Both category theory and graph theory study patterns based on diagrams consisting of nodes and edges. Despite this surface impression, there is in fact very little interaction between the scientific communities of category theorists and of graph theorists.
This article is a modest bridge, indicating that the category of graphs (in the usual graph-theorist’s sense – see for example Diestel) has some very nice properties.
By a simple graph, we mean a set $V$ whose elements are called vertices, together with a collection of 2-element subsets $\{x, y\}$ of $V$; these are called edges of the graph.
There are various ways of forming a category of simple graphs. Perhaps the most straightforward is to define a morphism of graphs $G \to H$ to be a function $f: V \to W$ between the vertex sets to be a graph morphism if $\{f(x), f(y)\}$ is an edge of $H$ whenever $\{x, y\}$ is an edge of $G$.
Another option – and this is the one chosen for this article – starts by regarding a simple graph as carrying the same information as a set $V$ equipped with a symmetric reflexive relation $E$. Indeed, such a relation determines (and is uniquely determined by) a simple graph $G$ where for given vertices $x, y \in V$, there is an edge $\{x, y\}$ between $x$ and $y$ in $G$ iff both $(x, y) \in E$ and $x \neq y$. We will write $E(x, y)$ to mean $(x, y) \in E$.
Then, under the relational formulation, we define a morphism $(V, E) \to (W, F)$ between simple graphs straightforwardly^{1} as a function $f: V \to W$ that preserves the relevant structure, i.e., that $E(x, y)$ implies $F(f(x), f(y))$. One reason for preferring this notion of morphism is that it allows, for example, consideration of arbitrary edge contractions of a simple graph as quotients in the category (cf. graph minor), something that is not possible under the prior notion of morphism.
Thus we will adopt the latter notion of morphism which takes reflexive symmetric relations $E$ as primary. The resulting category of simple graphs is denoted by $SimpGph$.
Note that graphs and their morphisms can also be understood in functorial language, by regarding simple graphs as special types of presheaves, as follows. Let $C$ be the category of sets $1 \coloneqq \{\ast\}$ and $2 \coloneqq \{s, t\}$ and functions between them. Then a presheaf $X: C^{op} \to Set$ is given by sets $V = X(1)$ and $E = X(2)$ and maps
$d_0: X(2) \stackrel{X(\ast \mapsto s)}{\to} X(1)$ (source map),
$d_1: X(2) \stackrel{X(\ast \mapsto t)}{\to} X(1)$ (target map),
$i: X(1) \stackrel{X(s, t \mapsto \ast)}{\to} X(2)$ (reflexive map),
$\sigma: X(2) \stackrel{X(s \mapsto t, t \mapsto s)}{\to} X(2)$ (symmetry map).
satisfying appropriate identities imposed by equations in $C$. Simple graphs can then be regarded equivalently as such presheaves where the map
is a monomorphism. In that case, a morphism of simple graphs amounts to a natural transformation between such presheaves.
“Simple graph” as defined in the nLab (see graph) means that edges are 2-element subsets of $V$, but of course that doesn’t preclude consideration of other types of graph. One option is to consider sets $V$ equipped with a collection of subsets of $V$ of cardinality either 1 or 2, i.e., allowing some but not necessarily all loops as edges. We don’t call those “simple graphs” (at graph they are called “loop graphs”), but nevertheless they form a respectable category under the straightforward notion of morphism $f$ (if $\{x, y\}$ is an edge of the domain, possibly with $x = y$, then $\{f(x), f(y)\}$ is an edge of the codomain).
The category $SimpGph$ has very good properties. For example,
$SimpGph$ is a Grothendieck quasitopos. In particular, it is a regular category and even a logos, and $SimpGph^{op}$ is also regular. It is also $\infty$-extensive.
(See also Adamek and Herrlich.) As above, let $C$ be the category of sets $1$ and $2$ and functions between them, and regard the category of simple graphs as a full subcategory of the presheaf topos $Set^{C^{op}}$. For this presheaf topos, there is just one nontrivial $\neg\neg$-dense sieve, namely the inclusion
(where $s$ is shorthand for $C(-, \ast \mapsto s)$ and similarly for $t$) and so the category of $\neg\neg$-separated presheaves is equivalent to the category of presheaves $X$ such that the induced map
which is the source-target pairing $\langle d_0, d_1 \rangle: X(2) \to X(1) \times X(1)$, is monic. In other words, a simple graph in this language is exactly a separated presheaf. On the other hand, a Grothendieck quasitopos is, essentially by definition, the category of separated presheaves for a topology on a presheaf topos, in this case the $\neg\neg$-topology.
Being a quasitopos with small coproducts, it is $\infty$-extensive provided that coproducts are disjoint. However, this is trivial to check (it even suffices to check, according to Elephant 2.6.5, that $0 \to 1$ is a regular monomorphism, or that $1 + 1$ is a disjoint coproduct, which it obviously is).
Implicit in this proof is the way in which (for example) limits of simple graphs are calculated. Since $SimpGph$ is realized as a category of separated presheaves which is a reflective subcategory of all presheaves, limits in $SimpGph$ are calculated just as they are in the presheaf category $Set^{C^{op}}$, which is to say: they are computed objectwise, at the objects $1, 2$ of $C$.
For example, consider how to construct the equalizer of a pair of graph maps $f, g: G \rightrightarrows H$. For the vertex set of the equalizer (computing the equalizer at the object $1$ of $C$), one just takes the equalizer of the functions between the vertex sets of $G$ and $H$. At the edge set level where we have maps $E = G(2) \rightrightarrows F = H(2)$: since there is at most one edge between two vertices, the maps $f(2), g(2)$ must agree on $e \in E$ provided $f(d_0 e) = g(d_0 e)$ and $f(d_1 e) = g(d_1 e)$, so the equalizer graph is just the full or induced subgraph of $G$ given by the equalizer vertex set.
