Proposition
(hom-functor preserves limits)
Let be a category and write
for its hom-functor. This preserves limits in both its arguments (recalling that a limit in the opposite category is a colimit in ).
In more detail, let be a diagram. Then:
-
If the limit exists in then for all the functor preserves this limit.
-
If the colimit exists in then for all the functor preserves it (viewing it as a limit over ).
Proof
We give the proof of the first statement. The proof of the second statement is formally dual. Let be a limit of , consisting of an object and a family of maps forming a limit cone. Our task is to show that is a limit cone in .
So, take a set equipped with a family of maps that form a cone, meaning for every we have that . We need to show that there exists a unique morphism such that for every .
Unpacking the definition of the hom-functor, we obtain:
- For every , a map .
- The compatibility condition for every .
- The requirement to find, for each , a unique such that .
But elementwise, the first two bulletpoints are the data of a cone over with tip , and the third is obtained from the unique morphism factorising this cone through the limit cone . Thus, taking these together for each provides the required unique factorisation .
Proposition
(internal hom-functor preserves limits)
Let be a symmetric closed monoidal category with internal hom-bifunctor . Then this bifunctor preserves limits in the second variable, and sends colimits in the first variable to limits:
and
Proof
For any object, is a right adjoint by definition, and hence preserves limits as adjoints preserve (co-)limits.
For the other case, let be a diagram in , and let be any object. Then there are isomorphisms
which are natural in , where we used that the ordinary hom-functor respects (co)limits as shown (see at hom-functor preserves limits), and that the left adjoint preserves colimits (see at adjoints preserve (co-)limits).
Hence by the fully faithfulness of the Yoneda embedding, there is an isomorphism