Fibred products and epimorphisms in $G$-set
Multi tool use
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
$newcommand{gset}{Gtext{-}mathsf{set}}$
Let $G$ be any group and $gset$ be the category of $G$-sets, with morphisms being $G$-maps. That is an object of $gset$ is a pair $(X,rho)$ where $rho:Gtotext{aut}(X)$ is some group action of $G$ on $X$, and $$f:(X,rho)to (Y,tau),text{ satisfies } f(rho(g)x)=tau(g)f(x).$$
Am I correct that the fibred product $(X,rho)times_{f,(W,tau),g}(Y,chi)$ is given by $(Z,rhooplus chi)$ where
$$Z={(x,y)in Xtimes Ymid f(x)=g(y),$$
with the standard projections, and where by $rhooplus chi$ I mean that:
$$(rhooplus chi)(g)(x,y)=(rho(g)x,chi(g)y),$$
which makes the projection maps $G$-maps.
(And where by $f,g$ I mean that we are taking the fibred product with respect to the maps $f:(X,rho)to (W,tau)$ and $g:(Y,chi)to (W,tau)$.)
Further, are epimorphisms just set surjections that are $G$-maps?
abstract-algebra category-theory group-actions
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
$newcommand{gset}{Gtext{-}mathsf{set}}$
Let $G$ be any group and $gset$ be the category of $G$-sets, with morphisms being $G$-maps. That is an object of $gset$ is a pair $(X,rho)$ where $rho:Gtotext{aut}(X)$ is some group action of $G$ on $X$, and $$f:(X,rho)to (Y,tau),text{ satisfies } f(rho(g)x)=tau(g)f(x).$$
Am I correct that the fibred product $(X,rho)times_{f,(W,tau),g}(Y,chi)$ is given by $(Z,rhooplus chi)$ where
$$Z={(x,y)in Xtimes Ymid f(x)=g(y),$$
with the standard projections, and where by $rhooplus chi$ I mean that:
$$(rhooplus chi)(g)(x,y)=(rho(g)x,chi(g)y),$$
which makes the projection maps $G$-maps.
(And where by $f,g$ I mean that we are taking the fibred product with respect to the maps $f:(X,rho)to (W,tau)$ and $g:(Y,chi)to (W,tau)$.)
Further, are epimorphisms just set surjections that are $G$-maps?
abstract-algebra category-theory group-actions
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
$newcommand{gset}{Gtext{-}mathsf{set}}$
Let $G$ be any group and $gset$ be the category of $G$-sets, with morphisms being $G$-maps. That is an object of $gset$ is a pair $(X,rho)$ where $rho:Gtotext{aut}(X)$ is some group action of $G$ on $X$, and $$f:(X,rho)to (Y,tau),text{ satisfies } f(rho(g)x)=tau(g)f(x).$$
Am I correct that the fibred product $(X,rho)times_{f,(W,tau),g}(Y,chi)$ is given by $(Z,rhooplus chi)$ where
$$Z={(x,y)in Xtimes Ymid f(x)=g(y),$$
with the standard projections, and where by $rhooplus chi$ I mean that:
$$(rhooplus chi)(g)(x,y)=(rho(g)x,chi(g)y),$$
which makes the projection maps $G$-maps.
(And where by $f,g$ I mean that we are taking the fibred product with respect to the maps $f:(X,rho)to (W,tau)$ and $g:(Y,chi)to (W,tau)$.)
Further, are epimorphisms just set surjections that are $G$-maps?
abstract-algebra category-theory group-actions
New contributor
$newcommand{gset}{Gtext{-}mathsf{set}}$
Let $G$ be any group and $gset$ be the category of $G$-sets, with morphisms being $G$-maps. That is an object of $gset$ is a pair $(X,rho)$ where $rho:Gtotext{aut}(X)$ is some group action of $G$ on $X$, and $$f:(X,rho)to (Y,tau),text{ satisfies } f(rho(g)x)=tau(g)f(x).$$
Am I correct that the fibred product $(X,rho)times_{f,(W,tau),g}(Y,chi)$ is given by $(Z,rhooplus chi)$ where
$$Z={(x,y)in Xtimes Ymid f(x)=g(y),$$
with the standard projections, and where by $rhooplus chi$ I mean that:
$$(rhooplus chi)(g)(x,y)=(rho(g)x,chi(g)y),$$
which makes the projection maps $G$-maps.
(And where by $f,g$ I mean that we are taking the fibred product with respect to the maps $f:(X,rho)to (W,tau)$ and $g:(Y,chi)to (W,tau)$.)
Further, are epimorphisms just set surjections that are $G$-maps?
abstract-algebra category-theory group-actions
abstract-algebra category-theory group-actions
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked Nov 15 at 14:20
user616128
111
111
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
That is correct. Conveniently, the forgetful functor $U:boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}tomathbf{Set}$ is monadic, so it creates limits; the upshot of which is that all limit constructions in $boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}$ have, as their underlying structure, the limit of the image of the same diagram under $U$ in $mathbf{Set}$. That doesn't tell you everything about the limit in $boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}$, but it's a good sanity check. That the set you describe has the requisite universal property takes very little checking.
And yes, epimorphisms are surjective $G$-maps. You can tell this is the case because the category of $G$-sets is equivalent to (if not defined as) the functor category $mathbf{Set}^G$, so $G$-maps are essentially just natural transformations, and a natural transformation of set-valued functors is epimorphic exactly when all of its components are epimorphic.
