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 with
In particular each is now a morphism in the category of elements. Naturality of the colimit cocone gives
The 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.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.