I'm reading Theorem 2.9.1 of this notes about glueing sheaves which uses a categorical argument.
Question: In (iii) below it's stated that there is an isomorphism
$F_i(U_i\times _X V)\cong \underset{\leftarrow}{\operatorname{lim}}_{W\in \tau} F_i(U_i\times_X W)$ where I assume $\tau$ is a covering of $V$. How the limit diagram is constructed here? Does this limit contain the same information as the equaliser diagram in the definition of sheaves?

The answer is yes, basically because all limit diagrams can actually be written as an equalizer of products.
Here $\mathcal T$ seems to be a typo for $\mathcal V$ which is a covering of $V$ assumed to be stable under fiber products. Then I claim that the limit of $F_i(U_i\times_X W)$ over $\mathcal V$ is the usual thing, that is : the equalizer of $\prod_{W\in \mathcal V}F_i(U_i\times_X W) \rightrightarrows \prod_{W,W'\in \mathcal V}F_i(U_i\times_X (W\times_V W'))$ where the two maps are the same as usual.
If this is correct, then the fact that the limit is $F_i(U_i\times_X V)$ is just the statement that $F_i$ is a sheaf and that $U_i\times_X W$ is a covering of $U_i\times_X V$ and that $U_i\times_X (W\times_V W') = (U_i\times_X W)\times_{U_i\times_X V} (U_i\times_X W')$ (which follows from some simple diagram chase)
Now the proof. Suppose you have a cone $(Y,f_W)$ over the $F_i(U_i\times_X W), W\in\mathcal V$. Then clearly the product map $Y\to \prod_{W\in \mathcal V}F_i(U_i\times_X W)$ with coordinates the $f_W$ equalizes the two maps of the above equalizer, as $W\times_V W' \in \mathcal V$.
So we get a unique map $Y\to$ the equalizer.
So it suffices to show that the projections of the equalizer form a cone. But suppose you have a map $W\to W'$ in $\mathcal V$, that is, an inclusion $W\subset W'$. Then $W'\times_V W = W$ so that clearly the two maps are equalized by the equalizer : it does form a cocone.
So we are done
(I treated the case of a space, but of course if there is a map $W\to W'$ in $\mathcal V$, then it's a map above $V$, so that $W\times_V W'$ is still canonically identified with $W$, so it doesn't change much)