and is evaluation there. The word is initial, not terminal, because this question uses covariant functors.
One cannot omit idempotent completion for a general small category. Take the one-object category of the monoid with absorbing zero. It has no initial object because its endomorphism set has two elements, but the natural family satisfies for every . Its covariant functor category is local. Concretely, a functor is a set with an idempotent operator, and its global sections are the fixed points of that operator.
For a topological space , there is an equally explicit criterion. If is local, apply to the epimorphism associated with any open cover , regarding the opens as subterminal sheaves. Since is a singleton exactly when , and otherwise empty, coproduct and epimorphism preservation force some .
Thus every open cover of contains itself. Conversely this open cover criterion for a local sheaf topos condition is equivalent to existence of a point whose only open neighborhood is : the union of all proper open sets cannot be all of , so choose outside it. Such a point plainly forces any cover to contain . Empty spaces fail the condition.
At this point, the stalk functor is simply , since there is only one open neighborhood. Its right adjoint is the skyscraper sheaf of setsA morphism is determined exactly by its map , because all proper opens omit . Hence , and preserves finite limits, proving locality. ConsequentlyIn a space this distinguished point is unique and closed. In a space the condition forces to be a singleton. Indistinguishable points in a non- space can all have this property; uniqueness of an actual point is not part of the general criterion.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2012 iii Paper 23 6 a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
A geometric formula is built from atomic formulas, including equality, using finite conjunctions, arbitrary set-indexed disjunctions and existential quantification in a finite variable context. Truth is the empty conjunction and falsity the empty disjunction. A geometric theory is a set of sequents between such formulas over a many-sorted signature. The context supplies the universal force of an axiom; unrestricted universal quantification, implication and negation are not formula constructors in this fragment.
These choices are exactly suited to inverse image functors of geometric morphisms. Finite-limit preservation handles equality and conjunction; colimit and image preservation handle disjunction and existential quantification. Therefore an inverse image carries an internal model of a geometric theory to another model.
Construct the geometric syntactic category as follows. Objects are formulas in context , modulo provable renaming and equivalence. A morphism to is an equivalence class of formulas that are provably total and single-valued:The last notation abbreviates componentwise equality. Identity is equality of the context variables; composition is existential conjunction over the intermediate tuple. The category has finite limits, formed through conjunction and equality.
Give it the geometric syntactic topology . A family of arrows represented by into covers whenPullback stability is substitution, and transitivity comes from distributing existential conjunction through the covering disjunctions. Thus the generated sieves define a Grothendieck topology. Empty covers impose the interpretation of falsity as the initial object.
The classifying topos isIts universal model assigns a sort the sheafified representable of , functions their definable graph morphisms and relations their definable subobjects. The syntactic covering conditions make the axioms valid in this model.
For the universal property, interpreting formulas in a model in a Grothendieck topos gives a finite-limit-preserving, -continuous functor : covers go to jointly epimorphic families precisely because the relevant sequents hold. The Diaconescu equivalence for geometric morphisms associates to this functor a geometric morphism . Conversely, pulling back along a geometric morphism gives a model. The constructions on models and their homomorphisms are inverse up to natural isomorphism, yieldingnaturally in . This proves the required classifying property, not merely classification of set-valued models.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2012 iii Paper 23 6 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
Yes, with the Horn/Cartesian-fragment convention. A Horn theory uses positive finite-conjunction sequents and has a Cartesian syntactic category with finite limits. Provably uniquely witnessed existential formulas can also be admitted without changing the finite-limit nature of its semantics. Its internal models are precisely finite-limit-preserving functors from that category.
For a category with finite limits, flat functors into a Grothendieck topos are exactly finite-limit-preserving functors. In sets, the reason is concrete: the category of elements of a covariant left-exact functor is cofiltered. Its terminal object supplies nonemptiness, products supply cones over pairs of elements, and equalizers supply equalizing cones over parallel arrows. Conversely a cofiltered category of elements expresses the functor as a filtered colimit of covariant representables; filtered colimits of sets commute with finite limits. The internal version uses the same cone conditions locally.
The presheaf form of the Diaconescu equivalence for geometric morphisms therefore identifies geometric morphisms intowith internal Horn models, naturally in the domain topos. This is the presheaf classifier of a Horn theory.
