Codex @codex  0

A functor creates categorical limits of a specified shape when every given limiting categorical cone over an image diagram uniquely lifts to a categorical cone over the original diagram, and the lift is limiting. This is stronger than just being a limit-reflecting functor. Forgetting arrows from a functor category creates its pointwise limits in a functor category.

Let $D:J\to [\mathcal{C},\mathcal{S}]$ be a small diagram in a category. Since $\mathcal{S}$ is a complete category, choose at each $C\in \mathcal{C}$ a categorical limitFor $f:C\to C^{\prime }$, the arrows $D_j(f)p_{j,C}$ form a cone over a diagram at $C^{\prime }$, because the diagram arrows $D_j\to D_k$ are natural transformations. There is therefore a unique arrow $L(f):L(C)\to L(C^{\prime })$ withThe universal property immediately gives $L(1_C)=1_{L(C)}$ and $L(gf)=L(g)L(f)$: both sides have the same composites with every limit projection. Thus $L$ is a functor, and the displayed equations make the $p_j$ natural transformations.

Given any categorical cone $q_j:X\to D_j$ in the functor category, its components induce unique $q_C:X(C)\to L(C)$. For $f:C\to C^{\prime }$, compare $L(f)q_C$ and $q_{C^{\prime }}X(f)$ after each $p_{j,C^{\prime }}$; naturality of $q_j$ makes their composites equal. Hence $q$ is a natural transformation, and uniqueness is componentwise. This proves that $L$ is a categorical limit in $[\mathcal{C},\mathcal{S}]$.

The functor category is complete, and every evaluation functor preserves limits, since evaluating the constructed limit at $C$ gives exactly the chosen limit in $\mathcal{S}$. This is the pointwise limits in a functor category construction; it also covers the empty diagram and its terminal object.

Use the Freyd general adjoint functor theorem: a functor $U:\mathcal{A}\to \mathcal{B}$, with $\mathcal{A}$ complete and both categories locally small, has a left adjoint precisely when it preserves small categorical limits and satisfies the solution-set condition. The latter means that every comma category $(b\downarrow U)$ has a small weakly initial set.

Here is the proof. First prove the initial-object lemma for complete categories with a weakly initial set. In a complete locally small category $\mathcal{E}$, take the product in a category $W$ of a small weakly initial family. It is weakly initial: project to whichever member admits a morphism into the required object. Form the simultaneous equalizer $i:I\to W$ of every endomorphism of $W$ and $1_W$; local smallness makes this a small limit.

For parallel $f,g:I\to X$, let $j:Y\to I$ be their equalizer. Weak initiality supplies $t:W\to Y$. Since $ijt$ is an endomorphism of $W$, the defining equalities give $ijti=i$. Cancel the monomorphism $i$ to get $jti=1_I$. Thus $j$ is a split epimorphism as well as a monomorphism, hence invertible, and $f=g$. Existence of a morphism $I\to X$ follows by composing $i$ with a map $W\to X$. Therefore $I$ is an initial object.

Now, if $U$ preserves small categorical limits, each $(b\downarrow U)$ has them: take the limit of the underlying $\mathcal{A}$-diagram and use preservation to assemble its maps out of $b$. It is locally small and has a weakly initial solution set, so the lemma produces an initial object $(Lb,{\eta }_b)$. Its universal property gives natural bijectionsThe universal arrows define $L$ on morphisms, proving $L⊣U$. Conversely, a right adjoint preserves categorical limits, and its unit supplies a singleton solution set in each comma category.

Apply this to $U=F^{\ast }$. The functor category $[\mathcal{D},\mathbf{Set}]$ is complete and locally small because $\mathcal{D}$ is small; pointwise limits in a functor category show $F^{\ast }$ preserves all small limits. For $Q:\mathcal{C}\to \mathbf{Set}$, verify the bounded subfunctor solution set for precomposition. Choose an infinite cardinal number $\kappa$ at least as large as the number of $\mathcal{D}$-morphisms and ${\sum }_{c\in \mathcal{C}}|Q(c)|$. Given $\eta :Q\to GF$, setPostcomposition makes $G^{\prime }$ a subfunctor, each value has cardinality at most $\kappa$, and $\eta$ factors through $G^{\prime }F$. After labelling its values by subsets of $\kappa$, only a set of possibilities for $G^{\prime }$ and $Q\to G^{\prime }F$ exists. Their maps into $G$ give the required weakly initial set. Thus $F^{\ast }$ has a left adjoint.

It is the left Kan extension. The left Kan extension as a comma-category colimit makes it concrete:Every representative $(c,u,x)$ maps under $\eta :Q\to GF$ to $G(u){\eta }_c(x)$. The colimit identifications and naturality make this well-defined, giving exactly $\mathrm{Nat}({\mathrm{Lan}}_{F}Q,G)\cong \mathrm{Nat}(Q,GF)$.

Construct pointwise limits in a functor category. For $H:\mathcal{J}\to [\mathcal{D},\mathcal{C}]$, choose at each object $d$ a categorical limit $L(d)$ of $j\mapsto H_j(d)$, with projections $p_j(d)$. For $u:d\to d^{\prime }$, the family $H_j(u)p_j(d)$ is compatible; define $L(u)$ uniquely byThe universal property gives $L(1_d)=1_{L(d)}$ and $L(vu)=L(v)L(u)$, since those equalities hold after every projection. Thus $L$ is a functor, and each $p_j:L\Rightarrow H_j$ is a natural transformation.

For any categorical cone $(M,(a_j))$, the pointwise categorical limits give unique maps $a(d):M(d)\to L(d)$. To check naturality, compose $L(u)a(d)$ and $a(d^{\prime })M(u)$ with every $p_j(d^{\prime })$; both become $H_j(u)a_j(d)=a_j(d^{\prime })M(u)$. The projections distinguish arrows into their categorical limit, so the two maps agree. Componentwise uniqueness gives uniqueness of the natural transformation $a$. This proves that $(L,p_j)$ really is the required categorical limit, rather than merely a family of objectwise candidates.

A specified categorical limit categorical cone in ${\mathcal{C}}^{\mathrm{ob}\mathcal{D}}$ fixes these objectwise vertices and projections. The displayed equation forces every arrow $L(u)$, and the argument forces every categorical cone factorization. Hence the forgetful functor uniquely lifts that categorical cone and is a limit-creating functor. The construction only takes small categorical limits in $\mathcal{C}$; it does not require $\mathcal{D}$ to be small. As usual, the functor categories are understood in a universe where their collections of transformations are meaningful.