1
It's clear for you and perhaps the reader will understand this, but let me use this comment to stress that the last sentence is true because we're looking at functors to $mathbf{Set}$, which is cocomplete
– Max
Nov 16 at 10:23
@Max - Good looking out. Edited to make that explicit.
– Malice Vidrine
Nov 16 at 18:34
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
That is correct. Conveniently, the forgetful functor $U:boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}tomathbf{Set}$ is monadic, so it creates limits; the upshot of which is that all limit constructions in $boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}$ have, as their underlying structure, the limit of the image of the same diagram under $U$ in $mathbf{Set}$. That doesn't tell you everything about the limit in $boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}$, but it's a good sanity check. That the set you describe has the requisite universal property takes very little checking.
And yes, epimorphisms are surjective $G$-maps. You can tell this is the case because the category of $G$-sets is equivalent to (if not defined as) the functor category $mathbf{Set}^G$, so $G$-maps are essentially just natural transformations, and a natural transformation of set-valued functors is epimorphic exactly when all of its components are epimorphic.
1
It's clear for you and perhaps the reader will understand this, but let me use this comment to stress that the last sentence is true because we're looking at functors to $mathbf{Set}$, which is cocomplete
– Max
Nov 16 at 10:23
@Max - Good looking out. Edited to make that explicit.
– Malice Vidrine
Nov 16 at 18:34
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
That is correct. Conveniently, the forgetful functor $U:boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}tomathbf{Set}$ is monadic, so it creates limits; the upshot of which is that all limit constructions in $boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}$ have, as their underlying structure, the limit of the image of the same diagram under $U$ in $mathbf{Set}$. That doesn't tell you everything about the limit in $boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}$, but it's a good sanity check. That the set you describe has the requisite universal property takes very little checking.
And yes, epimorphisms are surjective $G$-maps. You can tell this is the case because the category of $G$-sets is equivalent to (if not defined as) the functor category $mathbf{Set}^G$, so $G$-maps are essentially just natural transformations, and a natural transformation of set-valued functors is epimorphic exactly when all of its components are epimorphic.
1
It's clear for you and perhaps the reader will understand this, but let me use this comment to stress that the last sentence is true because we're looking at functors to $mathbf{Set}$, which is cocomplete
– Max
Nov 16 at 10:23
@Max - Good looking out. Edited to make that explicit.
– Malice Vidrine
Nov 16 at 18:34
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
That is correct. Conveniently, the forgetful functor $U:boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}tomathbf{Set}$ is monadic, so it creates limits; the upshot of which is that all limit constructions in $boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}$ have, as their underlying structure, the limit of the image of the same diagram under $U$ in $mathbf{Set}$. That doesn't tell you everything about the limit in $boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}$, but it's a good sanity check. That the set you describe has the requisite universal property takes very little checking.
And yes, epimorphisms are surjective $G$-maps. You can tell this is the case because the category of $G$-sets is equivalent to (if not defined as) the functor category $mathbf{Set}^G$, so $G$-maps are essentially just natural transformations, and a natural transformation of set-valued functors is epimorphic exactly when all of its components are epimorphic.
That is correct. Conveniently, the forgetful functor $U:boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}tomathbf{Set}$ is monadic, so it creates limits; the upshot of which is that all limit constructions in $boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}$ have, as their underlying structure, the limit of the image of the same diagram under $U$ in $mathbf{Set}$. That doesn't tell you everything about the limit in $boldsymbol{G}mathbf{-set}$, but it's a good sanity check. That the set you describe has the requisite universal property takes very little checking.
And yes, epimorphisms are surjective $G$-maps. You can tell this is the case because the category of $G$-sets is equivalent to (if not defined as) the functor category $mathbf{Set}^G$, so $G$-maps are essentially just natural transformations, and a natural transformation of set-valued functors is epimorphic exactly when all of its components are epimorphic.
edited Nov 16 at 18:33
answered Nov 15 at 18:39
Malice Vidrine
5,86921122
5,86921122
1
It's clear for you and perhaps the reader will understand this, but let me use this comment to stress that the last sentence is true because we're looking at functors to $mathbf{Set}$, which is cocomplete
– Max
Nov 16 at 10:23
@Max - Good looking out. Edited to make that explicit.
– Malice Vidrine
Nov 16 at 18:34
add a comment |
1
It's clear for you and perhaps the reader will understand this, but let me use this comment to stress that the last sentence is true because we're looking at functors to $mathbf{Set}$, which is cocomplete
– Max
Nov 16 at 10:23
@Max - Good looking out. Edited to make that explicit.
– Malice Vidrine
Nov 16 at 18:34
1
1
It's clear for you and perhaps the reader will understand this, but let me use this comment to stress that the last sentence is true because we're looking at functors to $mathbf{Set}$, which is cocomplete
– Max
Nov 16 at 10:23
It's clear for you and perhaps the reader will understand this, but let me use this comment to stress that the last sentence is true because we're looking at functors to $mathbf{Set}$, which is cocomplete
– Max
Nov 16 at 10:23
@Max - Good looking out. Edited to make that explicit.
– Malice Vidrine
Nov 16 at 18:34
@Max - Good looking out. Edited to make that explicit.
– Malice Vidrine
Nov 16 at 18:34
add a comment |
user616128 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user616128 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user616128 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
user616128 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2999763%2ffibred-products-and-epimorphisms-in-g-set%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
RmzqAAXNb1upTm,PPN IrLfet IBrfqBhjdSIv nCNlxoS FoDQ8LWN9Oe4IIZY,O7H Eqcm,qU9ldpN