Hubbry Logo
Concrete categoryConcrete categoryMain
Open search
Concrete category
Community hub
Concrete category
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Concrete category
Concrete category
from Wikipedia

In mathematics, a concrete category is a category that is equipped with a faithful functor to the category of sets (or sometimes to another category). This functor makes it possible to think of the objects of the category as sets with additional structure, and of its morphisms as structure-preserving functions. Many important categories have obvious interpretations as concrete categories, for example the category of topological spaces and the category of groups, and trivially also the category of sets itself. On the other hand, the homotopy category of topological spaces is not concretizable, i.e. it does not admit a faithful functor to the category of sets.

A concrete category, when defined without reference to the notion of a category, consists of a class of objects, each equipped with an underlying set; and for any two objects A and B a set of functions, called homomorphisms, from the underlying set of A to the underlying set of B. Furthermore, for every object A, the identity function on the underlying set of A must be a homomorphism from A to A, and the composition of a homomorphism from A to B followed by a homomorphism from B to C must be a homomorphism from A to C.[1]

Definition

[edit]

A concrete category is a pair (C,U) such that

  • C is a category, and
  • U : CSet (the category of sets and functions) is a faithful functor.

The functor U is to be thought of as a forgetful functor, which assigns to every object of C its "underlying set", and to every morphism in C its "underlying function".

It is customary to call the morphisms in a concrete category homomorphisms (e.g., group homomorphisms, ring homomorphisms, etc.) Because of the faithfulness of the functor U, the homomorphisms of a concrete category may be formally identified with their underlying functions (i.e., their images under U); the homomorphisms then regain the usual interpretation as "structure-preserving" functions.

A category C is concretizable if there exists a concrete category (C,U); i.e., if there exists a faithful functor UCSet. All small categories are concretizable: define U so that its object part maps each object b of C to the set of all morphisms of C whose codomain is b (i.e. all morphisms of the form f: ab for any object a of C), and its morphism part maps each morphism g: bc of C to the function U(g): U(b) → U(c) which maps each member f: ab of U(b) to the composition gf: ac, a member of U(c). (Item 6 under Further examples expresses the same U in less elementary language via presheaves.) The Counter-examples section exhibits two large categories that are not concretizable.

Remarks

[edit]

Contrary to intuition, concreteness is not a property that a category may or may not satisfy, but rather a structure with which a category may or may not be equipped. In particular, a category C may admit several faithful functors into Set. Hence there may be several concrete categories (CU) all corresponding to the same category C.

In practice, however, the choice of faithful functor is often clear and in this case we simply speak of the "concrete category C". For example, "the concrete category Set" means the pair (SetI) where I denotes the identity functor SetSet.

The requirement that U be faithful means that it maps different morphisms between the same objects to different functions. However, U may map different objects to the same set and, if this occurs, it will also map different morphisms to the same function.

For example, if S and T are two different topologies on the same set X, then (XS) and (XT) are distinct objects in the category Top of topological spaces and continuous maps, but mapped to the same set X by the forgetful functor TopSet. Moreover, the identity morphism (XS) → (XS) and the identity morphism (XT) → (XT) are considered distinct morphisms in Top, but they have the same underlying function, namely the identity function on X.

Similarly, any set with four elements can be given two non-isomorphic group structures: one isomorphic to , and the other isomorphic to .

