For a small category, it is well-known (and fundamental) that the presheaf category is the free cocompletion of with respect to small colimits. Analogously, if is a complete and cocomplete symmetric monoidal closed category and is a small -enriched category, the enriched presheaf category is the free (co)completion of with respect to -colimits.
If is merely locally small (or merely takes homs in as above), the presheaf category may be too large to be a free small-colimit cocompletion. Nevertheless, the small-colimit cocompletion of exists, as the full subcategory of consisting of functors that are small colimits of representables.
However, this cocompletion (which we denote by ) typically does not have the properties one associates with presheaf toposes; for example, might not even be complete, or might not even have a terminal object. But may inherit some good properties from if has them. While it is rare for to be a Grothendieck topos even if is, it is at least true in this case that is a locally cartesian closed pretopos, thus satisfying many of the topos-like properties one needs to internalize large chunks of mathematics.
In these notes, we wish to prove that if is a complete and cocomplete locally cartesian closed pretopos (or a cocomplete -pretopos; see below), then so is . The expectation is that this result can be strengthened to incorporate -types (i.e., -pretoposes which admit initial algebras for polynomial functors). Eventually, we hope to study the initial algebra or final coalgebra for the construction itself, which again should have all these properties.
As a stepping stone, consider the cocompletion of a category with respect to small coproducts (denoted ). This may be constructed explicitly by a comma category construction: objects of are pairs where is a set and is a functor from the discrete category on to . Morphisms are pairs where is a function and is a natural transformation. The idea is that a pair is a formal coproduct
of objects of .
If is a Grothendieck topos, and is the essentially unique left exact left adjoint, a functor may be identified with an object in the slice , and the comma category construction for may be written as
This is an example of Artin-Wraith gluing, and is again a Grothendieck topos.
As a special case, when is a presheaf topos , we have
where is obtained by formally adjoining a (new) initial object to .
Rather more generally, if is an -lextensive category, then we have an essentially unique left exact coproduct-preserving functor
which takes a set to a coproduct of an -indexed collection of copies of the terminal object of , and the infinite extensivity means that we again have an equivalence
This applies in particular to the case where is a -pretopos. In the next section, we will prove a general result that has the following corollary: if is a complete and cocomplete -pretopos, then so is .
Analogously to the case for toposes, we will show that if is a left exact (or even just a pullback-preserving) comonad on a cocomplete -pretopos, then the category of -coalgebras is also a cocomplete -pretopos.
A cocomplete locally cartesian closed extensive category is -extensive.
This is essentially obvious: infinite coproducts are still disjoint, and stable under pullbacks by local cartesian closure.
A cocomplete locally cartesian closed extensive category is complete.
The condition of local cartesian closure includes the existence of finite limits, so it suffices to see that has arbitrary products. Let be a collection of objects of indexed over a set . By cocompleteness, we have a map in :
where , sending the summand to (the copy of ). Then
is the product, where is the unique map . Indeed, maps are in natural bijection with maps in (this equivalence holds by infinite extensivity), i.e., with an -indexed family of maps , as required.
In particular, cocomplete -pretoposes are also complete.
Let be a pullback-preserving comonad on a cocomplete -pretopos . Then the category of -coalgebras is also a cocomplete -pretopos.
The underlying functor preserves and reflects colimits, so it is clear that is cocomplete. It has a terminal object and has pullbacks since preserves pullbacks, so is finitely complete. To show is locally cartesian closed, we must check that for each -coalgebra the slice is cartesian closed. Now the forgetful functor is left exact: it clearly preserves the terminal object , and preserves pullbacks because does. It is also comonadic with respect to a comonad whose functor part takes an object of to the pullback of the diagram
as may be checked directly (or using a crude monadicity theorem). Then we use the familiar fact that if is cartesian closed and is a lex comonad, then is also cartesian closed; apply this to to conclude is cartesian closed.
It remains to see that is a pretopos.
In brief, is a pretopos because the pretopos axioms are expressed in terms of pullbacks and colimits. If is preserves pullbacks, then the underlying functor preserves and reflects colimits and pullbacks, and this means that the pretopos axioms hold on if they hold on .
For example, preserves and reflects monos. Thus, a pushout diagram in of the form
is also a pullback in which all arrows are monic, since this is true as a diagram in by extensivity. Also such coproducts are stable under pullback (say by local cartesian closure). Therefore is extensive.
It is also regular: given in , the coequalizer of the kernel pair of can be computed at the level of (again by the preservation and reflection properties of ), and this gives the regular epi-mono factorization in . Of course, regular epis in , being coequalizers, are stable under pullback by local cartesian closure. Hence is regular. And congruences in are kernel pairs, again by the same reasoning about preservation and reflection of finite limits and colimits. Hence is (Barr-)exact. This completes the proof.
