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.
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.