Further examples

[edit]
  1. Any group G may be regarded as an "abstract" category with one arbitrary object, , and one morphism for each element of the group. This would not be counted as concrete according to the intuitive notion described at the top of this article. But every faithful G-set (equivalently, every representation of G as a group of permutations) determines a faithful functor GSet. Since every group acts faithfully on itself, G can be made into a concrete category in at least one way.
  2. Similarly, any poset P may be regarded as an abstract category with a unique arrow xy whenever xy. This can be made concrete by defining a functor D : PSet which maps each object x to and each arrow xy to the inclusion map .
  3. The category Rel whose objects are sets and whose morphisms are relations can be made concrete by taking U to map each set X to its power set and each relation to the function defined by . Noting that power sets are complete lattices under inclusion, those functions between them arising from some relation R in this way are exactly the supremum-preserving maps. Hence Rel is equivalent to a full subcategory of the category Sup of complete lattices and their sup-preserving maps. Conversely, starting from this equivalence we can recover U as the composite RelSupSet of the forgetful functor for Sup with this embedding of Rel in Sup.
  4. The category Setop can be embedded into Rel by representing each set as itself and each function f: XY as the relation from Y to X formed as the set of pairs (f(x), x) for all xX; hence Setop is concretizable. The forgetful functor which arises in this way is the contravariant powerset functor SetopSet.
  5. It follows from the previous example that the opposite of any concretizable category C is again concretizable, since if U is a faithful functor CSet then Cop may be equipped with the composite CopSetopSet.
  6. If C is any small category, then there exists a faithful functor P : SetCopSet which maps a presheaf X to the coproduct . By composing this with the Yoneda embedding Y:CSetCop one obtains a faithful functor CSet.
  7. For technical reasons, the category Ban1 of Banach spaces and linear contractions is often equipped not with the "obvious" forgetful functor but the functor U1 : Ban1Set which maps a Banach space to its (closed) unit ball.
  8. The category Cat whose objects are small categories and whose morphisms are functors can be made concrete by sending each category C to the set containing its objects and morphisms. Functors can be simply viewed as functions acting on the objects and morphisms.

Counter-examples

[edit]

The category hTop, where the objects are topological spaces and the morphisms are homotopy classes of continuous functions, is an example of a category that is not concretizable. While the objects are sets (with additional structure), the morphisms are not actual functions between them, but rather classes of functions. The fact that there does not exist any faithful functor from hTop to Set was first proven by Peter Freyd. In the same article, Freyd cites an earlier result that the category of "small categories and natural equivalence-classes of functors" also fails to be concretizable.

Implicit structure of concrete categories

[edit]

Given a concrete category (CU) and a cardinal number N, let UN be the functor CSet determined by UN(c) = (U(c))N. Then a subfunctor of UN is called an N-ary predicate and a natural transformation UNU an N-ary operation.

The class of all N-ary predicates and N-ary operations of a concrete category (C,U), with N ranging over the class of all cardinal numbers, forms a large signature. The category of models for this signature then contains a full subcategory which is equivalent to C.

Relative concreteness

[edit]

In some parts of category theory, most notably topos theory, it is common to replace the category Set with a different category X, often called a base category. For this reason, it makes sense to call a pair (CU) where C is a category and U a faithful functor CX a concrete category over X. For example, it may be useful to think of the models of a theory with N sorts as forming a concrete category over SetN.

In this context, a concrete category over Set is sometimes called a construct.

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
In category theory, a concrete category is a pair (C,U)(\mathcal{C}, U) consisting of a category C\mathcal{C} and a faithful functor U:CSetU: \mathcal{C} \to \mathbf{Set}, where Set\mathbf{Set} denotes the category of sets and functions; this functor assigns to each object of C\mathcal{C} an underlying set and to each morphism a function between the corresponding underlying sets, with faithfulness ensuring that distinct morphisms induce distinct functions. The concept, formalized in the early 1970s, provides a bridge between abstract categorical structures and the concrete world of set theory, allowing many algebraic and topological categories—such as the category of groups Grp\mathbf{Grp}, topological spaces Top\mathbf{Top}, and vector spaces Vec\mathbf{Vec}—to be viewed through forgetful functors that strip away additional structure while preserving essential morphism information. This setup facilitates the study of universal properties, limits, and colimits in familiar terms, as the underlying sets enable explicit constructions and verifications that might be more opaque in purely abstract categories. Concrete categories are foundational in , underpinning developments in , , and by ensuring that categorical diagrams can often be realized set-theoretically; for instance, they support the existence of free objects via left adjoints to the and enable factorization systems for embeddings and quotients. While not all categories are concrete—examples include the with homotopy equivalences or relational structures without full faithfulness—their prevalence highlights category theory's roots in structural .

