Add total/cototal category properties

.cspell.json

@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
 		"Auslander",
 		"Axiomatising",
 		"axiomatization",
+		"Baer",
 		"bijection",
 		"bijections",
 		"bijective",
@@ -97,8 +98,11 @@
 		"cogenerating",
 		"cogenerator",
 		"cogenerators",
+		"cogroup",
 		"Cohomology",
+		"coidentity",
 		"coimage",
+		"coinverse",
 		"cokernel",
 		"cokernels",
 		"colimit",
@@ -108,6 +112,7 @@
 		"comonadicity",
 		"compactification",
 		"compactifications",
+		"comultiplication",
 		"concretizability",
 		"concretizable",
 		"conormal",
@@ -138,6 +143,7 @@
 		"cospans",
 		"cosymmetric",
 		"cosymmetry",
+		"cototal",
 		"cotransitive",
 		"cotransitivity",
 		"counit",
@@ -167,6 +173,8 @@
 		"extensivity",
 		"extremal",
 		"Faddeev",
+		"Farb",
+		"fibration",
 		"fieldification",
 		"filtrations",
 		"finitary",
@@ -192,6 +200,7 @@
 		"Hertweck",
 		"Heunen",
 		"Heyting",
+		"homeomorphic",
 		"homotopic",
 		"homotopy",
 		"Hušek",
@@ -201,6 +210,7 @@
 		"hypercollections",
 		"idempotents",
 		"Ieke",
+		"indeterminates",
 		"infima",
 		"infimum",
 		"infinitary",
@@ -254,6 +264,8 @@
 		"Noetherian",
 		"Noncommutative",
 		"objectwise",
+		"opfibration",
+		"Perrone",
 		"pointwise",
 		"Pontryagin",
 		"poset",
@@ -289,6 +301,7 @@
 		"saft",
 		"Schapira",
 		"Schepler",
+		"Schreier",
 		"semigroup",
 		"semigroups",
 		"semisimple",
@@ -326,12 +339,14 @@
 		"Szamuely",
 		"Tarski",
 		"tensoring",
+		"Tholen",
 		"Tietze",
 		"topoi",
 		"tripleability",
 		"Turso",
 		"Tychonoff",
 		"Ulmer",
+		"ultrafilters",
 		"uncountably",
 		"unital",
 		"unitalization",