Moreover, every induced subgraph $H \hookrightarrow G$ arises as an equalizer (consider the equalizer of the two embeddings of $G$ into the amalgamation $G +_H G$, which at the vertex level agrees with $H \hookrightarrow G$).
Of course this is elementary, but we get much more more: the quasitopos $SimpGph$ is also a locally cartesian closed category, and dependent products can also be read off directly from how they work for presheaves.
It is easy to describe monos and epis in $SimpGph$. For, let $\Gamma = \hom(1, -): SimpGph \to Set$ be the underlying vertex-set forgetful functor.
The forgetful functor $\Gamma = \hom(1, -): SimpGph \to Set$ is faithful, in fact exhibits $SimpGph$ as a topological concrete category.
We omit the easy proof. Next we have two easy results:
$\Gamma$ reflects monos and epis (because $\Gamma$ is faithful).
$\Gamma$ preserves limits and colimits (because it has a left adjoint $\Delta$ and a right adjoint $\nabla$).
It follows that $\Gamma: SimpGph \to Set$ both preserves and reflects monos and epis. As a result, we can prove various simple exactness results in $SimpGph$. For instance:
In $SimpGph$, the pushout of any mono is a mono.
Suppose we have a pushout diagram in $SimpGph$:
Since $\Gamma$ preserves both pushouts and monos, and since the pushout of a mono in $Set$ is a mono, we have that $\Gamma(k)$ is monic in $Set$. Since $\Gamma$ reflects monos, this means $k$ is monic in $SimpGph$.
As already observed, there is a chain of adjoint functors $\Delta \dashv \Gamma \dashv \nabla: Set \to SimpGph$. But in fact there is a fourth functor in the chain: $\Delta$ has a left adjoint $\Pi: SimpGph \to Set$, the connected components functor. If $E$ is the simple graph consisting of two vertices $a, b$ with an edge between them, then there is a reflexive fork
and $\Pi$ is formed as a reflexive coequalizer of the induced diagram:
$\Pi \dashv \Delta$, and $\Pi$ preserves products.
$\Pi$ preserves products because being a reflexive coequalizer, it is a sifted colimit of product-preserving functors. For graphs $G$, there is a natural map $u G: G \to \Delta \Pi G$ which at the underlying vertex-set level sends a vertex to its connected component; if $S$ is any set, then a graph map $f: G \to \Delta S$ must send any two vertices with an edge between them to the same point, and so $f$ factors as $G \stackrel{u G}{\to} \Delta \Pi G \stackrel{\Delta g}{\to} \Delta S$ for a unique map $g: \Pi G \to S$, and this establishes the adjunction $\Pi \dashv \Delta$.
If $f, g \colon G \stackrel{\to}{\to} H$ are maps in $SimpGph$, then their equalizer $Eq(f, g) = i \colon K \to G$ is given at the vertex level by
and at the edge level by $K(x, y) \Leftrightarrow G(i(x), i(y))$; in other words, if $x, y$ belong to $K$ and there is an edge between them in $G$, then that edge lies in $K$. To express this last condition, we say the subgraph $i$ is full (at the edge level).
Thus, $i$ is a regular mono in $SimpGph$ iff both $\Gamma(i)$ is monic in $Set$ and $i$ is full at the edge level (see Remark ).
The coequalizer of $f$ and $g$, say $Coeq(f, g) = q \colon H \to Q$, is given at the vertex level by
and at the edge level by taking the image of the composite $E_H \hookrightarrow Vert(H)^2 \stackrel{q^2}{\to} Vert(Q)^2$, so that
Thus, $q$ is a regular epimorphism if it is surjective at both the vertex and edge levels.
The category of simple graphs has a ternary factorization system as follows: each morphism $f \colon G \to H$ factors as
where
$q$ is a surjection between vertex-sets and at the edge level, i.e., is a regular epi;
$a$ induces an identity between vertex-sets (hence is jointly monic and epic), but without necessarily being full at the edge level;
$i$ is given by an injection between vertex-sets and is full at the edge level, and (thus) is a regular mono.
The factorization of $f$ into $q$ followed by $i \circ a$ is the (regular epi)-mono factorization, while the factorization of $f$ into $a \circ q$ followed by $i$ is the epi-(regular mono) factorization. (The fact that regular monos are stable under pushout, used to ensure that the epi-(regular mono) factorization is an orthogonal factorization system, is true because $SimpGph$, being a quasitopos, is a coregular category, meaning $SimpGph^{op}$ is regular.) Both factorizations coincide at the level of underlying functions between vertex sets, both being the usual epi-mono factorization.
In particular, we have the easy facts that
$f$ is a mono iff $q$ is a graph isomorphism: monos in $SimpGph$ are simple graph maps that are injective on vertices and edges,
$f$ is an epi iff $i$ is a graph isomorphism: epis in $SimpGph$ are simple graph maps that are surjective on vertices.
Graph theory suggests both full and wide subcategories of $SimpGph$. See the category of simple graphs from a graph-theoretic perspective for more details.
The category $SimpGph$ has a natural numbers object; on abstract grounds this is formed by applying the reflection functor
to the natural numbers object in $Set^{C^{op}}$.
In other words, the usual notion of morphism between structures or models as in model theory. ↩
Last revised on June 18, 2017 at 00:39:12. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.