Definition and Fundamentals

Formal Definition

A concrete category is a pair (C,U)(\mathcal{C}, U), where C\mathcal{C} is a category and U:CSetU: \mathcal{C} \to \mathbf{Set} is a faithful functor, often called a forgetful functor because it typically "forgets" the additional structure on objects beyond their underlying sets. This pairing allows the objects of C\mathcal{C} to be identified with sets via UU, and the morphisms of C\mathcal{C} to be identified with functions between those sets that respect the structure imposed by C\mathcal{C}. The codomain Set\mathbf{Set} is the standard category of sets and functions, whose objects are all sets and whose morphisms are all functions between sets; it serves as the foundational category in which concrete categories are embedded to provide a set-theoretic realization. In this setup, the functor UU maps each object of C\mathcal{C} to its underlying set and each morphism to its underlying function, ensuring that the structure of C\mathcal{C} is built upon the concrete foundation of sets. The notion was formalized by John Isbell in the early 1960s to distinguish categories that admit such a set-based realization from more abstract ones, originating in his work on adequate subcategories as full embeddings into categories of structured sets.

Faithfulness Condition

The faithfulness condition stipulates that the functor U:CSetU: \mathcal{C} \to \mathbf{Set} is faithful, which means that for every pair of objects A,BA, B in C\mathcal{C}, the map U:\HomC(A,B)\HomSet(U(A),U(B))U: \Hom_{\mathcal{C}}(A, B) \to \Hom_{\mathbf{Set}}(U(A), U(B)) induced by UU on hom-sets is injective. This injectivity guarantees that if two morphisms f,g:ABf, g: A \to B in C\mathcal{C} satisfy U(f)=U(g)U(f) = U(g), then f=gf = g. This property ensures that distinct morphisms in the category C\mathcal{C} are represented by distinct functions between the corresponding underlying sets, thereby maintaining the structural distinctions of C\mathcal{C} within the concrete framework of sets without any collapse of hom-sets. Consequently, the faithfulness of UU allows morphisms in C\mathcal{C} to be concretely realized as set functions, enabling the deployment of set-theoretic instruments such as the or arguments involving cardinality to analyze categorical phenomena.

Properties and Remarks

Key Properties

A concrete category is structured as a pair (C,U)( \mathcal{C}, U ), where C\mathcal{C} is a category and U:CSetU: \mathcal{C} \to \mathbf{Set} is a faithful , ensuring that every object in C\mathcal{C} has an underlying set and every corresponds uniquely to a function between those sets. The faithfulness of UU implies that distinct s in C\mathcal{C} map to distinct functions in Set\mathbf{Set}, thereby distinguishing the category's hom-sets injectively and providing a set-theoretic foundation for its arrows. Concreteness is not an intrinsic property of C\mathcal{C} itself but arises from the specific choice of the faithful functor UU; the pair (C,U)( \mathcal{C}, U ) defines the structure, and alternative faithful functors may impose different underlying interpretations on the objects and morphisms. If two categories are isomorphic, and one is concrete via UU, then the other inherits concreteness through the composition of the isomorphism with UU, yielding another faithful functor to Set\mathbf{Set}. This structure allows concrete categories to assign underlying sets to objects explicitly, facilitating the application of classical set-theoretic tools and reasoning to their elements and relations. All small categories are concrete, as each can be realized via a faithful into Set\mathbf{Set} using the Cayley representation, which models objects as sets and morphisms as functions while preserving the category's structure. In contrast, while many large categories admit such concretizations, some do not possess any faithful to Set\mathbf{Set}, highlighting limitations in extending set-based representations to proper classes.

