nLab topological concrete category

Contents

Terminology warning. Here the term topological category is understood in a tradition motivated by examples of concrete categories in topology and does not refer to categories internal to or enriched in in Top (cf. topologically enriched category instead). The term topological groupoid (which is an internal groupoid in Top) is not taken by this tradition; indeed, the only groupoid that is a topological category over SetSet, in the sense used here, is trivial. On the other hand, there is use of the term ‘topological functor’, which we tend to avoid other than below.

Idea

A topological category is a concrete category with nice features matching the ability to form weak and strong topologies in Top.

Definition

The following definition relates to a functor U:CDU\colon C \to D (such as the forgetful functor from TopTop to Set), which one may think of as exhibiting CC as a bundle over DD.

Sometimes, when D=D = Set, the category CC satisfying the properties described below is called a topological construct Preuss 2002. Usually CC and DD will be large categories.

In this context one also says:

This alludes to the typical example situation where CC is a category of spaces with some kind of topological structure while DD is, if not Set then some kind of algebraic category.

We now first state the default definition (Def. ) and then comment on some variants (Rem. and Rem. ).

Definition

Given a functor U:CDU \colon C \longrightarrow D, it exhibits its domain category CC as a topological category over DD if, given

  1. any object XDX \in D (an “algebra”)

  2. any (possibly large) indexed set {S iC} iI\big\{S_i \in C\big\}_{i \in I} (of “spaces”)

  3. homomorphismsf i:XU(S i)f_i \colon X \to U(S_i) (that is, a “UU-structured source from XX”),

then there exists an initial lift (think: “smallest topology rendering the f if_i continuous”), which is to say

  1. a “space” TCT \in C such that U(T)=XU(T) = X, and maps m i:TS im_i \colon T \to S_i such that U(m i)=f iU(m_i) = f_i,

  2. given any space TT', homomorphism g:U(T)Xg'\colon U(T') \to X, and maps m i:TS im'_i\colon T' \to S_i, if each composite f igf_i \circ g equals U(m i)U(m'_i), then there exists a unique map n:TTn\colon T' \to T such that U(n)=gU(n) = g' and m in=m im_i \circ n = m'_i:

The conditions in Def. imply the following crucial further property (which is often included as an assumption in the definition, in which case the uniqueness of nn can be left out):

Proposition

If a functor U:CDU\colon C \to D exhibits a topological category in the sense of Def. , then it is faithful and in this sense exhibits CC as a concrete category over DD.

Proof

See Theorem 21.3 of Adámek, Herrlich & Strecker 1990.

Thus we may think of objects of a topological category CC as objects of DD equipped with extra structure. The idea is then that TT is XX equipped with the initial structure or weak structure determined by the requirement that the homomorphisms f if_i be structure-preserving maps.

The following says that the notion is “self-dual”:

Proposition

A functor U:CDU\colon C \to D is topological, in the sense of Def. , if and only if the opposite functor U op:C opD opU^op\colon C^op \to D^op is so.

(This may be understood as a categorification of the theorem that any complete semilattice is a complete lattice.)

Thus, every topological category also has final (not usually called terminal) or strong structures, each determined by a family of homomorphisms f i:U(S i)Xf_i\colon U(S_i) \to X (a UU-structured sink to XX).

Remark

Both of these results (faithfulness, Prop. , and self-duality, Prop. ) depend on the assumption in Def. that the family {S i}\{S_i\} is allowed to be large.

Otherwise, there exists counterexamples: For instance, if CC is a large category with all (small) products, then the functor C1C \to 1 to the terminal category satisfies the lifting property in Def. for small families {S i}\{S_i\}. However, it need not satisfy the dual property (unless CC also has all small coproducts) nor need it be faithful.

It also follows that:

Proposition

If U:CDU \colon C \longrightarrow D exhibits a topological category (Def. ), then UU is a Grothendieck fibration and an opfibration.

Remark

(amnestic version) Since initial lifts have a universal property, they are unique up to unique isomorphism. However, some authors (such as AHS90) ask that they be literally unique. This is tantamount to deciding that UU should be an amnestic functor. A drawback (from an nPOV) is that this condition violates the principle of equivalence, and arguably doesn’t add anything mathematically important.

Thus, although it occurs in the literature, here we will consider it purely optional. (It is possible that some results recorded here about topological categories will depend on this assumption, but only results not respecting the principle of equivalence could be affected.)

Remark

(weak version)
On the other hand, the default definition does already refer to equality of objects in the condition U(T)=XU(T) = X; thus as stated it already violates the principle of equivalence, just as the notion of Grothendieck fibration does. But (also as for Grothendieck fibrations) this other use of equality of objects is really more of a “typing judgment”, which can be made precise by working with displayed categories instead. (In the context of homotopy type theory, the amnestic condition is equivalent to “fiberwise univalence”.)