Let be a cocomplete -pretopos, and let be the (essentially unique) left exact left adjoint. Then
is a cocomplete -pretopos.
Let be the functor defined by . Then is left exact and carries an obvious comonad structure. The category of -coalgebras is , and this is a cocomplete -pretopos by the theorem.
For a finitely complete category , let denote its exact or ex/lex completion.
(Carboni) If is a small lex category, then .
The category is -lextensive if is lex, and the exact completion of an -lextensive category is cocomplete, exact, and -lextensive. The projective objects in are the objects in , and the connected projective objects in are the objects of . Thus all the Giraud conditions are satisfied, making a Grothendieck topos with a generating set of objects given by objects of , and since these generators are connected and projective, this topos is actually a presheaf topos .
(Rosický) If is finitely complete, then .
is a (large) union of small lex categories , and we have a series of equivalences
where the colimit given by the second expression is over the system of exact functors that are identified with left Kan extensions along inclusions .
(Possible mention of work by Pitts et al. on reflexive coqualizer completions, etc.)
If is a cocomplete -pretopos, then so is .
First, if is cocomplete, so is (reference needed). It is known that is locally cartesian closed if has weak dependent products (and hence if has dependent products, i.e., if is locally cartesian closed), and that is a pretopos if is extensive. This is all we need.
If is a cocomplete -pretopos, then so is the free small-colimit cocompletion .
Now we reprise some of the above development, but this time adding in -types.
Suppose given a cocomplete -pretopos , and let be a morphism in . The polynomial endofunctor is defined to be the composite
which, informally, takes an object to the “polynomial” .
The -type , if it exists, is the initial -algebra. A -pretopos is a -pretopos which admits a -type for every morphism of .
More generally, one speaks of inductive types. One thing we can point out immediately is that the construction of the corresponding coinductive types, i.e., terminal -coalgebras, is completely unproblematic.
Terminal -coalgebras exist for any in any -pretopos.
Since cocomplete -pretoposes are complete, the limit of the following diagram exists in :
Moreover, preserves this limit because (a) this is a connected limit, and (b) the functors , , and all preserve connected limits. Then the result follows from Adámek’s theorem, which asserts that this limit , with coalgebra structure the isomorphism that obtains by the limit preservation by , is the terminal coalgebra.
Below, we hope to exploit this to give a relatively painless proof of the following theorem, by situating initial algebras inside terminal coalgebras. The proof we give now is somewhat technical; it is adapted from a result in a paper of Moerdijk and Palmgren, who cite Alex Simpson as the originator of the proof they give the slice topos case.
If is a -pretopos and is a pullback-preserving comonad on , then is also a -pretopos.
If is a -pretopos and
is a pullback diagram in , then there is an isomorphism
of Beck-Chevalley type.
(This “proof” isn’t correct, but I’m letting it sit as is while I ponder…) Let be a map between -coalgebras, and let denote the -type of seen as a morphism of . We will denote the to-be-constructed -type of , regarded as a morphism of , by .
We construct as an equalizer
To define , first observe that there is a natural transformation , obtained by pasting together a 2-cell diagram
where the ‘s refer to the given coalgebra structures, the middle 2-cell is a Beck-Chevalley isomorphism, and the transformation is mated to the canonical isomorphism . Then, we have a composite
where the isomorphism obtains by initiality of . Thus carries a -algebra structure, whence there is a unique -algebra map
To define , let be the object of possible structures on as a coalgebra over the comonad (this is easily defined in a -pretopos ). There is of course a point where is the given coalgebra structure on . We begin by exhibiting a canonical -algebra structure on the exponential , which is tantamount to giving a map
It is probably simplest to describe this map in the internal language of -pretoposes (or in dependent type theory); it is the mapping
Here is the counit of the comonad, and the definition makes sense because the judgment is valid, given the judgment . Indeed, we have
where the last equation holds since for any -coalgebra structure .
(It is straightforward – although somewhat tedious – to write out the definition in purely categorical language.)
Since we have a -algebra structure on , we obtain a unique -algebra map , and the map is the composite
(To be continued.)
A. Carboni and P. Johnstone, Connected limits, familial representability and Artin glueing, Math. Structures in Comp. Sci. 5 no. 4 (December 1995), 441-459. (web)
J. Rosický, Cartesian closed exact completions, JPAA 142 no. 3 (October 1999), 261-270. (web)
A. Carboni and E.M. Vitale, Regular and exact completions, JPAA 125 no. 1 (March 1998), 79-116. (web)
A. Carboni, Some free constructions in realizability and proof theory, JPAA 105 no. 2 (September 1993), 117-148. (web)
B. van den Berg, Inductive types and exact completion, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 134 (2005), 95–121. (online .pdf file)
I. Moerdijk and E. Palmgren, Well-founded trees in categories, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 104 (2000), 189-218. (online .pdf file)