Multiple Concretizations

In , a category CC is concrete if it admits a faithful U:CSetU: C \to \mathbf{Set}, but such concretizations are generally not unique, as multiple non-isomorphic faithful functors to Set\mathbf{Set} may exist, each offering a distinct perspective on the underlying sets of objects in CC. These functors preserve the morphisms of CC injectively but can differ in how they represent objects, reflecting varied ways to "forget" structure while maintaining faithfulness, which requires that distinct morphisms in CC map to distinct functions in Set\mathbf{Set}. A prominent example of this multiplicity occurs in the category FinVectk\mathbf{FinVect}_k of finite-dimensional vector spaces over a field kk. The standard concretization is the forgetful functor sending each VV to its underlying set of vectors, where morphisms (linear maps) become functions between these sets; this emphasizes the vector space structure directly via its elements. However, alternative concretizations arise via Morita equivalences, such as viewing FinVectk\mathbf{FinVect}_k as the category of finite-dimensional modules over the matrix ring Endk(W)\mathrm{End}_k(W) for some fixed finite-dimensional WW, where the underlying set functor sends a module MM to HomEndk(W)(Endk(W),M)\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{End}_k(W)}(\mathrm{End}_k(W), M), yielding sets of different cardinalities or structures depending on dimW\dim W. These alternatives, often constructed using choices of bases to coordinatize s, provide non-isomorphic representations that still faithfully capture linear maps but highlight relational aspects like matrix actions over endomorphisms. The non-uniqueness of concretizations implies that being does not determine a canonical underlying set for a category; instead, different choices can reveal varying emphases, such as and in the standard case versus module hom-sets in the Morita-based variant. For instance, one might prioritize the direct enumeration of elements to underscore and addition, while another stresses transformations relative to a fixed basis or generator, altering the intuitive "set-like" view without changing the category's essential properties. Two concretizations of the same category are equivalent if their functors are naturally isomorphic, preserving the structure up to canonical bijections on underlying sets and compatible reparametrizations of morphisms; in such cases, they yield essentially the same concretization. Non-isomorphic concretizations, however, produce genuinely different embeddings into Set\mathbf{Set}, potentially affecting downstream applications like representability or adjoint functor theorems by altering how objects are "realized" set-theoretically.

Examples of Concrete Categories

Basic Examples

One of the simplest examples of a concrete category is the , denoted Set, equipped with the identity U:SetSetU: \mathbf{Set} \to \mathbf{Set}. In this setup, the objects are all sets, the morphisms are all functions between sets, and the functor UU maps each set to itself and each function to itself, preserving the entire structure without alteration. This identity functor is faithful because it injectively embeds the hom-sets of Set into those of Set, distinguishing distinct functions by their action on elements. Moreover, UU is full and essentially surjective, making Set a paradigmatic concrete category that serves as the base for many others. Another foundational example is the category of groups, denoted Grp, with the forgetful functor U:GrpSetU: \mathbf{Grp} \to \mathbf{Set}. Here, the objects are groups (sets equipped with a binary operation, identity, and inverses satisfying the group axioms), and the morphisms are group homomorphisms that preserve the group operation. The functor UU assigns to each group its underlying set and to each homomorphism the corresponding function on those sets, effectively "forgetting" the algebraic structure. This UU is faithful because distinct group homomorphisms induce distinct functions on the underlying sets; if two homomorphisms agree as set functions, they agree as group maps. The pair (Grp, UU) thus exemplifies how concrete categories capture structured sets where morphisms respect the structure but can be identified via their set-theoretic behavior. The category of partially ordered sets, denoted Pos, provides yet another basic illustration, paired with the forgetful functor U:PosSetU: \mathbf{Pos} \to \mathbf{Set}. Objects in Pos are posets (sets with a reflexive, antisymmetric, transitive binary relation ≤), and morphisms are order-preserving maps that maintain the order relation. The functor UU maps each poset to its carrier set and each order-preserving map to the underlying function, disregarding the partial order. Faithfulness of UU holds since distinct order-preserving maps differ as set functions; the functor injects hom-sets by reflecting differences in how elements are mapped while preserving order. This example highlights concretization in ordered contexts, where the underlying set functor allows posets to be treated as structured sets embeddable into Set.

