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 , 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.
A topological category is a concrete category with nice features matching the ability to form weak and strong topologies in Top.
The following definition relates to a functor (such as the forgetful functor from to Set), which one may think of as exhibiting as a bundle over .
Sometimes, when Set, the category satisfying the properties described below is called a topological construct Preuss 2002. Usually and will be large categories.
In this context one also says:
spaces for the objects of ,
algebras for the objects of ,
maps for the morphism in ,
homomorphisms for the morphisms in .
This alludes to the typical example situation where is a category of spaces with some kind of topological structure while 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. ).
Given a functor , it exhibits its domain category as a topological category over if, given
any object (an “algebra”)
any (possibly large) indexed set (of “spaces”)
homomorphisms (that is, a “-structured source from ”),
then there exists an initial lift (think: “smallest topology rendering the continuous”), which is to say
a “space” such that , and maps such that ,
given any space , homomorphism , and maps , if each composite equals , then there exists a unique map such that and :
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 can be left out):
If a functor exhibits a topological category in the sense of Def. , then it is faithful and in this sense exhibits as a concrete category over .
See Theorem 21.3 of Adámek, Herrlich & Strecker 1990.
Thus we may think of objects of a topological category as objects of equipped with extra structure. The idea is then that is equipped with the initial structure or weak structure determined by the requirement that the homomorphisms be structure-preserving maps.
The following says that the notion is “self-dual”:
A functor is topological, in the sense of Def. , if and only if the opposite functor 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 (a -structured sink to ).
Both of these results (faithfulness, Prop. , and self-duality, Prop. ) depend on the assumption in Def. that the family is allowed to be large.
Otherwise, there exists counterexamples: For instance, if is a large category with all (small) products, then the functor to the terminal category satisfies the lifting property in Def. for small families . However, it need not satisfy the dual property (unless also has all small coproducts) nor need it be faithful.
It also follows that:
If exhibits a topological category (Def. ), then is a Grothendieck fibration and an opfibration.
(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 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.)
(weak version)
On the other hand, the default definition does already refer to equality of objects in the condition ; 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 , an isomorphism , and maps such that for all and,
given any space , homomorphism , and maps , if for all , then there exists a unique map such that and :
The name ‘topological category’ comes from these examples from point-set topology; these are all topological over Set:
the category Top of topological spaces,
the category of convergence spaces (or of pseudotopological or of pretopological spaces),
the category of uniform spaces or of Cauchy spaces,
lots more in this vein.
In contrast, the category of locales is not topological over ; not even the category of spatial locales (equivalent to the category of sober spaces) is topological, essentially because soberification of a topological space may not preserve the underlying set.
Also, the category Diff of smooth manifolds is not topological but most categories of generalized smooth spaces are.
Outside of topology, the category of measurable spaces is topological over .
The category PreOrd of preordered sets (equivalent to the category of Alexandroff spaces) is topological over . Given a family of preordered sets and a family of , the induced preorder is .
The category of topological groups is topological over Grp, the category of topological vector spaces is topological over -Vect, etc.
If is topological over , then so is any full retract of , as long as the functors involved live in .
In particular, a reflective or coreflective subcategory of is topological, as long as the reflectors or coreflectors become identity morphisms in .
The forgetful functor 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 is an equivalence, of course).
If is complete or cocomplete, then so is .
If is total or cototal, then so is ; see solid functor.
If is mono-complete or epi-cocomplete, then so is .
If is well-powered or co-well-powered, then so is .
If has a factorization structure for sinks , then has one , where is the collection of morphisms in lying over -morphisms in , and the collection of final sinks in lying over -sinks in . This generalizes the lifting of orthogonal factorization systems along Grothendieck fibrations.
If is concrete, then so is . More generally, if has a generator, then is concrete over .
In particular, if is Set, then is a concrete category that is complete, cocomplete, well powered, and well copowered and has a factorization structure for sinks.
A functor between topological concrete categories , with the same base category preserves initial lifts iff it is right adjoint. It preserves final lifts iff it is left adjoint.
More generally: If a functor between topological concrete categories , with different base categories lying over a functor . If is right (left) adjoint, then is right (left) adjoint and preserves initial (final) lifts. A partial converse holds: If is right (left) adjoint to and preserves initial (final) lifts, then there is functor lying over so that is right (left) adjoint to .
If is any algebra, then there is a discrete space over induced by the empty family of maps. Similarly, we have an indiscrete space with the final structure induced by no maps. This defines functors that are respectively left and right adjoints of .
Suppose that has an initial object . Then the discrete space over is initial in . Similarly, the indiscrete space over a terminal object in is terminal in .
More generally, suppose that has products or coproducts (indexed by whichever cardinalities you may wish to consider). Then also has (co)products, lying over the (co)products in , 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 creates (co)limits in because creation of a limit requires that every preimage of the limiting cone is limiting. This fails for since we can coarsen the topology on the limit vertex to obtain a counterexample.
If a single algebra has been given the structure of several spaces, then there are a supremum structure and an infimum structure on 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 is a regular subalgebra of some , then the inclusion homomorphism makes into a subspace of , which is also a subobject in . Every regular subobject of is of this form; note however that there may be nonregular subobjects in even if all subobjects in are regular.
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”.
J. Martin Harvey: Topological functors from factorization, in: Categorical Topology, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 719, Springer (1979) [doi:10.1007/BFb0065263]
Jiří Adámek, Horst Herrlich, George Strecker: Abstract and Concrete Categories – The Joy of Cats, Wiley (1990), reprinted as: Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories 17 (2006) 1-507 [tac:tr17, book webpage, pdf]
Gerhard Preuß: Foundations of Topology: An Approach to Convenient Topology; Kluwer (2002) [ISBN 1-4020-0891-0, doi:10.1007/978-94-010-0489-3]
Richard Garner, Topological functors as total categories, Theory and Applications of Categories 29 15 (2014) 406-421 [tac:29-15]
Eduardo J. Dubuc, Luis Español, Topological functors as familiarly fibrations [arXiv:0611701]
Last revised on March 26, 2026 at 10:25:00. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.