Zulip Chat Archive
Stream: maths
Topic: categorical product
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 07:36):
Is there a category such that:
1. For every discrete category and functor , has a limit (i.e. every sub-multi-set of Obj(C) has limit).
2. has no product, i.e. there is no functor such that the induced natural transformation Hom(A,B) x Hom(A,C) -> Hom(A,F(B,C))
between two functors is a natural isomorphism
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 07:59):
Using , we know that has a product object for all . Pick one for every pair A,B to obtain a functor . (The object part of this is obvious, and if then .) Then we can define and and this is an isomorphism.
In short, the only tricky part is using the axiom of choice to pick a product for every pair of objects. After that it's just equating two ways to say "a category with products".
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:28):
what if Obj(C) is a class...?
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:32):
Then you have to be more careful about what you mean
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:32):
is there a class that has no choice function?
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:32):
What's a category? What's a functor? What's an existential quantification over classes?
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:33):
large category theory in ZFC is tricky
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:33):
I see
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:34):
For some choice of definitions, I think it's possible that you can have the existential statement 1 without any concrete functor class term refuting 2
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:34):
You can't prove 2 though because it's a higher order statement
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:35):
ZFC does not prove the existence or nonexistence of a class with no choice function
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:36):
Assuming that all classes have a choice function is usually called "global choice" and is morally equivalent to Lean's choice
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:36):
does V\{{}} admit a choice function?
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:36):
that's also global choice
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:36):
I don't like this
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:37):
it's all because of Russell
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:37):
You can't prove it in ZFC because it is a higher order statement, it asserts the existence of a class term
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:38):
You can axiomatize global choice by saying "here is a class term, I assert it is a choice function on V"
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:38):
what if we only look at first order sentences?
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:38):
That is a first order statement - the "class term" can be replaced by a primitive unary predicate
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:39):
It's conservative over ZFC
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:40):
is there a sentence in two variables such that
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:40):
Not in ZFC
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:41):
why not?
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:41):
choice is not definable
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:41):
is that a theorem?
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:41):
yes
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:41):
how hard is it?
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:41):
For instance, there is no definable well order of the reals
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:42):
Not actually sure who to credit for it
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:42):
so for example this implies V=L?
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:44):
Here's a proof: https://math.stackexchange.com/a/1315720
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:44):
It doesn't imply V=L
Mario Carneiro (Jul 03 2019 at 08:46):
It certainly "enlarges" L but you still can't prove that all sets are constructible without parameters
Kenny Lau (Jul 03 2019 at 08:47):
ok thanks
Last updated: Dec 20 2023 at 11:08 UTC