Local smallness of Lawvere theories

74 Views Asked by At

Reading this blog post, I'm trying to care about foundational matters.

To summarize the first part of the article, living in a univers $\mathcal V$ of sets, one defines a Lawvere theory as follow : given a locally small category $\mathbf C$ with a faithful functor $U \colon \mathbf C \to \mathbf{Sets}$, the Lawvere theory $T$ of $\mathbf C$ is the full subcategory of $[\mathbf C, \mathbf{Sets}]$ with objects the finites powers of $U$ : $1,U,U^2,\dots$

For algebraic examples as $\mathbf C = \mathbf{Grps}, \mathbf{Rings}$, etc., one finds $T$ equivalent to $\mathbf C$, which makes me thinks that we can ensure the local smallness of $T$. But how is that since $[\mathbf C, \mathbf{Sets}]$ is not a priori locally small ? Or is $T$ locally small in the algebraic cases because of the left adjoint of $U$ which makes it representable ?

1

There are 1 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

If $\mathcal{C}$ is locally small and each $U^n : \mathcal{C} \to \mathbf{Set}$ is representable (e.g. because $U : \mathcal{C} \to \mathbf{Set}$ has a left adjoint), then the collection of natural transformations $U^n \Rightarrow U^m$ is a small set (by the Yoneda lemma).

In the case where $\mathcal{C}$ is a locally presentable category and $U : \mathcal{C} \to \mathbf{Set}$ is accessible, $U$ will have a left adjoint. This explains the examples where $\mathcal{C}$ is $\mathbf{Grp}$, $\mathbf{Ring}$, etc. A more interesting example is the case where $\mathcal{C} = \mathbf{KHaus}$ is the category of compact Hausdorff spaces; in that case $\mathcal{C}$ is not locally presentable, but $U$ still has a left adjoint.

It can also happen that the collection of natural transformations $U^n \Rightarrow U^m$ is a small set when $U$ is not representable. For example, when $\mathcal{C} = \mathbf{Fld}$ is the category of fields. This is because $\mathbf{Fld}$ is an accessible category and each $U^n$ is accessible: all the $U^n$ are determined up to unique isomorphism by their action on the full subcategory of finitely-generated fields, and so too are natural transformations $U^n \Rightarrow U^m$, so we may as well replace $\mathbf{Fld}$ with that essentially small full subcategory.