Algebraic and Topological Examples

In the category of topological spaces, denoted Top, the objects are topological spaces and the morphisms are continuous functions between them. This category is concrete over the category of sets via the forgetful functor U:TopSetU: \mathbf{Top} \to \mathbf{Set}, which assigns to each topological space its underlying set and to each continuous function its underlying set function. The functor UU is faithful because distinct continuous functions between topological spaces induce distinct functions on the underlying sets; if two continuous maps agree on underlying sets, they are identical as morphisms in Top. The , denoted Ring (or Rng for rngs without identity), has rings as objects and ring homomorphisms as morphisms. It is concrete via the U:RingSetU: \mathbf{Ring} \to \mathbf{Set}, which forgets the ring operations and sends ring homomorphisms to their underlying set functions. Faithfulness holds since distinct ring homomorphisms between rings differ as maps on the underlying sets, ensuring that the additional algebraic constraints do not cause distinct morphisms to coincide after forgetting the structure. For a fixed ring RR, the category of left RR-modules, denoted RR-Mod, consists of RR-modules as objects and RR-linear maps as morphisms. The forgetful functor U:R-ModSetU: R\text{-}\mathbf{Mod} \to \mathbf{Set} assigns to each module its underlying abelian group (or set) and to each linear map its underlying group homomorphism (or set function). This functor is faithful, as distinct linear maps between modules induce distinct maps on the underlying sets, thereby preserving the linear structure in the sense that the category's morphisms inject into those of Set while respecting the scalar multiplication implicitly through the faithfulness. The same applies to the category of right RR-modules, Mod-RR. The category of metric spaces, denoted Met, has objects as sets equipped with metrics and morphisms as non-expansive (1-Lipschitz) maps, i.e., functions f:(X,dX)(Y,dY)f: (X, d_X) \to (Y, d_Y) satisfying dY(f(x),f(x))dX(x,x)d_Y(f(x), f(x')) \leq d_X(x, x') for all x,xXx, x' \in X. It is concrete over Set via the U:MetSetU: \mathbf{Met} \to \mathbf{Set}, which discards the metric and sends non-expansive maps to their underlying set functions. The UU is faithful because distinct non-expansive maps between metric spaces yield distinct underlying set functions; the metric constraint ensures that morphisms remain distinguishable after the distances. Variants like the category of complete metric spaces or uniformly continuous maps follow similarly.

Counterexamples and Limitations

Notable Counterexamples

One prominent example of a non-concrete category is the category of topological spaces, denoted , where objects are topological spaces and morphisms are classes of continuous maps. This category was shown to be non-concretizable by Peter Freyd in the , as no faithful to the exists; homotopy equivalences can identify distinct maps in a way that prevents injective representation of the hom-sets into set functions. Another notable counterexample is the homotopy category of small categories, Ho(Cat), where objects are small categories and morphisms are natural isomorphism classes of functors, often considered under the folk model structure on with weak equivalences as equivalences of categories. This category lacks a faithful representation in Set because the quotient by natural isomorphisms results in equivalence classes of functors that cannot be injectively embedded as set functions while preserving the category structure. These examples illustrate the boundaries of concretizability, particularly for categories arising as localizations or quotients of categories, where the underlying set forgetful s fail due to the collapse of distinct morphisms under the coarser equivalence relations.

Impossibility of Concretization

In , not all categories admit a faithful to the , meaning they are not concretizable. A general result establishes that concretizability demands the category exhibit "set-like" behavior in its hom-sets, particularly avoiding pathological collapses where morphisms cannot be adequately distinguished. This requirement ensures that the structure can be represented without losing essential distinctions between objects and arrows. The Isbell-Freyd criterion provides a precise characterization: a category is concretizable if and only if, for every pair of parallel s f,g:ABf, g: A \to B, there exists an object XX and a h:XAh: X \to A such that hfhghf \neq hg. This condition, originally necessary by Isbell and shown sufficient by Freyd, guarantees the existence of a separating family of representable s that jointly detect all differences in the category. Failure of this criterion indicates an obstruction, as the category possesses "too many" indistinguishable s or equivalence classes that no faithful to sets can separate, preventing any representation. Freyd's theorem exemplifies this for specific categories, such as the homotopy category hTop of topological spaces up to homotopy equivalence, which violates the concretizability criterion due to failures in fullness and adjointness properties that would be required for a faithful underlying set functor. In hTop, the abundance of homotopy equivalences creates inseparable classes of maps, rendering it non-concrete.

