Given a small category of “primitive objects”, we can think of a functor as being a more complex object built out of primitive objects:
Given a primitive object in , we interpret as a set representing the ways occurs inside
Given a morphism in , we interpret as the function mapping each occurrence of in to the corresponding suboccurrence (included in through ) of in
Such functors are called presheaves.
A presheaf on a small category is a functor
from the opposite category of to the category Set of sets. Equivalently this may be thought of as a contravariant functor .
More generally, given any category , an -valued presheaf on is a functor
While, hence, presheaves are just functors (on small categories), one says “presheaf” to indicate a specific perspective or interest, namely interest in the sheafification of the functor/presheaf, or at least interest in the functor category as a topos (the presheaf topos). Hence “presheaf” is a concept with an attitude.
Historically, the initial applications of presheaves and sheaves involved cases like CRing (the category of commutative rings), Ab (abelian groups), RMod (modules), etc. Later, especially with the development of topos theory, the primary importance of the category of set-valued (pre)sheaves as a topos was recognized; these other cases could be considered algebraic objects which live in the topos. This article and the one on sheaf topos recognize these later developments by making the set-valued case the default (in other words, presheaf or sheaf without further qualification is understood to refer to the set-valued case).
The category of presheaves on , usually denoted or , but often abbreviated as , has:
functors as objects;
natural transformations between such functors as morphisms.
As such, it is an example of a functor category.
Speaking of functors as presheaves indicates operations that one wants to do apply to these functors, or certain properties that one wants to check.
when , and especially one is interested in the Yoneda embedding of a category into its presheaf category for purposes of studying, for instance, limits, colimits, ind-objects, and pro-objects of ;
or when there is the structure of a site on , such that it makes sense to ask if a given presheaf is actually a sheaf.
One generally useful way to think of presheaves is in the sense of space and quantity.
In the case where and is small, an important general principle is that the presheaf category is the free cocompletion of ; see Yoneda extension. Intuitively, it is formed by taking and ‘freely throwing in small colimits’. The category is contained in via the Yoneda embedding
The Yoneda embedding sends each object to the presheaf
Presheaves of this form, or isomorphic to those of this form, are called representable; among their properties, representable presheaves always turn colimits into limits, in the sense that a representable functor from to turns colimits in (i.e., limits in ) into limits in (i.e., colimits in ). In general, such continuity is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for representability; however, nicely enough, it is sufficient when itself is a presheaf category. To see this, suppose is such a presheaf on , and let , a presheaf on . By the Yoneda lemma, we have a natural isomorphism between and . But by the free cocompletion property of the Yoneda embedding, a colimit-preserving functor on presheaves is entirely determined by its precomposition with ; accordingly, our isomorphism must extend to an identification of with , thus establishing the representability of .
Any category of presheaves is complete and cocomplete, with both limits and colimits being computed pointwise. That is, to compute the limit or colimit of a diagram , we think of it as a functor and take the limit or colimit in the variable.
Every presheaf is a colimit of representable presheaves.
An elegant way to express this colimit for a presheaf is in terms of the coend identity
which follows by Yoneda reduction. See also at co-Yoneda lemma.
More concretely: let denote the Yoneda embedding and let be the corresponding comma category, the category of elements of :
and let the canonical forgetful functor. Then the colimit over representables expression is
This is often written with some convenient abuse of notation as
Notice that these formulas can also be understood as those for the left Kan extension (see there) of along the identity functor.
Notice that for every and using the property of the hom-functor we have
by the Yoneda lemma.
By the definition of limit we have that
so for each natural transformation and each object , is a map , that is, it is an element of . However, by Yoneda, we know that each object specifies a unique element . Then rephrasing this, specifies a function . The naturality of this assignment is guaranteed by the naturality of the map . Then induces a natural transformation . It’s easy to check that defines an isomorphism:
Since this holds for all , the claim follows, again using the Yoneda lemma.
Examples for presheaves are abundant. Here is a non-representative selection of some examples.
For a locally small category, every object gives rise to the representable presheaf .
More generally, for a subcategory of a locally small category , every object gives rise to the presheaf
Let’s spell this out in more detail: given a morphism in , we can take any morphism in and turn it into a morphism in . This determines a map of set
So we have a functorial assignment of the form
Of course here could be any functor whatsoever. Asking if such a presheaf is representable is asking for a right adjoint functor of .
A simplicial set is a presheaf on the simplex category
A globular set is a presheaf on the globe category.
A cubical set is a presheaf on the cube category.
A diffeological space is a concrete presheaf on CartSp.
An important class of presheaves is those on a category of open subsets of a topological space or smooth manifold .
Traditional standard examples include: the presheaf of smooth functions on , that assigns to each the set of smooth functions and to each inclusion the corresponding restriction operation of functions. This is further a sheaf.
Traditional standard example which is a presheaf but not a sheaf: the presheaf of exact forms on , that assigns to the set of exact forms on and to each inclusion the corresponding restriction operation of functions. Here, and like above, the site is made up by open sets in with inclusions as morphisms.
… etc. pp.
Last revised on October 9, 2021 at 06:43:46. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.