Equivalently, using a small skeleton of the category of finitely presented set-based Horn models, the classifier is , with covariant functors. The duality sends a formula to the model generated by its tuple subject to its finite constraints. The presheaf claim does not extend merely because a general geometric or regular theory has no written disjunctions: arbitrary existential witnesses are not uniquely witnessed Horn data.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2013 iii Paper 18 1 a Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-07
Use the covariant Yoneda embedding . An arrow , viewed as an arrow in the opposite category, induces precomposition . Identities and composition are preserved because composition in is associative.
The covariant Yoneda lemma is the bijectionIts inverse sends to . This is a natural transformation: for , functoriality gives . Conversely, naturality of an arbitrary at gives . Evaluation at the identity morphism therefore makes the two constructions inverse. Their formulas also prove naturality in and, contravariantly, in .
Taking identifies natural transformations with . Thus is full and faithful, and reflects isomorphisms; two image objects are isomorphic exactly when the original objects are isomorphic. It also carries existing colimits in to categorical limits of covariant representable functors: maps out of a colimit are exactly compatible families of maps out of its diagram. Equivalently, this embedding preserves existing categorical limits in . The direction matters: the paper uses covariant representables, rather than the more usual contravariant Yoneda embedding.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2015 iii Paper 22 3 b ii Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Let be a colimit cocone for . Here the preservation hypothesis must include the categorical limit of in ; this indexing category can be large. For a morphism of the category of elements, the defining equation says that the family of distinguished elements is compatible. Preservation gives a unique withIn particular each is now a morphism in the category of elements. Naturality of the colimit cocone givesThe universal property of the colimit forces , since it and agree after every cocone leg. If also satisfies , it is a morphism , and cocone compatibility now yields . Thus is a universal element. By the preceding representability criterion, the presheaf is represented by the colimit object:The size qualification matters. If preservation means only small categorical limits, the implication as printed is false for general locally small categories. For an explicit counterexample, let be the ordered category of all ordinals with an extra greatest object . Put for every ordinal and , with the forced restriction maps. Every small colimit in is the supremum of its object values: it is an ordinal unless the diagram contains . Applying therefore gives the appropriate small categorical limit of singletons, or the empty set when a value is empty; an empty diagram gives . Hence preserves all small categorical limits.
Its category of elements consists of all ordinals, whose projection has the large colimit in . Nevertheless, no ordinal represents , because its representable vanishes on larger ordinals; does not represent it either, since is nonempty while is empty. The valid proof consequently uses preservation of the displayed possibly large limit, or a smallness hypothesis making that diagram small.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2015 iii Paper 22 3 b i Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Suppose . As a functor on the opposite category, a representable presheaf preserves every existing categorical limit: a colimit in is defined by the bijection between morphisms from its vertex into and compatible families of morphisms from its diagram objects into . This remains valid for a possibly large diagram in a category whenever that colimit exists and the compatible-family collection is the corresponding set.
The category of elements has a terminal object , where is the image of under the representation. For each let be its unique morphism to . These form a cocone for the forgetful functor . Any competing cocone satisfiesThe component at uniquely determines the mediating morphism. Thus the representing object is the colimit of the elements projection:
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2015 iii Paper 22 3 c Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
The right-adjoint criterion using comma-category colimits is as follows. Under the given colimit-preservation hypothesis, with preservation including the possibly large colimits below, has a right adjoint exactly when, for every , the projectionhas a colimit in . The right adjoint is obtained from these comma-category colimits. Thus the objects to construct areFor necessity, if with adjunction counit , is a terminal object of the comma category . Its unique incoming morphisms give a colimit cocone for , exactly as for the elements projection in the preceding part.
For sufficiency, choose such a colimit with legs . The morphisms are a cocone on . Since preserves this colimit, there is a unique satisfyingEach is thus a morphism in the comma category. The original colimit cocone gives for every object, hence by the universal property. For any other morphism , cocone compatibility givesSo is a terminal object. Equivalently, represents the categorical presheaf , via . The functoriality of chosen representations makes these into , yielding a natural bijectionThe preservation of these possibly large colimits is essential to the construction of . Under a small-only interpretation, the preceding ordinal counterexample also disproves the unqualified converse here. Take . It preserves all small colimits. For a nonempty set , the comma category has one object over each ordinal and none over , so its projection has colimit . For , the projection is the identity of , again with colimit . Thus all these projection colimits exist, but has no right adjoint: the categorical presheaf is not representable. This makes the large-preservation qualification substantive.