Non-small objects in categoriesWhy aren't all small categories accessible?K-good trees and K-compactness of colimits over K-small downwards-closed subposets (500 point bounty if answered by Midnight EST))What's an example of a locally presentable category “in nature” that's not $aleph_0$-locally presentable?compact objects in model categories and $(infty,1)$-categoriesCompact objects in triangulated and infinity categoriesExistence of Colimits in the Definition of Locally Presentable CategoriesSmall objects vs Compact objectsA model category of abelian categories?What are compact objects in the category of topological spaces?Sufficient sets of colimits in small categories

Non-small objects in categories


Why aren't all small categories accessible?K-good trees and K-compactness of colimits over K-small downwards-closed subposets (500 point bounty if answered by Midnight EST))What's an example of a locally presentable category “in nature” that's not $aleph_0$-locally presentable?compact objects in model categories and $(infty,1)$-categoriesCompact objects in triangulated and infinity categoriesExistence of Colimits in the Definition of Locally Presentable CategoriesSmall objects vs Compact objectsA model category of abelian categories?What are compact objects in the category of topological spaces?Sufficient sets of colimits in small categories













5












$begingroup$


An object $c$ in a category is called small, if there exists some regular cardinal $kappa$ such that $Hom(c,-)$ preserves $kappa$-filtered colimits.



Is there an example of a (locally small) category $C$ and an object $c$ of $C$, such that $c$ is not small, i.e. such that $Hom(c,-)$ doesn't preserve all $kappa$-filtered colimits for any $kappa$ whatsoever?










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor



Peter Bonart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$


















    5












    $begingroup$


    An object $c$ in a category is called small, if there exists some regular cardinal $kappa$ such that $Hom(c,-)$ preserves $kappa$-filtered colimits.



    Is there an example of a (locally small) category $C$ and an object $c$ of $C$, such that $c$ is not small, i.e. such that $Hom(c,-)$ doesn't preserve all $kappa$-filtered colimits for any $kappa$ whatsoever?










    share|cite|improve this question







    New contributor



    Peter Bonart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.






    $endgroup$
















      5












      5








      5


      1



      $begingroup$


      An object $c$ in a category is called small, if there exists some regular cardinal $kappa$ such that $Hom(c,-)$ preserves $kappa$-filtered colimits.



      Is there an example of a (locally small) category $C$ and an object $c$ of $C$, such that $c$ is not small, i.e. such that $Hom(c,-)$ doesn't preserve all $kappa$-filtered colimits for any $kappa$ whatsoever?










      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor



      Peter Bonart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      $endgroup$




      An object $c$ in a category is called small, if there exists some regular cardinal $kappa$ such that $Hom(c,-)$ preserves $kappa$-filtered colimits.



      Is there an example of a (locally small) category $C$ and an object $c$ of $C$, such that $c$ is not small, i.e. such that $Hom(c,-)$ doesn't preserve all $kappa$-filtered colimits for any $kappa$ whatsoever?







      ct.category-theory model-categories






      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor



      Peter Bonart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.










      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor



      Peter Bonart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question






      New contributor



      Peter Bonart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.








      asked 9 hours ago









      Peter BonartPeter Bonart

      261 bronze badge




      261 bronze badge




      New contributor



      Peter Bonart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




      New contributor




      Peter Bonart is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          In the opposite category of the category of sets, and of many algebraic categories, the only small objects are the empty set and the singleton. A conceptual reason for this is Freyd's (or Gabriel and Ulmer's?) theorem that it is impossible for a category and its opposite both to be locally presentable, unless they are both posets.



          Indeed, if $A$ is a set with at least two elements, consider functions $f:0,1^kappato A$ where $kappa$ is some infinite cardinal. If $lambda<kappa$ then $0,1^kappa$ may be viewed as a $lambda$-cofiltered limit of all products of at most $lambda$ of the copies of $0,1$. For $A$ to be $lambda$-small in $mathrmSet^mathrmop$, we would have to be able to guarantee that $f$ depends on at most $lambda$ coordinates in the domain.