content/Grp_total_explicit_proof.md

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+---
+title: Explicit Proof that the Category of Groups is Total
+description: An explicit construction of the left adjoint to the covariant Yoneda embedding on the category of groups
+---
+
+# Explicit Proof that the Category of Groups is Total
+
+The definition of a <a href="/category-property/total">total</a> category is very abstract; furthermore, it is not immediately clear how it is possible for _any_ category which is not essentially small to satisfy the definition, much less a wide variety of the algebraic and topological categories which are considered in practice. Thus, to illustrate the definition, we give an explicit construction of the functor
+$$L : [\Grp^{\op},\Set] \to \Grp$$
+that is left adjoint to the Yoneda embedding $y : \Grp \hookrightarrow [\Grp^{\op},\Set]$.
+
+Fix a functor $T : \Grp^{\op} \to \Set$. To construct the group $L(T)$, we will make use of the usual cogroup structure on $\IZ$ in $\Grp$, which includes
+
+- the comultiplication homomorphism $\mu : \IZ \to \IZ * \IZ'$, $1 \mapsto 1 \cdot 1'$ (where $\IZ'$ denotes a copy of $\IZ$),
+- the coidentity homomorphism $\varepsilon : \IZ \to 0$,
+- the coinverse homomorphism $\iota : \IZ \to \IZ$.
+
+Also, let $i_1,i_2 : \IZ \rightrightarrows \IZ * \IZ'$ denote the coprojections. We define the group $L(T)$ as the group generated by elements $e(x)$, one for each element $x \in T(\IZ)$, subject to the following relations:
+
+- $e(T\mu(x)) = e(Ti_1(x)) \cdot e(Ti_2(x))$ for each $x \in T(\IZ * \IZ')$,
+- $e(T\varepsilon(x)) = 1$ for each $x \in T0$,
+- $e(T\iota(x)) = e(x)^{-1}$ for each $x \in T\IZ$,
+
+We first need to define a natural transformation $\eta_T : T \to \Hom({-}, L(T))$. For each group $H$ we define the function $\eta_T(H) : TH \to \Hom(H, L(T))$ by sending $x \in TH$ to $h \mapsto e(Th(x))$, where we abuse notation to identify $h \in H$ with the corresponding morphism $\IZ \to H$ mapping $1 \mapsto h$, so that $Th : TH \to T\IZ$. To see that this defines a group homomorphism from $H$ to $L(T)$, note that for $h, h' \in H$ we have three commutative diagrams of the form
+
+$$
+\begin{CD}
+T(H) @> = >> T(H)\\
+@V T(hh') VV @VVV\\
+T(\IZ * \IZ') @>>> T(\IZ)
+\end{CD}
+$$
+
+where on the bottom we use $T\mu, Ti_1, Ti_2$, and on the right we use $h h', h, h'$. Applying this to $x\in TH$, we get $Th(x)$, $Th'(x)$, and $T(h h')(x)$, respectively. Thus, the relation $e(T\mu(y)) = e(Ti_1(y)) \cdot e(Ti_2(y))$ with $y \coloneqq T(h h')(x)$ implies
+$$e(T(hh')(x)) = e(Th(x)) \cdot e(Th'(x)),$$
+as required. Similar proofs show that the map $H \to L(T)$ respects inverses and the identity. We leave it as an exercise for the reader to show this is natural in $H$.
+
+We now need to show that for each group $G$ and natural transformation $\alpha : T \to y_G$, there exists a unique group homomorphism $\varphi : L(T) \to G$ such that
+$$\alpha = y_{\varphi} \circ \eta_T : T \to \Hom({-}, L(T)) \to \Hom({-}, G).$$
+We start with uniqueness: suppose $x \in T\IZ$. Then by hypothesis,
+$$\alpha_{\IZ} = (y_{\varphi})_{\IZ} \circ (\eta_T)_{\IZ} : T\IZ \to \Hom(\IZ, L(T)) \to \Hom(\IZ, G).$$
+For each $x \in T\IZ$, the first step on the right hand side maps $x \mapsto (1 \mapsto e(x))$, and the second step then maps this to $1 \mapsto \varphi(e(x))$. Therefore,
+$$\varphi(e(x)) = \alpha_{\IZ}(x)(1)$$
+for each $x$, which establishes the uniqueness of $\varphi$.
+
+For the existence part, the first step is to show there is a group homomorphism $L(T) \to G$ with the images of $e(x)$ required by the previous part, i.e. $e(x) \mapsto \alpha_{\IZ}(x)(1)$. To prove this, we need to check that the relations in $L(T)$ are satisfied in $G$. Now, for each $x \in T(\IZ * \IZ')$, we have three commutative diagrams of the form
+
+$$
+\begin{CD}
+T(\IZ * \IZ') @> \alpha_{\IZ * \IZ'} >> \Hom(\IZ * \IZ', G) @> \simeq >> UG \times UG\\
+@VVV @VVV @VVV\\
+T(\IZ) @> \alpha_{\IZ} >> \Hom(\IZ, G) @> \simeq >> UG
+\end{CD}
+$$
+
+applying naturality to $\mu, i_1, i_2 : \IZ \to \IZ * \IZ'$. On the right hand side, we get multiplication, first projection, and second projection respectively. From this, we conclude that the images of $e(T\mu(x))$ and $e(Ti_1(x)) \cdot e(Ti_2(x))$ in $UG$ agree for any element $x \in T(\IZ * \IZ')$. Similar proofs show that the other relations are also satisfied.
+
+Finally, we need to show $\alpha = y_{\varphi} \circ \eta_T$, i.e. $\alpha_H = (y_{\varphi})_H \circ (\eta_T)_H$ for each group $H$. By definition, for each $x \in TH$, the first step gives the homomorphism $h \mapsto e(Th(x))$; then the second step is formed by composition with $\varphi$. By the specification of $\varphi$, this gives the homomorphism $h \mapsto \alpha_{\IZ}(Th(x))(1)$. However, by the assumption that $\alpha$ is a natural transformation, for each $h \in H$ we have a commutative diagram
+
+$$
+\begin{CD}
+TH @> \alpha_H >> \Hom(H, G) \\
+@V Th VV @VV {-} \circ h V \\
+T\IZ @> \alpha_{\IZ} >> \Hom(\IZ, G).
+\end{CD}
+$$
+
+Applying this to $x \in TH$ gives exactly that $\alpha_{\IZ}(Th(x))(1) = \alpha_H(x)(h)$. <span class="qed">$\square$</span>

content/missing_cogenerator.md

@@ -12,9 +12,11 @@ Let $\C$ be a pointed category with a faithful functor $U: \C \to \Set$. Assume
 1. For any $X \in \F$ and any $Y \in \C$, every non-zero morphism $f: X \to Y$ is injective on underlying sets.
 2. For every $Y \in \C$ there is some object $X \in \F$ such that $\card(U(X)) > \card(U(Y))$.
 
