I’m not going to reiterate the definitions of limits and co-limits from the last post, so just look them up if you’re new here. They’re not too hard.
This post is mainly just about some random cool things I’ve noticed/ “remembered” / come across whilst playing with the notions of limit and co-limit in various categories.
Thing 1
Say we’re working in R-Mod for some ring , and let
be
-modules. Taking the limit of the “discrete” diagram
gives us the “product diagram: ”
. We can then take the co-limit of this diagram, which is the quotient
, where
is the module generated by elements of the form
for
. It then follows that the pushout is trivial. Strange.
EDIT: for some clarification, I want to show that for any diagram of the form , then the colimit is the object
, where
is the submodule generated by the elements
. Clearly, it does fit into the appropriate diagram. Now let
be any other module with maps
,
such that
. Then, via the universal property of the direct sum, there is a unique map
such that
and
(where
and
are the canonical inclusions). Then we have that
, so
for any
. Hence
, i.e.
. Via the universal property of the quotient, there is a unique homomorphism
that makes the whole diagram commute.
In the case where and
and
,
, so that the quotient
.
The dual construction is (obviously) similar, where we first take the co-limit of the discrete diagram, then the limit of the “co-product diagram.” It is also the zero module.
Thing 2
Adjunction spaces in Top, the category of topological spaces. Let be topological spaces,
(represented as a monic
) be a subspace. Let
be a continuous function. Then the adjunction space obtained by gluing
to
along
is just the co-limit of the diagram
.
Thing 3
Let be a topological space, which has a natural poset structure on its collection of open sets. Formally, we turn
into a category X whose objects are the open sets of
and the morphisms are determined via
iff
. Let
be elements of X such that
and
. Then the limit of the diagram
is just the intersection
.
Thing 4
Limits as functors. Turns out you can replace the notion of a “diagram in C” (where C is the category we’re looking at) with a functor , where I is a small category. Think about it! The limit of such a diagram is denoted by
.
Quick note: Adjoint Pairs of Functors
Say we have two functors and
. We say
form an adjoint pair if, for all
,
, we have a bijection
that is natural in
and
. Furthermore, we say
is left adjoint to
, and similarly
is right adjoint to
. Also,
is a right adjoint functor if it has a left adjoint, and likewise for left adjoint functors.
Thing 5
Right adjoint functors commute with Limits. Let and
be an adjoint pair of functors, and let
be a diagram. The statement is then that
Awesome. The proof is actually pretty straightforward abstract nonsense, just take the definition of as a limiting cone, apply
, get a map
. Then, use adjunction to get a map
for all objects
in I. The universal property of
gives us a map
by applying adjunction again. These maps are quickly seen to be inverses of each other (keep looking through universal properties and such). A good outline of this proof can be found in Paolo Aluffi’s “Algebra: Chapter 0”
Similarly, we have that Left adjoints commute with co-limits.
Math is awesome.
You should be careful with your Thing 1. I’m pretty sure the co-limit is A x B, (which is A sum B in this case) not empty. If you look at the definition of the co-limit, you will get A cross B cross (A sum B) mod out by a relation which leaves A cross B. If I’m wrong though, I apologize.
Ah okay. I misread your post. I though you were taking an inverse limit of the diagram
A B using the arrows as your inverse system.
But that makes sense now; the colimit of A, B is empty.
“A B”