          Since the opposite of the category of sets is the category of complete atomic Boolean algebras (CABAs), we can also make this argument directly in there, where it amounts to the fact that there are elements in a coproduct of CABAs that do not come from any smaller sub-coproduct, since we can always take a join or a meet of elements from every term in the coproduct.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$






















            5












            $begingroup$

            In the category $mathsfTop$ of topological spaces and continuous maps the only $lambda$-presentable objects are discrete spaces. This appears 1.14(6) in Locally presentable and Accessible categories by Adamek and Rosicky. The reason is explained in 1.2(10) in the same reference.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$










            • 1




              $begingroup$
              This example is also discussed before Lemma 2.4.1 of Mark Hovey's book Model Categories.
              $endgroup$
              – Reid Barton
              7 hours ago













            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "504"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );






            Peter Bonart is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f337771%2fnon-small-objects-in-categories%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            6












            $begingroup$

            In the opposite category of the category of sets, and of many algebraic categories, the only small objects are the empty set and the singleton. A conceptual reason for this is Freyd's (or Gabriel and Ulmer's?) theorem that it is impossible for a category and its opposite both to be locally presentable, unless they are both posets.



            Indeed, if $A$ is a set with at least two elements, consider functions $f:0,1^kappato A$ where $kappa$ is some infinite cardinal. If $lambda<kappa$ then $0,1^kappa$ may be viewed as a $lambda$-cofiltered limit of all products of at most $lambda$ of the copies of $0,1$. For $A$ to be $lambda$-small in $mathrmSet^mathrmop$, we would have to be able to guarantee that $f$ depends on at most $lambda$ coordinates in the domain.



            Since the opposite of the category of sets is the category of complete atomic Boolean algebras (CABAs), we can also make this argument directly in there, where it amounts to the fact that there are elements in a coproduct of CABAs that do not come from any smaller sub-coproduct, since we can always take a join or a meet of elements from every term in the coproduct.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



















              6












              $begingroup$

              In the opposite category of the category of sets, and of many algebraic categories, the only small objects are the empty set and the singleton. A conceptual reason for this is Freyd's (or Gabriel and Ulmer's?) theorem that it is impossible for a category and its opposite both to be locally presentable, unless they are both posets.



              Indeed, if $A$ is a set with at least two elements, consider functions $f:0,1^kappato A$ where $kappa$ is some infinite cardinal. If $lambda<kappa$ then $0,1^kappa$ may be viewed as a $lambda$-cofiltered limit of all products of at most $lambda$ of the copies of $0,1$. For $A$ to be $lambda$-small in $mathrmSet^mathrmop$, we would have to be able to guarantee that $f$ depends on at most $lambda$ coordinates in the domain.



              Since the opposite of the category of sets is the category of complete atomic Boolean algebras (CABAs), we can also make this argument directly in there, where it amounts to the fact that there are elements in a coproduct of CABAs that do not come from any smaller sub-coproduct, since we can always take a join or a meet of elements from every term in the coproduct.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                6












                6








                6





                $begingroup$

                In the opposite category of the category of sets, and of many algebraic categories, the only small objects are the empty set and the singleton. A conceptual reason for this is Freyd's (or Gabriel and Ulmer's?) theorem that it is impossible for a category and its opposite both to be locally presentable, unless they are both posets.



                Indeed, if $A$ is a set with at least two elements, consider functions $f:0,1^kappato A$ where $kappa$ is some infinite cardinal. If $lambda<kappa$ then $0,1^kappa$ may be viewed as a $lambda$-cofiltered limit of all products of at most $lambda$ of the copies of $0,1$. For $A$ to be $lambda$-small in $mathrmSet^mathrmop$, we would have to be able to guarantee that $f$ depends on at most $lambda$ coordinates in the domain.



                Since the opposite of the category of sets is the category of complete atomic Boolean algebras (CABAs), we can also make this argument directly in there, where it amounts to the fact that there are elements in a coproduct of CABAs that do not come from any smaller sub-coproduct, since we can always take a join or a meet of elements from every term in the coproduct.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                In the opposite category of the category of sets, and of many algebraic categories, the only small objects are the empty set and the singleton. A conceptual reason for this is Freyd's (or Gabriel and Ulmer's?) theorem that it is impossible for a category and its opposite both to be locally presentable, unless they are both posets.