-Then $\C$ does not have a cogenerator.
+Then $\C$ does not have a cogenerator. Moreover, $\C$ is not cototal.
 :::
 
 ::: Proof
 Assume that there is a cogenerator $Y$. By assumption (2) there is an object $X \in \F$ such that $U(X)$ is larger than $U(Y)$ (w.r.t. cardinalities). Since $0,\id_X : X \rightrightarrows X$ are distinct, there is a morphism $f : X \to Y$ with $f \neq 0$. But then $U(f) : U(X) \to U(Y)$ is injective by assumption (1), which contradicts our choice of $X$.
+
+Now assume that $\C$ is cototal. Using the axiom of choice, we may assume that for each small cardinal $\kappa$, there is at most one element $X \in \F$ such that $\card(U(X)) = \kappa$. Treating $\F$ as a discrete diagram in $\C$, assumption (1) implies that for any object $Y$ of $\C$, the collection of cocones $\F \to Y$ is bijective with a set, since the maps $X \to Y$ with $\card(U(X)) > \card(U(Y))$ must all be zero in such a cocone. Therefore, by G. M. Kelly, <a href="https://www.numdam.org/item/?id=CTGDC_1986__27_2_109_0" target="_blank">A survey of totality for enriched and ordinary categories</a>, Thm. 5.6 (namely the implication (i) $\Rightarrow$ (iii)), $\C$ must have a coproduct $Y$ of all elements of $\F$. But then by assumption (2), there exists $X \in \F$ such that $\card(U(X)) > \card(U(Y))$; and since $\C$ is pointed, the coprojection $X \to Y$ must be split monic and therefore non-zero. Using assumption (1), we get a contradiction.
 :::

database/data/categories/Alg(R).yaml

@@ -41,8 +41,10 @@ unsatisfied_properties:
   - property: semi-strongly connected
     proof: This is because already the full subcategory <a href="/category/CAlg(R)">$\CAlg(R)$</a> of commutative algebras is not semi-strongly connected.
 
-  - property: cogenerating set
-    proof: 'We apply <a href="/content/missing_cogenerating_sets">this lemma</a> to the collection of $R$-algebras which are fields: If $F$ is an $R$-algebra that is also a field and $A$ is a non-trivial $R$-algebra, any algebra homomorphism $F \to A$ is injective. For every infinite cardinal $\kappa$ the field of rational functions in $\kappa$ variables over some residue field of $R$ has cardinality $\geq \kappa$ and a non-trivial automorphism (swap two variables).'
+  - property: cototal
+    proof: Essentially the same proof as for <a href="/category/CAlg(R)">$\CAlg(R)$</a> works here.
+    references:
+      - calg_not_cototal
 
   - property: codistributive
     proof: 'If $\sqcup$ denotes the coproduct of $R$-algebras (see <a href="https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/625874" target="_blank">MSE/625874</a> for their description) and $A$ is an $R$-algebra, the canonical morphism $A \sqcup R^2 \to (A \sqcup R)^2 = A^2$ is usually no isomorphism. For example, for $A = R[X]$ the coproduct on the LHS is not commutative, it has the algebra presentation $\langle X,E : E^2=E \rangle$.'

database/data/categories/CAlg(R).yaml

@@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ satisfied_properties:
     proof: There is a forgetful functor $\CAlg(R) \to \Set$ and $\Set$ is locally small.
 
   - property: one-sorted finitary algebraic
-    proof: Take the one-sorted algebraic theory of a commutative algebra.
+    proof: Take the one-sorted algebraic theory of a commutative $R$-algebra.
 
   - property: strict terminal object
     proof: 'If $f : 0 \to A$ is a homomorphism of $R$-algebras, then $A$ satisfies $1=f(1)=f(0)=0$, so that $A=0$.'
@@ -55,9 +55,6 @@ unsatisfied_properties:
   - property: balanced
     proof: Take a prime ideal $P \subseteq R$ and consider the commutative $R$-algebra $A \coloneqq R/P$ (which is an integral domain). Then the inclusion $A \hookrightarrow Q(A)$ is a counterexample.
 
-  - property: cogenerating set
-    proof: 'We apply <a href="/content/missing_cogenerating_sets">this lemma</a> to the collection of commutative $R$-algebras which are fields: If $F$ is a commutative $R$-algebra that is also a field and $A$ is a non-trivial commutative $R$-algebra, any algebra homomorphism $F \to A$ is injective. For every infinite cardinal $\kappa$ the field of rational functions in $\kappa$ variables over some residue field of $R$ has cardinality $\geq \kappa$ and a non-trivial automorphism (swap two variables).'
-
   - property: countably codistributive
     proof: 'The canonical homomorphism $A \otimes_R R^{\IN} \to A^{\IN}$ is given by $a \otimes (r_n)_n \mapsto (r_n a)_n$ and does not have to be surjective: Since $R \neq 0$, there is a commutative $R$-algebra $K$ which is a field. Now take $A \coloneqq K[X]$ and consider the sequence $(X^n)_{n} \in A^{\IN}$.'
 
@@ -84,6 +81,13 @@ unsatisfied_properties:
       \end{CD}$$
       In the limit, it induces the inclusion $K[X] \hookrightarrow K[[X]]$, where $K[[X]]$ is the algebra of formal power series over $K$. It is clearly not surjective, but this is not sufficient, we need to argue that it is not an epimorphism in $\CAlg(R)$, or equivalently, in $\CRing$. For a proof, see <a href="https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2391187" target="_blank">MSE/2391187</a>.
 
+  - property: cototal
+    proof: >-
+      This proof will be similar to the proof of <a href="/content/missing_cogenerator">this lemma</a>. To start, for each infinite cardinal $\kappa \ge \card(U(R))$, choose a field $F_\kappa$ of cardinality $\kappa$ including a quotient field of $R$. (For example, fix some such quotient field $R / \m$ and then let $F_\kappa$ be the extension of $R / \m$ by $\kappa$ many indeterminates.) We first claim that for any commutative $R$-algebra $A$ with $\kappa > \card(U(A))$, there is exactly one $R$-algebra homomorphism $\varphi : R \times F_\kappa \to A$, which can be described as the projection $R \times F_\kappa \to R$ followed by the unique morphism $R \to A$. To see this, note that for any other such morphism $\varphi$, we must have $\varphi(0, 1) \ne 0$. It follows that the rng homomorphism $F_\kappa \to A$ formed by composing $F_\kappa \to R \times F_\kappa$, $x \mapsto (0, x)$, with $\varphi$ is non-zero, and it is therefore injective since $F_\kappa$ was chosen to be a field. This gives a contradiction.
+
+      It follows that for any commutative $R$-algebra $A$, the set of cocones $R \times F_\kappa \to A$ from the discrete diagram on $R \times F_\kappa$ is bijective to a set. On the other hand, we claim that $\CAlg(R)$ has no coproduct of all $R \times F_\kappa$. This will imply that $\CAlg(R)$ is not cototal, by G. M. Kelly, <a href="https://www.numdam.org/item/?id=CTGDC_1986__27_2_109_0" target="_blank">A survey of totality for enriched and ordinary categories</a>, Thm. 5.6 (namely the contrapositive of the implication (i) $\Rightarrow$ (iii)). To see this, suppose we had such a coproduct $A$, and choose a cardinal $\kappa$ greater than $\max(\card(U(A)), \card(U(R)), \aleph_0)$. Then the coprojection $R \times F_\kappa \to A$ would be split injective, where we can construct the splitting $A \to R\times F_\kappa$ such that the $\kappa$ component is the identity, whereas for $\lambda \ne \kappa$, the $\lambda$ component is given by the projection $R \times F_\lambda \to R$ composed with the unique morphism $R \to R \times F_\kappa$. However, from this injection, we would get $\card(A) \ge \card(R \times F_\kappa) = \kappa$, giving a contradiction.
+    label: calg_not_cototal
+
 special_objects:
   initial object:
     description: $R$

database/data/categories/Cat.yaml

@@ -44,9 +44,6 @@ unsatisfied_properties:
   - property: balanced
     proof: Since we know that <a href="/category/Mon">$\Mon$</a> is not balanced, there is a monoid map $M \to N$ which is a monomorphism and an epimorphism which is not an isomorphism. Then $B(M) \to B(N)$ has the corresponding properties.
 
-  - property: cogenerating set
-    proof: 'Assume that $S$ is a cogenerating set in $\Cat$. Then one checks that the set of monoids $\{\End(X) : X \in \C \in S\}$ is a cogenerating set in <a href="/category/Mon">$\Mon$</a>, which we know does not exist.'
-
   - property: regular
     proof: See Example 3.14 at the <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/regular+category" target="_blank">nLab</a>.
 
@@ -93,6 +90,13 @@ unsatisfied_properties:
       $$\Sub_{\reg}(\{ 0 \to 1 \to 2 \}) \to \Sub_{\reg}(\{ 0 \to 1 \}) \times_{\Sub_{\reg}(\{1\})} \Sub_{\reg}(\{ 1 \to 2 \})$$
       is not injective. Therefore, $\Sub_{\reg} : \Cat^{\op} \to \Set^+$ does not preserve pullbacks, so it cannot be representable.
 
+  - property: cototal
+    proof: >-
+      For each infinite cardinal $\kappa$, choose a simple group $G_\kappa$ of cardinality $\kappa$ (such as the alternating group on $\kappa$). Now consider the large span diagram $1 \dottedrightrightarrows B G_\kappa$. Then for any small category $\C$, the collection of cocones $1 \dottedrightrightarrows B G_\kappa \to \C$ is bijective with a set: to form any such cocone, we must first choose the object $X$ of $\C$ which is the image of the object of $1$. Then, we must choose the morphisms $G_\kappa \to \End_{\C}(X)$; but for $\kappa > \card(\End_{\C}(X))$, the corresponding morphism must be zero.
+
+      On the other hand, we claim that $1 \dottedrightrightarrows B G_\kappa$ does not have a pushout in $\Cat$; by G. M. Kelly, <a href="https://www.numdam.org/item/?id=CTGDC_1986__27_2_109_0" target="_blank">A survey of totality for enriched and ordinary categories</a>, Thm. 5.6 (namely the contrapositive of the implication (i) $\Rightarrow$ (iii)), this will imply that $\Cat$ is not cototal. To see this, suppose we have a pushout $\C$ of $1 \dottedrightrightarrows B G_\kappa$, and choose a cardinal $\lambda > \card(\Mor(\C))$ (which is possible since $\C$ is a small category). Then the coprojection $i_\lambda : B G_\lambda \to \C$ must be split monic, since we can construct a cocone $1 \dottedrightrightarrows B G_\kappa \to B G_\lambda$ in which $B G_\kappa \to B G_\lambda$ corresponds to the zero map for $\kappa \ne \lambda$, and in which $B G_\lambda \to B G_\lambda$ is the identity. It follows that if $X$ is the image in $\C$ of the object of $B G_\lambda$ under $i_\lambda$, then $i_\lambda$ induces an injective map $G_\lambda \to \End_{\C}(X)$. This gives a contradiction since $\lambda > \card(\End_{\C}(X))$ and $G_\lambda$ has cardinality $\lambda$.
+    label: cat_not_cototal
+
 special_objects:
   initial object:
     description: empty category

database/data/categories/Grp.yaml

@@ -42,6 +42,10 @@ satisfied_properties:
   - property: effective cocongruences
     proof: A proof can be found <a href="/content/cocongruences_of_groups">here</a>.
 
+  - property: total
+    proof: This follows formally from the fact that $\Grp$ is finitary algebraic and therefore locally presentable. For a more explicit proof, see <a href="/content/Grp_total_explicit_proof">here</a>.
+    check_redundancy: false
+
   - property: extremal generator
     proof: The group $\IZ$ is an extremal generator since it represents the forgetful functor $\Grp \to \Set$, which is faithful and conservative.
     check_redundancy: false
@@ -54,7 +58,7 @@ unsatisfied_properties:
   - property: normal
     proof: Every non-normal subgroup (such as $C_2 \hookrightarrow S_3$) provides a counterexample.
 
-  - property: cogenerator
+  - property: cototal
     proof: 'We apply <a href="/content/missing_cogenerator">this lemma</a> to the collection of simple groups: Any non-trivial homomorphism from a simple group to a group must be injective, and for every infinite cardinal $\kappa$ there is a simple group of size $\geq \kappa$ (for example, the alternating group on $\kappa$ elements).'
     label: grp_no_cogenerator