Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

Small object argument

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remove ads

In mathematics, especially in category theory, Quillen’s small object argument, when applicable, constructs a factorization of a morphism in a functorial way. In practice, it can be used to show some class of morphisms constitutes a weak factorization system in the theory of model categories.

The argument was introduced by Quillen to construct a model structure on the category of (reasonable) topological spaces.[1] The original argument was later refined by Garner.[2]

Remove ads

Statement

Let be a category that has all small colimits. We say an object in it is compact with respect to an ordinal if commutes with an -filterted colimit. In practice, we fix and simply say an object is compact if it is so with respect to that fixed .

If is a class of morphismms, we write for the class of morphisms that satisfy the left lifting property with respect to . Similarly, we write for the right lifting property. Then

Theorem[3][4] Let be a class of morphisms in . If the source (domain) of each morphism in is compact, then each morphism in admits a functorial factorization where are in .

Remove ads

Example: presheaf

Here is a simple example of how the argument works in the case of the category of presheaves on some small category.[5]

Let denote the set of monomorphisms of the form , a quotient of a representable presheaf. Then can be shown to be equal to the class of monomorphisms. Then the small object argument says: each presheaf morphism can be factored as where is a monomorphism and in ; i.e., is a morphism having the right lifting property with respect to monomorphisms.

Remove ads

Proof

For now, see.[6] But roughly the construction is a sort of successive approximation.

See also

References

Loading content...

Further reading

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads