In page 1 of "Locally finitely presented additive categories", author says that a locally finitely presented category $\mathcal{A}$ is one for which every object can be expressed as a direct limit of finitely presented objects (with ignoring set-theoretic problems, and assuming that this category has direct limits). In page 2, he adds the condition "being skeletally small" for the full subcategory of finitely presented objects $f.p.(\mathcal A)$. Now, My question is: "Why do we need this assumption?" I cannot understand what happens if we omit that?
Remark: We say that an object $X$ in a category with direct limits is finitely presented if the functor $Hom(X,-)$ commutes with direct limits.
2026-02-23 01:01:54.1771808514
Locally finitely presented category
295 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
Boris Chorny and Jiri Rosicky have a paper Locally class-presentable and locally class-accessible categories from 2012 where they generalize some of the results about locally accessible and locally presentable categories when the collection $A$ of finitely presented objects is not essentially small. As they say
You can read their paper to see what they generalize successfully. What does not generalize, however, is the following result (see https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/adjoint+functor+theorem)
Theorem 2.2. Let $F\colon C\to D$ be a functor between locally presentable categories. Then