Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

66%
+2 −0
Q&A Unification and generalization of limit and colimit

1 answer  ·  posted 2y ago by celtschk‭  ·  last activity 2y ago by Derek Elkins‭

#2: Post edited by user avatar celtschk‭ · 2023-02-12T06:33:02Z (almost 2 years ago)
Removed further application because I now think I got it wrong
  • The recent post by r~~ reminded me of my own idea to unify and generalise limit and colimit. I also only occasionally dabble in category theory, and thus I wonder
  • * if the following is a sound construction, and if so,
  • * if it is a known concept.
  • The idea is as follows: We have a category $\mathcal C$, in which the generalised limit will be defined, a category $\mathcal P$ which I'll call the pattern category, and a subcategory $\mathcal I$ of $\mathcal P$ which will serve as index category.
  • The construction starts with a given functor (diagram) $D: \mathcal I\to\mathcal C$. Now I consider extensions of $D$ to functors $F:\mathcal P\to\mathcal C$ (that is for any object $X$ in $\mathcal I$, $F(X)=D(X)$, and likewise for morphisms).
  • Now suppose there exists some such extension $L$ such that from any other extension $F$ there exists an unique natural transformation from $F$ to $L$. In that case, I call the image $F(\mathcal P)$ the $(\mathcal P,\mathcal I)$-limit of the image of $D$.
  • Now if I'm not mistaken, if $\mathcal P$ forms a cone over $\mathcal I$, then this construction gives the limit, and if $\mathcal P$ forms a co-cone over $\mathcal I$, it gives the colimit.
  • An application beyond limits and colimits would be e.g. if $\mathcal C$ is the category of sets, $\mathcal P$ is the category with three objects $A,B,C$ and unique non-identity morphisms $A\to B$, $A\to C$ and $B\to C$, and $\mathcal I$ consists only of the objects $A$ and $C$ and the morphisms $A\to C$ (and the corresponding identities, of course). Then the ($\mathcal P,\mathcal I)$-limit decomposes a function $f:X\to Y$ into an injection $i:X\to Z$ and a surjection $s:Z\to Y$ where $Z$ is (isomorphic to) the disjoint union of $X$ and $Y\setminus f(X)$. Basically, the injection adds all the points not in the image of $f$, and then the surjection combines all the points that have the same image. I would guess that this generalizes to canonical decompositions of morphisms into monomorphisms and epimorphisms in other categories.
  • The recent post by r~~ reminded me of my own idea to unify and generalise limit and colimit. I also only occasionally dabble in category theory, and thus I wonder
  • * if the following is a sound construction, and if so,
  • * if it is a known concept.
  • The idea is as follows: We have a category $\mathcal C$, in which the generalised limit will be defined, a category $\mathcal P$ which I'll call the pattern category, and a subcategory $\mathcal I$ of $\mathcal P$ which will serve as index category.
  • The construction starts with a given functor (diagram) $D: \mathcal I\to\mathcal C$. Now I consider extensions of $D$ to functors $F:\mathcal P\to\mathcal C$ (that is for any object $X$ in $\mathcal I$, $F(X)=D(X)$, and likewise for morphisms).
  • Now suppose there exists some such extension $L$ such that from any other extension $F$ there exists an unique natural transformation from $F$ to $L$. In that case, I call the image $F(\mathcal P)$ the $(\mathcal P,\mathcal I)$-limit of the image of $D$.
  • Now if I'm not mistaken, if $\mathcal P$ forms a cone over $\mathcal I$, then this construction gives the limit, and if $\mathcal P$ forms a co-cone over $\mathcal I$, it gives the colimit.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar celtschk‭ · 2023-02-12T06:05:59Z (almost 2 years ago)
Unification and generalization of limit and colimit
The recent post by r~~ reminded me of my own idea to unify and generalise limit and colimit. I also only occasionally dabble in category theory, and thus I wonder

  * if the following is a sound construction, and if so,
  * if it is a known concept.

The idea is as follows: We have a category $\mathcal C$, in which the generalised limit will be defined, a category $\mathcal P$ which I'll call the pattern category, and a subcategory $\mathcal I$ of $\mathcal P$ which will serve as index category.

The construction starts with a given functor (diagram) $D: \mathcal I\to\mathcal C$. Now I consider extensions of $D$ to functors $F:\mathcal P\to\mathcal C$ (that is for any object $X$ in $\mathcal I$, $F(X)=D(X)$, and likewise for morphisms).

Now suppose there exists some such extension $L$ such that from any other extension $F$ there exists an unique natural transformation from $F$ to $L$. In that case, I call the image $F(\mathcal P)$ the $(\mathcal P,\mathcal I)$-limit of the image of $D$.

Now if I'm not mistaken, if $\mathcal P$ forms a cone over $\mathcal I$, then this construction gives the limit, and if $\mathcal P$ forms a co-cone over $\mathcal I$, it gives the colimit.

An application beyond limits and colimits would be e.g. if $\mathcal C$ is the category of sets, $\mathcal P$ is the category with three objects $A,B,C$ and unique non-identity morphisms $A\to B$, $A\to C$ and $B\to C$, and $\mathcal I$ consists only of the objects $A$ and $C$ and the morphisms $A\to C$ (and the corresponding identities, of course). Then the ($\mathcal P,\mathcal I)$-limit decomposes a function $f:X\to Y$ into an injection $i:X\to Z$ and a surjection $s:Z\to Y$ where $Z$ is (isomorphic to) the disjoint union of $X$ and $Y\setminus f(X)$. Basically, the injection adds all the points not in the image of $f$, and then the surjection combines all the points that have the same image. I would guess that this generalizes to canonical decompositions of morphisms into monomorphisms and epimorphisms in other categories.