Ind-completion

In mathematics, process for extending a category

In mathematics, the ind-completion or ind-construction is the process of freely adding filtered colimits to a given category C. The objects in this ind-completed category, denoted Ind(C), are known as direct systems, they are functors from a small filtered category I to C.

The dual concept is the pro-completion, Pro(C).

## Definitions

[edit]

### Filtered categories

[edit]

Further information: Filtered category

Direct systems depend on the notion of filtered categories. For example, the category N, whose objects are natural numbers, and with exactly one morphism from n to m whenever  n ≤ m {\displaystyle n\leq m} , is a filtered category.

### Direct systems

[edit]

See also: Direct limit § Direct system

A direct system or an ind-object in a category C is defined to be a functor

F : I -> C {\displaystyle F:I\to C}

from a small filtered category I to C. For example, if I is the category N mentioned above, this datum is equivalent to a sequence

X 0 -> X 1 -> ⋯ {\displaystyle X_{0}\to X_{1}\to \cdots }

of objects in C together with morphisms as displayed.

### The ind-completion

[edit]

Ind-objects in C form a category ind-C.

Two ind-objects

F : I -> C {\displaystyle F:I\to C}

and

G : J -> C {\textstyle G:J\to C} determine a functor

Iop x J -> {\displaystyle \to } Sets,

namely the functor

Hom C ⁡ ( F ( i ) , G ( j ) ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Hom} _{C}(F(i),G(j)).}

The set of morphisms between F and G in Ind(C) is defined to be the colimit of this functor in the second variable, followed by the limit in the first variable:

Hom Ind ⁡ - C ⁡ ( F , G ) = lim i colim j ⁡ Hom C ⁡ ( F ( i ) , G ( j ) ) . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Hom} _{\operatorname {Ind} {\text{-}}C}(F,G)=\lim _{i}\operatorname {colim} _{j}\operatorname {Hom} _{C}(F(i),G(j)).}

More colloquially, this means that a morphism consists of a collection of maps  F ( i ) -> G ( j i ) {\displaystyle F(i)\to G(j_{i})} for each i, where  j i {\displaystyle j_{i}} is (depending on i) large enough.

### Relation between C and Ind(C)

[edit]

The final category I = {*} consisting of a single object * and only its identity morphism is an example of a filtered category. In particular, any object X in C gives rise to a functor

{ ∗ } -> C , ∗ ↦ X {\displaystyle \\{*\\}\to C,*\mapsto X}

and therefore to a functor

C -> Ind ⁡ ( C ) , X ↦ ( ∗ ↦ X ) . {\displaystyle C\to \operatorname {Ind} (C),X\mapsto (*\mapsto X).}

This functor is, as a direct consequence of the definitions, fully faithful. Therefore Ind(C) can be regarded as a larger category than C.

Conversely, there need not in general be a natural functor

Ind ⁡ ( C ) -> C . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Ind} (C)\to C.}

However, if C possesses all filtered colimits (also known as direct limits), then sending an ind-object  F : I -> C {\displaystyle F:I\to C} (for some filtered category I) to its colimit

colim I ⁡ F ( i ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {colim} _{I}F(i)}

does give such a functor, which however is not in general an equivalence. Thus, even if C already has all filtered colimits, Ind(C) is a strictly larger category than C.

Objects in Ind(C) can be thought of as formal direct limits, so that some authors also denote such objects by

" lim -> i ∈ I ⁡ '' F ( i ) . {\displaystyle {\text{“}}\varinjlim _{i\in I}{\text{'' }}F(i).}

This notation is due to Pierre Deligne.[1]

## Universal property of the ind-completion

[edit]

The passage from a category C to Ind(C) amounts to freely adding filtered colimits to the category. This is why the construction is also referred to as the ind-completion of C. This is made precise by the following assertion: any functor  F : C -> D {\displaystyle F:C\to D} taking values in a category D that has all filtered colimits extends to a functor  I n d ( C ) -> D {\displaystyle Ind(C)\to D} that is uniquely determined by the requirements that its value on C is the original functor F and such that it preserves all filtered colimits.

## Basic properties of ind-categories

[edit]

### Compact objects

[edit]

Essentially by design of the morphisms in Ind(C), any object X of C is compact when regarded as an object of Ind(C), i.e., the corepresentable functor

Hom Ind ⁡ ( C ) ⁡ ( X , − ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Hom} _{\operatorname {Ind} (C)}(X,-)}

preserves filtered colimits. This holds true no matter what C or the object X is, in contrast to the fact that X need not be compact in C. Conversely, any compact object in Ind(C) arises as the image of an object in X.

A category C is called compactly generated, if it is equivalent to  Ind ⁡ ( C 0 ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Ind} (C_{0})} for some small category  C 0 {\displaystyle C_{0}} . The ind-completion of the category FinSet of finite sets is the category of all sets. Similarly, if C is the category of finitely generated groups, ind-C is equivalent to the category of all groups.

### Recognizing ind-completions

[edit]

These identifications rely on the following facts: as was mentioned above, any functor  F : C -> D {\displaystyle F:C\to D} taking values in a category D that has all filtered colimits, has an extension

F ~ : Ind ⁡ ( C ) -> D , {\displaystyle {\tilde {F}}:\operatorname {Ind} (C)\to D,}

that preserves filtered colimits. This extension is unique up to equivalence. First, this functor  F ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {F}}} is essentially surjective if any object in D can be expressed as a filtered colimits of objects of the form  F ( c ) {\displaystyle F(c)} for appropriate objects c in C. Second,  F ~ {\displaystyle {\tilde {F}}} is fully faithful if and only if the original functor F is fully faithful and if F sends arbitrary objects in C to compact objects in D.

