nLab
subcategory

Subcategories

Definition

Given a category C, a subcategory D consists of a subcollection of the collection of objects of C and a subcollection of the collection of morphisms of D such that:

  • If the morphism f:xy is in D, then so are x and y.

  • If f:xy and g:yz are in D, then so is the composite gf:xz.

  • If x is in D then so is the identity morphism 1 x.

These conditions ensure that D is a category in its own right and the inclusion DC is a functor. Additionally, we say that D is…

Non-evil variants

Just as subsets of a set X can be identified with isomorphism classes of monic functions into X, subcategories of a category C can be identified with isomorphism classes of monic functors into C. A functor is easily verified to be monic iff it is faithful and injective on objects. This can be generalized to monomorphisms in a strict 2-category.

However, this notion is evil since being injective-on-objects refers to equality of objects. This raises the question: what is a good non-evil definition of subobject in a 2-category? It is the contention of the authors of this page that there are multiple such definitions. Two evident ones are:

  • A morphism f:AB in a 2-category K is 1-monic if it is full and faithful, i.e. K(X,A)K(X,B) is full and faithful for all X. A 1-subobject of B is an equivalence class of 1-monomorphisms into B, and a 1-subcategory is a 1-subobject in Cat.
  • Likewise, f is 2-monic if K(X,A)K(X,B) is faithful for all X. A 2-subobject of B is an equivalence class of 2-monomorphisms into B, and a 2-subcategory is a 2-subobject in Cat.

The obvious generalizations (at least, obvious once you start thinking in terms of k-surjectivity) are that every morphism is 3-monic, while the 0-monic morphisms are the equivalences. (Note that this numbering is offset by one from that used in Baez and Shulman.) There is likewise an evident generalization to k-monomorphisms in any n-category.

It is fairly undisputed that 1-subobjects, as defined above, are a good notion of subobject in a 2-category. In particular, any full and faithful functor CD in Cat is equivalent to the inclusion of a full subcategory CD (here C is the full image of C). Also, in a 1-category considered as a locally discrete 2-category, the 1-monomorphisms are precisely the usual sort of monomorphism.

In fact, any faithful functor is likewise equivalent to the inclusion of a (non-full) subcategory, but in this case the codomain must be modified as well as the domain. It is somewhat more disputable whether 2-subcategories all deserve to be called “subcategories;” for instance, is Grp a “subcategory” of Set? Note also that any functor between discrete categories is faithful, so that the terminal category has a proper class of inequivalent 2-subcategories, and similarly every morphism in a locally discrete 2-category is 2-monic. However, kernels of morphisms between 2-groups are 2-subobjects, not 1-subobjects, and likewise for any subgroup of a group (considered as a 1-object category). This motivates the term “2-subobject,” to make it clear that there is some relationship with the sort of subobjects we are used to in 1-categories, but also some notable generalization.

Other types of morphism in a 2-category which have some claim to be considered “subobjects” include pseudomonic morphisms and conservative morphisms. Pseudomonic morphisms might merit a name such as (2,1)-subcategory, since a functor is pseudomonic iff it is faithful (a 2-subcategory) and its induced functor between underlying groupoids is fully faithful (a 1-subcategory). See also stuff, structure, property.

Edit this sidebar

Revised on November 18, 2011 10:50:53 by Urs Schreiber (217.232.18.193)