                Indeed, if $A$ is a set with at least two elements, consider functions $f:0,1^kappato A$ where $kappa$ is some infinite cardinal. If $lambda<kappa$ then $0,1^kappa$ may be viewed as a $lambda$-cofiltered limit of all products of at most $lambda$ of the copies of $0,1$. For $A$ to be $lambda$-small in $mathrmSet^mathrmop$, we would have to be able to guarantee that $f$ depends on at most $lambda$ coordinates in the domain.



                Since the opposite of the category of sets is the category of complete atomic Boolean algebras (CABAs), we can also make this argument directly in there, where it amounts to the fact that there are elements in a coproduct of CABAs that do not come from any smaller sub-coproduct, since we can always take a join or a meet of elements from every term in the coproduct.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 8 hours ago

























                answered 8 hours ago









                Kevin CarlsonKevin Carlson

                6444 silver badges10 bronze badges




                6444 silver badges10 bronze badges
























                    5












                    $begingroup$

                    In the category $mathsfTop$ of topological spaces and continuous maps the only $lambda$-presentable objects are discrete spaces. This appears 1.14(6) in Locally presentable and Accessible categories by Adamek and Rosicky. The reason is explained in 1.2(10) in the same reference.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$










                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      This example is also discussed before Lemma 2.4.1 of Mark Hovey's book Model Categories.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Reid Barton
                      7 hours ago















                    5












                    $begingroup$

                    In the category $mathsfTop$ of topological spaces and continuous maps the only $lambda$-presentable objects are discrete spaces. This appears 1.14(6) in Locally presentable and Accessible categories by Adamek and Rosicky. The reason is explained in 1.2(10) in the same reference.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$










                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      This example is also discussed before Lemma 2.4.1 of Mark Hovey's book Model Categories.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Reid Barton
                      7 hours ago













                    5












                    5








                    5





                    $begingroup$

                    In the category $mathsfTop$ of topological spaces and continuous maps the only $lambda$-presentable objects are discrete spaces. This appears 1.14(6) in Locally presentable and Accessible categories by Adamek and Rosicky. The reason is explained in 1.2(10) in the same reference.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    In the category $mathsfTop$ of topological spaces and continuous maps the only $lambda$-presentable objects are discrete spaces. This appears 1.14(6) in Locally presentable and Accessible categories by Adamek and Rosicky. The reason is explained in 1.2(10) in the same reference.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 9 hours ago









                    Ivan Di LibertiIvan Di Liberti

                    1,9121 gold badge7 silver badges21 bronze badges




                    1,9121 gold badge7 silver badges21 bronze badges










                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      This example is also discussed before Lemma 2.4.1 of Mark Hovey's book Model Categories.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Reid Barton
                      7 hours ago












                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      This example is also discussed before Lemma 2.4.1 of Mark Hovey's book Model Categories.
                      $endgroup$
                      – Reid Barton
                      7 hours ago







                    1




                    1




                    $begingroup$
                    This example is also discussed before Lemma 2.4.1 of Mark Hovey's book Model Categories.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Reid Barton
                    7 hours ago




                    $begingroup$
                    This example is also discussed before Lemma 2.4.1 of Mark Hovey's book Model Categories.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Reid Barton
                    7 hours ago










                    Peter Bonart is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    Peter Bonart is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                    Peter Bonart is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                    Peter Bonart is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














                    Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f337771%2fnon-small-objects-in-categories%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    ParseJSON using SSJSUsing AMPscript with SSJS ActivitiesHow to resubscribe a user in Marketing cloud using SSJS?Pulling Subscriber Status from Lists using SSJSRetrieving Emails using SSJSProblem in updating DE using SSJSUsing SSJS to send single email in Marketing CloudError adding EmailSendDefinition using SSJS

                    Кампала Садржај Географија Географија Историја Становништво Привреда Партнерски градови Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију0°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.340°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.34МедијиПодациЗванични веб-сајту

                    19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу