When one first starts studying category theory, they learn that the correct notion of βthe sameβ for categories is that of equivalence, rather than the stronger notion isomorphism. For those that have studied some algebraic topology, the situation is very similar to identifying spaces if they are homotopic, rather than homeomorphic. This is often given as an analogy, but the two notions can be reconciled by giving model structures where the weaker form of identification forms the subcategory of weak equivalences. Here, we define and present the so called canonical model structure on the category of categories. The proof of each step given can also be applied to the category of groupoids.
We denote the category of (small) categories by and the category of (small) groupoids .
This proof can be found on the nLabβs βcanonical model structure on Catβ page, but here we go into a lot more detail of the constructions.
The model structure
Let be a category and a pair of subcategories. The pair is a weak factorisation system if:
- Both and are stable under retracts;
- is in the left lifting class of ();
- Every morphism in factors as with and .
A model structure on a category consists of a triple of wide subcategories whose morphisms are called weak equivalences (anotated with a ), fibrations (annotated with a double head ) and cofibrations (annotated with a tail ), respectively. This triple must satisfy the following three axioms:
- satisfies 2-out-of-3;
- is a weak factorisation system;
- is a weak factorisation system.
A model category is a finitely bicomplete category, along with a model structure on it.
Before giving the main result, we need one more definition.
Let be a functor. We say is an isofibration if for every and isomorphism , there is an isomorphism such that .
Our main result is the following:
The category has a model structure on it with:
- being the class of categorical equivalences;
- being the class of isofibrations;
- being the class of functors injective on objects.
The rest of this section will be proving the above theorem. That and has all finite limits follows from it having a terminal object, binary products and equalisers. The theory of categories and groupoids are generalised algebraic theories, so the category of models ( and , respectively) has all (finite) colimits.
We now break down each of the defining features of a model structure and show that they hold here.
2-out-of-3
Categorical equivalences are closed under 2-out-of-3.
This follows by basic diagram chasing. If we have the following commuting triangle, with any two maps being equivalences, we can take pseudo-inverses to construct a pseudo-inverse to the third map.
Retracts
The class of categorical equivalences is stable under retracts.
Suppose we have the following commuting diagram where is an equivalence. We show is also an equivalence:
Since is an equivalence, there exists a functor such that and . The morphism is then easily seen to be a pseudo-inverse to , showing that it is also an equivalence.
The class of isofibrations is stable under retracts.
Suppose the following diagram commutes and is an isofibration. We need to show that is an isofibration also:
Let and be an isomorphism in . We apply to get an isomorphism . As is an isofibration, there is an isomorphism such that . Applying , we have an isomorphism . If we apply to this map, we have:
Hence, given an isomorphism , there exists an isomorphism such that , so is also an isofibration.
The class of functors injective on objects is stable under retracts.
Suppose we have the following diagram in , where is a functor injective on objects. We need to show that is injective on objects also:
Suppose and are objects in such that . We have the following chain of equalities:
Hence is also injective on objects.
Lifting properties
We first give a lemma that will be useful in solving the lifting problems in this section.
Isofibrations that are equivalences are exactly the equivalences that are surjective on objects.
Suppose that is an isofibration and an equivalence. To see that it is surjective on objects, let . As is an equivalence, it is fully faithful, so there is some and isomorphism . As is an isofibration, there is an isomorphism such that . Then, we must have that , so is surjective on objects.
If is an equivalence that is surjective on objects, it is also an isofibration. Let and be an isomorphism in . As is surjective on objects, for some , so is a map . By being full, there is a morphism such that . By being faithful, this must be an isomorphism, so is an isofibration.
The class of functors injective on objects has the left lifting property with respect to functors that are isofibrations and equivalences.
Suppose we have the following commuting diagram, where is injective on objects and is an equivalence and isofibration:
As this commutes, we have the following ``object squareββ commuting in :
In particular, is injective and by Lemma 10, is surjective. As form a weak factorisation system on , there is a lift . We now aim to turn into a functor. Let be a morphism in . We then have a morphism . As is fully faithful, there is a unique morphism such that . We define . As is a functor, it must preserve identity morphisms and as is fully faithful, the lift of an identity morphism from to must be the identity, so preserves identity morphisms. Similarly, by functorality of and fully faithfulness of , we have that composites are mapped to composites, so is a functor and makes the bottom triangle commute:
The top triangle commutes on objects, so we need to check it commutes on maps. Given ,
So by fully faithfulness of , meaning that the top triangle commutes. This means that is indeed a lift, which shows that functors injective on objects are in the left lifting class of fucntors that are equivalences and isofibrations.
The class of functors injective on objects which are also equivalences has the left lifting property with respect to functors that are isofibrations.
Suppose we have the following diagram commuting, with an equivalence that is injective on objects and an isofibration:
To construct a functor , we use the axiom of choice to get some extra structure. As is essentially surjective, for every object , we choose an isomorphism , picking the identity morphism wherever possible, i.e (we call the argument of , which is well defined at is injective on objects). As is an isofibration, we choose for every a morphism such that , again, picking the identity morphism whenever possible, i.e . On objects, we define . For morphisms, the output is a little more complicated. Starting with a map , we form the composite . We let be the unique map that maps to . Then, applying , we have a map . We can then compose with maps and to get . This is what we define to be.
To see that is a functor, we see that it sends the identity to the identity:
We also see that preserves composites: let and . Then:
We now show that it makes both the triangles commute:
Given , we need , however this follows from our choice of maps being the identity wherever possible, which means . Likewise, for maps , our chosen isomorphisms are the identity, giving . Now, if , we see by definition that , so the bottom triangle commutes on objects. Given a map , by the properties of we have:
Hence is a lift, as required.
Factorisations
Every functor can be factored as a functor injective on objects, followed by a functor that is an isofibration and equivalence.
Given , we form a new category with objects given by . We define the hom-sets as follows:
We then have a functor which is the identity on objects, and on maps, which, in particular, is injective on objects. We can also construct another functor which is formed by applying to objects from and the identity to objects from . It is then the identity morphism on maps, which means it is fully faithful. It is also surjective on objects as every object in is mapped to itself by this functor. The composite of these two morphisms is on objects and on maps, hence it is a factorisation of into a functor injective on objects, followed by a surjective equivalence (which by Lemma 10) is an equivalence and isofibration), as required.
Every functor can be factored as a functor injective on objects and an equivalence, followed by an isofibration.
Given we form the comma category , then take the full subcategory spanned by objects where is an isomorphism in . Denote this category as
Note that we have a functor defined by sending and . This is clearly injective on objects and fully faithful. We also have that every by the following commuting square in (with horizontal maps being isomorphisms):
We have a functor given by projecting out the second component. This functor is also seen to be an isofibration: given and an isomorphism , the following square commutes, with horizontal maps isomorphisms, so is an isomorphism in :
Our projection functor sends this isomorphism to , so it is an isofibration. The composite of the two functors defined is easily seen to be equal to , completing the factorisation of as an equivalence that is injective on objects, followed by an isofibration.
Putting it all together
Functors injective on objects and equivalences that are isofibrations, form a weak factorisation system on .
Lemma 9 shows functors injective on objects are stable under retracts. Lemmas 9 and 9 show that equivalences that are isofibrations are also stable under retracts. Lemma 13 gives the desired lifting data and Lemma 14 gives the desired factorisation.
Equivalences that are injective on objects and isofibrations form a weak factorisation system on .
Lemmas 7 and 9 show that the class of equivalences that are injective on objects is stable under retracts. Lemma 8 shows the class of isofibrations are stable under retracts. Lemma 12 gives the desired lifting data and Lemma 14 gives the desired factorisation.
The category has a model structure on it with:
- being the class of equivalences;
- being the class of isofibrations;
- being the class of functors injective on objects.
Lemma shows that satisfies 2-out-of-3. Corollaries 15 and 16 show that and are weak factorisation systems.
This proves Theorem 5. To see that this restricts to we only need to realise that if and are groupoids, the categories constructed in the Factorisations section are also groupoids. This means we have the following:
The category has a model structure on it with:
- being the class of categorical equivalences;
- being the class of isofibrations;
- being the class of functors injective on objects.