or is the category of quivers or directed graphs. It can be viewed as the default categorical model for the concept of a category of graphs.
We can define a quiver to be a functor , where is the category with an object , an object and two morphisms , along with identity morphisms. This lets us define as the category of presheaves on , where:
In other words, is the functor category from to Set.
The category , being a category of presheaves, is a topos. The representable functors may be thought of as the “generic figures” (generic vertex, generic edge) that occur in directed graphs:
From this picture, we can see that:
The fact that is a presheaf topos allows us to use topos theory, which give answers to questions like whether finite limits of directed graphs exist, or how to construct the exponential quiver of all morphisms between two quivers in .
The initial object in is the graph without vertices and edges aka the empty graph. The terminal object is the graph with one vertex and one edge. Points of an arbitrary graph i.e. maps then correpond to loops in whence any loopfree graph with a vertex has no points but is not empty ().
In the following subsections, more of the structure of the topos will be worked out explicitly.
Knowing the subobjects of the representable functors allows us to calculate the structure of the subobject classifier , since they correspond to the elements of the value of at the corresponding objects of :
We can visualize as the following quiver with two vertices and five edges:
where the vertex has one loop labeled “empty”, and the vertex has two loops with labels and ().
Suppose now that is a subgraph and is its characteristic map. On vertices:
Thus, a vertex is either contained in a subgraph or not. This is represented in by two vertices.
For edges, the situation is more complicated since there are five cases, which are represented by five edges in . On edges:
The negation is defined as the characteristic map of . It specifies how
sits as a subgraph in :
Taking the complement of a subobject , i.e. taking the subobject of that is classified by , then amounts to taking all vertices of not in and all the edges in between them.
Hence, the result of applying twice to amounts to adding to all the edges of that have source and target in . This implies that a subgraph is dense for the double negation topology given by precisely when it contains all vertices of , since taking the complement twice will throw into all the edges in between all the vertices in .
By definition, a quiver is separated for when, for every other quiver and dense subobject , and any map , there is at most one such that the following diagram commutes:
A separated quiver is a -sheaf when such a unique always exists.
Suppose that a quiver has a pair of parallel edges . Then the subgraph that is just like but has omitted is dense in . Let be the automorphism of that is just like the identity on except that it interchanges and . Then and one sees that is not separated.
Conversely, let be a quiver with at most one edge between any pair of vertices and be a map with is dense in . Since is a bijection on the vertex sets of and , if a factorization of through and exists the effect of on the vertices is uniquely determined by but since in there is at most one edge between any pair of vertices the image of any edge in under is already fixed: it is the unique edge between and . In particular, one sees that a separated object is a sheaf precisely when there exists exactly one edge between any pair of vertices since then arbitrary edges in arbitrary factors can be mapped to the appropriate edge in . To sum up:
A quiver is separated for the double negation topology precisely if there exists at most an edge between any pair of vertices. is a -sheaf precisely if there exists a unique edge between any pair .
The corresponding full subcategories are denoted by and , respectively. By generalities, it follows that is a quasitopos and is a Boolean topos.
Quivers that have at most one edge between any pair of vertices can be called ‘simple’ with the caveat that contrary to (the usual concept of) a simple graph they are allowed to have loops. Similarly, -sheaves can be called ‘complete’.
Since the edges of -separated quivers simply encode a binary endorelation on their vertex sets and being a morphism between -separated quivers then amounts to preserve that relation one sees that and are equivalent to the categories with objects where is a set and a binary endorelation on , and, respectively, the category of sets equipped with the total relation. The latter can be identified with since morphisms between sets equipped with the total relation behave just like ordinary functions between sets.
The inclusion is actually an essential localization, since it corresponds (from the relational perspective) to the adjoint triple where maps a set to with the total relation on , is the forgetful functor mapping to and, maps a set to .
Similarly, is an essential subtopos: if we identify sheafification with the functor that maps a quiver to the quiver on the same vertex set with edge set the total relation on the vertex set, then where forgets the edges of a complete quiver.
In particular, it follows then from general properties of the double negation topology that is the Aufhebung of . Whence, there exists indeed a notion of ‘codiscreteness’ (= an Aufhebung of ) for quivers, namely ‘completeness’, but it does not arise from a right adjoint to the section functor that maps a quiver to its set of loops. Indeed, the adjoint string that comes with the ‘discrete’ inclusion that maps a set to the quiver with vertex set and edge set precisely one loop for every vertex, is not a localisation since is not a geometric morphism because fails to preserve products.
Furthermore, since it is a general result for presheaf toposes (cf. La Palme Reyes et al. 2004, p.204) that has a right adjoint precisely if a generic figure has a point and in the case of Quiv neither the generic vertex nor the generic edge contains a loop, we see that the functor has no right adjoint.
R. T. Bumby, D. M. Latch, Categorical Constructions in Graph Theory , Internat. J. Math. & Math. Sci. 9 no.1 (1986) pp.1-16. (web)
F. W. Lawvere, Qualitative Distinctions between some Toposes of Generalized Graphs, Cont. Math. 92 (1989) pp.261-299.
M. La Palme Reyes, G. E. Reyes, H. Zolfaghari, Generic Figures and their Glueings, Polimetrica Milano 2004. (pdf)
S. Vigna, A Guided Tour in the Topos of Graphs , arXiv.0306394 (2003). (arXiv)
Last revised on August 31, 2022 at 01:19:23. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.