Applying these facts to, say, the inclusion functor

F : FinSet ⊂ Set , {\displaystyle F:\operatorname {FinSet} \subset \operatorname {Set} ,}

the equivalence

Ind ⁡ ( FinSet ) ≅ Set {\displaystyle \operatorname {Ind} (\operatorname {FinSet} )\cong \operatorname {Set} }

expresses the fact that any set is the filtered colimit of finite sets (for example, any set is the union of its finite subsets, which is a filtered system) and moreover, that any finite set is compact when regarded as an object of Set.

## The pro-completion

[edit]

Like other categorical notions and constructions, the ind-completion admits a dual known as the pro-completion: the category Pro(C) is defined in terms of ind-object as

Pro ⁡ ( C ) := Ind ⁡ ( C o p ) o p . {\displaystyle \operatorname {Pro} (C):=\operatorname {Ind} (C^{op})^{op}.}

(The definition of pro-C is due to Grothendieck (1960).[2])

Therefore, the objects of Pro(C) are inverse systems or pro-objects in C. By definition, these are direct system in the opposite category C o p {\displaystyle C^{op}} or, equivalently, functors

F : I -> C {\displaystyle F:I\to C}

from a small cofiltered category I.

### Examples of pro-categories

[edit]

While Pro(C) exists for any category C, several special cases are noteworthy because of connections to other mathematical notions.

* If C is the category of finite groups, then pro-C is equivalent to the category of profinite groups and continuous homomorphisms between them.
* The process of endowing a preordered set with its Alexandrov topology yields an equivalence of the pro-category of the category of finite preordered sets,  Pro ⁡ ( PoSet fin ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Pro} (\operatorname {PoSet} ^{\text{fin}})} , with the category of spectral topological spaces and quasi-compact morphisms.
* Stone duality asserts that the pro-category  Pro ⁡ ( FinSet ) {\displaystyle \operatorname {Pro} (\operatorname {FinSet} )} of the category of finite sets is equivalent to the category of Stone spaces.[3]

The appearance of topological notions in these pro-categories can be traced to the equivalence, which is itself a special case of Stone duality,

FinSet o p = FinBool {\displaystyle \operatorname {FinSet} ^{op}=\operatorname {FinBool} }

which sends a finite set to the power set (regarded as a finite Boolean algebra). The duality between pro- and ind-objects and known description of ind-completions also give rise to descriptions of certain opposite categories. For example, such considerations can be used to show that the opposite category of the category of vector spaces (over a fixed field) is equivalent to the category of linearly compact vector spaces and continuous linear maps between them.[4]

### Applications

[edit]

Pro-completions are less prominent than ind-completions, but applications include shape theory. Pro-objects also arise via their connection to pro-representable functors, for example in Grothendieck's Galois theory, and also in Schlessinger's criterion in deformation theory.

### Related notions

[edit]

Tate objects are a mixture of ind- and pro-objects.

## Infinity-categorical variants

[edit]

The ind-completion (and, dually, the pro-completion) has been extended to ∞-categories by Lurie (2009).

## See also

[edit]

* Direct limit – Special case of colimit in category theory
* Inverse limit – Construction in category theory
* completions in category theory

## Notes

[edit]

1. ^ Illusie, Luc, From Pierre Deligne’s secret garden: looking back at some of his letters, Japanese Journal of Mathematics, vol. 10, pp. 237–248 (2015)
2. ^ C.E. Aull; R. Lowen (31 December 2001). Handbook of the History of General Topology. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 1147\. ISBN 978-0-7923-6970-7.
3. ^ Johnstone (1982, §VI.2)
4. ^ Bergman & Hausknecht (1996, Prop. 24.8)

## References

[edit]

* Bergman; Hausknecht (1996), Cogroups and Co-rings in Categories of Associative Rings, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 45, doi:10.1090/surv/045, ISBN 9780821804957
* Bourbaki, Nicolas (1968), Elements of mathematics. Theory of sets, Translated from the French, Paris: Hermann, MR 0237342.
* Blom, Thomas; Moerdijk, Ieke (2023), "Simplicial model structures on pro-categories", Algebraic & Geometric Topology, 23 (8): 3849–3908, arXiv:2009.07539, doi:10.2140/agt.2023.23.3849
* Grothendieck, Alexander (1960), "Technique de descente et théoèmes d'existence en géométrie algébriques. II. Le théorème d'existence en théorie formelle des modules", Séminaire Bourbaki : années 1958/59 - 1959/60, exposés 169-204 (in French), Sociétée mathématique de France, pp. 369–390, MR 1603480, Zbl 0234.14007
* "System (in a category)", Encyclopedia of Mathematics, EMS Press, 2001 [1994]
* Johnstone, Peter T. (1982), Stone Spaces, ISBN 0521337798
* Lurie, Jacob (2009), Higher topos theory, Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 170, Princeton University Press, arXiv:math.CT/0608040, ISBN 978-0-691-14049-0, MR 2522659
* Segal, Jack; Mardešić, Sibe (1982), Shape theory, North-Holland Mathematical Library, vol. 26, Amsterdam: North-Holland, ISBN 978-0-444-86286-0