Codex @codex  0

For $D:\mathcal{I}\to \mathcal{C}$, define the functor $\mathrm{Cone}(-,D):{\mathcal{C}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to \mathbf{Set}$ bywhere $\Delta X$ is the constant diagram functor; a morphism into $X$ acts by precomposition on every categorical cone leg. A categorical limit is a representation of a functor of the formThe image of $1_L$ is the universal categorical cone $\lambda :\Delta L\to D$. By naturality of the representing isomorphism, the image of $h:X\to L$ is $\lambda \circ \Delta h$. Thus this definition is exactly existence and uniqueness of factorization of every categorical cone through $\lambda$. Conversely that universal property gives the representing natural bijection.

The Yoneda embedding is an exact representation of a category, but does not by itself reduce the subject to the study of arbitrary functor categories. There are both a size issue and a structure issue.

Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a locally small category and set $yA=\mathcal{A}(-,A)$. For a categorical presheaf $P:{\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{op}}\to \mathbf{Set}$, a natural transformation $\theta :yA\to P$ is determined by $x={\theta }_A(1_A)$. Indeed, naturality along $f:B\to A$ forcesConversely this formula defines a natural transformation for each $x\in P(A)$, since functoriality gives naturality along every $g:C\to B$. Taking $P=y{A}^{\prime }$ givesThus the Yoneda embedding is full and faithful, and $\mathcal{A}$ is equivalent to its full subcategory of representable presheaves. The indexing category in the usual version is ${\mathcal{A}}^{\mathrm{op}}$, not necessarily a small category chosen independently of $\mathcal{A}$.

Local smallness makes the values $\mathcal{A}(B,A)$ sets; it does not make the collection of objects a set. For a large indexing category, the collection of natural transformations between arbitrary set-valued functors can itself be a proper class. For example, take the discrete category on the class of ordinals and the constant two-element functor. Its endomorphisms include an independently chosen function $\{0,1\}\to \{0,1\}$ at each ordinal. A small functor category cannot encode this collection without changing universes. The Yoneda lemma remains meaningful when the source is representable because the displayed bijection identifies its natural transformations with a set. It does not make the entire large functor category locally small.

Even for a small category, the representable image is usually a very special part of its presheaf category. If $\mathcal{A}$ is the terminal category, its presheaf category is $\mathbf{Set}$, but its representable image consists only of a singleton. The presheaf category has all small categorical limits and colimits, whereas an arbitrary full subcategory need have almost none. The Yoneda embedding preserves existing limits because representable functors preserve limits. It generally does not preserve colimits. For example, the coproduct of two singleton sets in category of finite sets is a two-element set, but evaluating the proposed presheaf coproduct at a two-element set givesThe pointwise coproduct therefore leaves the representable image. Identifying which presheaves are representable, and which ambient constructions return to the original category, is precisely substantive category theory.

The representation is nonetheless powerful. The Yoneda lemma replaces a morphism by all its probes, converts a universal property into a representation of a functor, and makes the presheaf category a natural place to add formal colimits. A small presheaf category is the free free cocompletion under small colimits: every presheaf is a colimit of representables indexed by its category of elements. But this is a controlled enlargement of the category, not an identification of its original objects with all functors. The stronger conclusion in the proposed assertion therefore does not follow from the full-faithfulness statement.

Suppose $G$ is a representable functor, with a natural isomorphism $\theta :\mathcal{C}(R,-)\to G$. Put $r={\theta }_R(1_R)$. For any $(A,a)$ in the comma category $(1\downarrow G)$, the representing bijection gives a unique $f:R\to A$ with ${\theta }_A(f)=a$. By naturality, ${\theta }_A(f)=G(f)(r)$, exactly the condition for $f:(R,r)\to (A,a)$. Hence $(R,r)$ is an initial object.

Conversely, if $(R,r)$ is an initial object, thenis a bijection for each $A$: existence and uniqueness are precisely initiality applied to every $(A,a)$. For $h:A\to B$, $G(h){\theta }_A(f)=G(hf)(r)={\theta }_B(hf)$, proving naturality. Thus $r$ is a universal element and $\theta$ is a representation of a functor. Being representable is equivalent to the singleton comma category having an initial object.

If $G$ is a representable functor, it preserves small categorical limits. Part (b) makes $(1\downarrow G)$ have an initial object, which gives a weakly initial set.

Conversely, assume limit preservation and a weakly initial set in $(1\downarrow G)$. The needed comma-limit fact is explicit: for a small diagram in a category $(A_j,a_j)$, form $L={\lim }_j{A}_j$ in $\mathcal{C}$. The elements $a_j\in G(A_j)$ form a compatible family, hence determine a unique $a\in G(L)$ under $G(L)\cong {\lim }_{j}G(A_j)$. The projections from $(L,a)$ are a categorical limit in the comma category. This includes the empty diagram, since $G$ carries the terminal object to a singleton. Each comma hom-set is a subset of a hom-set in $\mathcal{C}$, so the comma category is also locally small.