Advanced Concepts

Implicit Underlying Structure

In a concrete category (C,U)( \mathcal{C}, U ), where U:CSetU: \mathcal{C} \to \mathbf{Set} is a , the objects are implicitly endowed with an underlying via UU, which assigns to each object AA its underlying set U(A)U(A), and to each f:ABf: A \to B its underlying function U(f):U(A)U(B)U(f): U(A) \to U(B). This ensures that UU is injective on hom-sets, meaning distinct morphisms in C\mathcal{C} correspond to distinct functions on the underlying sets, thereby the category's into the set-theoretic framework without loss of information. This implicit set-theoretic endowment allows results from to be applied directly within the concrete category. For instance, the existence of products in Set\mathbf{Set} enables the construction of categorical products in C\mathcal{C} whenever UU preserves them, as the underlying sets provide a canonical way to form such limits using set-theoretic operations like Cartesian products and equalizer functions. A key implication is that properties reliant on the in Set\mathbf{Set}, such as the formation of certain colimits or the selection of bases in vector spaces, can be transported to C\mathcal{C} through UU, revealing an underlying model that aligns categorical constructions with set-based proofs. Unlike abstract categories, which lack a canonical faithful representation in Set\mathbf{Set}, concrete categories possess this "forgetful" mechanism that systematically discards structure while preserving distinctions among morphisms, allowing one to "forget" additional structure (e.g., topology or algebraic operations) without collapsing the category's homomorphisms into a coarser equivalence. This distinguishing feature ensures that concrete categories maintain a direct bridge to , facilitating proofs and constructions that would otherwise require more abstract Yoneda-style embeddings. A prominent application of this implicit structure arises in , where varieties of algebras—such as groups or rings—are modeled as concrete categories Alg(Ω)\mathbf{Alg}(\Omega) over Set\mathbf{Set}, with UU forgetting the operations defined by a Ω\Omega to yield underlying sets and functional representations of homomorphisms. This concretization enables the use of set-theoretic tools to establish properties like free algebras and Birkhoff's variety theorem, treating algebraic structures as structured sets while leveraging the faithfulness of UU to ensure algebraic morphisms are precisely the set functions preserving operations.

Relative Concreteness

In , the notion of relative concreteness provides a framework for comparing different concretizations of a category CC, beyond the basic requirement of , by evaluating additional structural properties that enhance the embedding into the . A concretization U:CSetU: C \to \mathbf{Set} is termed full if, for all objects A,BCA, B \in C, the induced map on hom-sets HomC(A,B)HomSet(U(A),U(B))\operatorname{Hom}_C(A, B) \to \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{Set}}(U(A), U(B)) is surjective. This means that every function between the underlying sets U(A)U(A) and U(B)U(B) lifts to a morphism in CC, ensuring that the category captures all possible set-theoretic relations as structure-preserving maps. Full concretizations thus offer a denser representation of the underlying sets' interactions, distinguishing them from merely faithful ones that may omit many such liftings. Concretizations can be ranked as "better" based on further properties such as density or the existence of adjoints, which provide deeper insights into the category's structure. A concretization UU is dense if it is essentially surjective, meaning that for every set SSetS \in \mathbf{Set}, there exists an object ACA \in C such that U(A)SU(A) \cong S. This ensures that the image of UU covers the entire category of sets up to isomorphism, making the concretization comprehensive in representing arbitrary sets as structured objects. Additionally, if UU admits a left adjoint F:SetCF: \mathbf{Set} \to C, known as the free construction, it enables the universal generation of objects in CC from sets, facilitating algebraic or topological free extensions and often implying monadicity. These properties collectively elevate a concretization's utility, as they support limit/colimit preservation and reflective subcategory structures. A concrete illustration arises in algebraic categories, where the standard forgetful functor U:GrpSetU: \mathbf{Grp} \to \mathbf{Set} from groups to their underlying sets is faithful and possesses a left —the functor—rendering it more than a basic faithful without such adjointness. This pair allows for the systematic construction of on any set, preserving colimits and enabling the category to be monadic over Set\mathbf{Set}, which underscores its relative strength in modeling group-theoretic operations. While not full (as not every set function lifts to a ), the adjointness provides a robust over weaker concretizations. The extension of relative concreteness to comparisons between distinct categories often involves functors that preserve underlying sets, such as concrete functors G:(C,U)(D,V)G: (C, U) \to (D, V) where VG=UV \circ G = U. In this setting, one concretization UU is considered finer than another VV if there exists a η:UV\eta: U \Rightarrow V that is componentwise injective, inducing a on concretizations based on their transportability of limits and epimorphisms. This relational structure highlights how multiple concretizations can coexist, with "better" ones offering more precise or universal mappings, as formalized in the of topological and algebraic categories.
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.