However, if we want to, we can also formulate a “fully isomorphism-invariant” version of the definition, corresponding to the weakened bicategorical notion of Street fibration. In this case, an initial lift consists of:

  • a space TT, an isomorphism g:U(T)Xg\colon U(T) \to X, and maps m i:TS im_i\colon T \to S_i such that f ig=U(m i)f_i \circ g = U(m_i) for all iIi \in I and,

  • given any space TT', homomorphism g:U(T)Xg'\colon U(T') \to X, and maps m i:TS im'_i\colon T' \to S_i, if f ig=U(m i)f_i \circ g' = U(m'_i) for all iIi \in I, then there exists a unique map n:TTn\colon T' \to T such that gU(n)=gg \circ U(n) = g' and m in=m im_i \circ n = m'_i:

Examples

Further properties

  • If CC is topological over DD, then so is any full retract of CC, as long as the functors involved live in Cat/DCat/D.

  • In particular, a reflective or coreflective subcategory of CC is topological, as long as the reflectors or coreflectors become identity morphisms in DD.

  • The forgetful functor U:CDU\colon C \to D is not only faithful but also (because every algebra must have an initial/indiscrete topology determined by the empty source) essentially surjective (in fact surjective on the nose for the non-weak definitions). Thus it is never full (except in the trivial case where UU is an equivalence, of course).

  • If DD is complete or cocomplete, then so is CC.

  • If DD is total or cototal, then so is CC; see solid functor.

  • If DD is mono-complete or epi-cocomplete, then so is CC.

  • If DD is well-powered or co-well-powered, then so is CC.

  • If DD has a factorization structure for sinks (E,M)(E,M), then CC has one (E,M)(E',M'), where MM' is the collection of morphisms in CC lying over MM-morphisms in DD, and EE' the collection of final sinks in CC lying over EE-sinks in DD. This generalizes the lifting of orthogonal factorization systems along Grothendieck fibrations.

  • If DD is concrete, then so is CC. More generally, if DD has a generator, then CC is concrete over DD.

  • In particular, if DD is Set, then CC is a concrete category that is complete, cocomplete, well powered, and well copowered and has a factorization structure for sinks.

Functors

  • A functor F:CCF\colon C\to C' between topological concrete categories C/DC/D, C/DC'/D with the same base category DD preserves initial lifts iff it is right adjoint. It preserves final lifts iff it is left adjoint.

  • More generally: If a functor F:CCF\colon C\to C' between topological concrete categories C/DC/D, C/DC'/D' with different base categories lying over a functor F 0:DDF_0: D\to D'. If FF is right (left) adjoint, then F 0F_0 is right (left) adjoint and FF preserves initial (final) lifts. A partial converse holds: If F 0F_0 is right (left) adjoint to G 0G_0 and FF preserves initial (final) lifts, then there is functor GG lying over G 0G_0 so that FF is right (left) adjoint to G 0G_0.

Special cases

  • If XX is any algebra, then there is a discrete space over XX induced by the empty family of maps. Similarly, we have an indiscrete space with the final structure induced by no maps. This defines functors disc,indisc:DCdisc, indisc\colon D \to C that are respectively left and right adjoints of UU.

  • Suppose that DD has an initial object 0 D0_D. Then the discrete space 0 C0_C over 0 D0_D is initial in CC. Similarly, the indiscrete space over a terminal object in DD is terminal in CC.

  • More generally, suppose that DD has products or coproducts (indexed by whichever cardinalities you may wish to consider). Then CC also has (co)products, lying over the (co)products in DD, with structures induced by the product projections or coproduct inclusions.

  • More general limits and colimits are constructed in a similar way. However, it is not typically the case that UU creates (co)limits in CC because creation of a limit requires that every preimage of the limiting cone is limiting. This fails for U:TopSetU: \mathrm{Top} \to \mathrm{Set} since we can coarsen the topology on the limit vertex to obtain a counterexample.

  • If a single algebra XX has been given the structure of several spaces, then there are a supremum structure and an infimum structure on XX induced (as the initial and final structures) by the various incarnations of its identity homomorphism. Exploiting this shows how to construct final structures out of initial ones and conversely.

  • If XX is a regular subalgebra of some U(S)U(S), then the inclusion homomorphism makes XX into a subspace of SS, which is also a subobject in CC. Every regular subobject of SS is of this form; note however that there may be nonregular subobjects in CC even if all subobjects in DD are regular.

Familiarly fibrations

The theory of topological functors can be developed along the lines of Grothendieck’s theory of fibrations, where cartesian morphisms are replaced by cartesian families. In this way just as by definition “A functor is a fibration if it creates cartesian morphisms and cartesian morphism compose”, there is the definition “A functor is topological if it creates cartesian families and cartesian families compose”.

References

Last revised on March 26, 2026 at 10:25:00. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.