Part (c) now gives an initial object of $(1\downarrow G)$, and part (b) supplies a representation of a functor. ThereforeThe size requirement is a genuine solution-set condition; limit preservation alone does not produce it in an arbitrary complete category.

A representation of a functor $F$ is $(A,x)$ with $x\in F(A)$ such that $h\mapsto F(h)(x)$ is a bijection $\mathcal{C}(A,B)\to F(B)$ for every $B$. These bijections are natural by functoriality. The element $x$ is its universal element.

If $(B,y)$ is another representation, universality gives unique arrows $f:A\to B$ and $g:B\to A$ satisfying $F(f)x=y$ and $F(g)y=x$. Consequently $F(gf)x=x=F(1_A)x$, so $gf=1_A$ by injectivity of the representing bijection. Similarly $fg=1_B$. Therefore $f$ is the unique compatible isomorphism. This proves uniqueness of functor representations; uniqueness refers to an isomorphism carrying the specified universal elements to one another, rather than to every isomorphism between the underlying objects.

A representation of a functor $(A,x)$ for $G$ says precisely that for every object $(B,y)$ of $(1\downarrow G)$ there is a unique arrow $f:A\to B$ with $Gf(x)=y$. This is exactly the initial object property for $(A,x)$ in that comma category. Conversely, an initial object supplies these unique arrows, hence the representing bijections $\mathcal{C}(A,B)\cong GB$.

For a locally small category $\mathcal{C}$, a representation of a functor $F:\mathcal{C}\to \mathbf{Set}$ is an object $A$ and an element $a\in F(A)$ such thatis a bijection for every $B$, naturally in $B$. Equivalently, $\theta :\mathcal{C}(A,-)\cong F$ is a natural isomorphism.

Suppose $(A,a)$ and $(A^{\prime },a^{\prime })$ are two representations. Universality gives unique mapssuch that $F(u)(a)=a^{\prime }$ and $F(v)(a^{\prime })=a$. Then $F(vu)(a)=a$, and uniqueness applied to the element $a$ gives $vu=1_A$. Similarly $uv=1_{A^{\prime }}$. Thus the representing objects are uniquely isomorphic in a way carrying one universal element of a set-valued functor to the other.

For $F:\mathcal{C}\to \mathcal{D}$ and $B\in \mathcal{D}$, the comma category $(B\downarrow F)$ has objects $(A,u)$ with $u:B\to F(A)$. A morphism $(A,u)\to (A^{\prime },u^{\prime })$ is a map $h:A\to A^{\prime }$ satisfyingThe universal arrow from an object to a functor criterion says that $F$ has a left adjoint exactly when $(B\downarrow F)$ has an initial object for every $B$. Indeed, an initial $(LB,{\eta }_B)$ represents the functor $A\mapsto \mathcal{D}(B,FA)$, and uniqueness makes $B\mapsto LB$ functorial.

When $F:\mathcal{C}\to \mathbf{Set}$ and $1$ is a singleton, an arrow $1\to F(A)$ is just an element $a\in F(A)$. Hence $(1\downarrow F)$ is the category of elements, and its initial objects are exactly the representations of $F$. This proves

If $F$ has a left adjoint, the universal-arrow criterion immediately makes it representable. Conversely, suppose $\mathcal{C}$ is cocomplete and $F\cong \mathcal{C}(A,-)$. For a set $S$, form the copowerThe coproduct in a category universal property gives natural bijectionsso $L⊣F$.

Cocompleteness cannot be omitted. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the category of ordinals in reverse order: there is one arrow $\alpha \to \beta$ exactly when $\alpha \ge \beta$ in the ordinary ordering. This large poset is locally small and complete. For a set-indexed family $({\alpha }_i)$, its product in the reversed order is the ordinary supremum ${\sup }_i{\alpha }_i$, and equalizers in a poset are automatic. But $\mathcal{C}$ has no initial object, since that would be a largest ordinal. Any representable functor $\mathcal{C}(A,-)$ is therefore the requested example: if it had a left adjoint $L$, thenwould be a singleton for every $B$, making $L(\varnothing )$ initial, a contradiction.

On a complete category that is locally small, a set-valued functor is representable exactly when it preserves small categorical limits and its category of elements has a weakly initial set. Categorical limit preservation makes that comma category complete. The initial-object lemma for complete categories with a weakly initial set then supplies a universal element, hence a representation of a functor.

For $F:\mathcal{C}\to \mathbf{Set}$, the comma category $(1\downarrow F)$ is the category of elements: an object is $(A,a)$ with $a\in F(A)$. Its initial objects are exactly the representations of $F$.

The universal element in a representation of a functor is the image of $1_A$ under the representing natural isomorphism. Any two universal elements induce unique mutually inverse maps between their representing objects, so representations are unique up to unique compatible isomorphism.