Yoneda Lemma (Pt. II)
Point of Post: This is a continuation of this post.
Before we actually state Yoneda’s lemma we need to recall a technical detail we have often tacitly assumed about our categories. Namely, recall that a category is called locally small if the Hom sets are actually sets (opposed to the classes they are allowed to be). With this said we can now state and prove Yoneda’s lemma:
Lemma (Yoneda): Let be any locally small category, then for any object in and any one has an isomorphism
Moreover, this isomorphism is natural in both and .
Proof: To define the desired isomorphism (which is just going to be a bijection) we note that given a natural transformation one has that is an arrow , and so we define . To show that really is a bijection we construct an inverse . To do this, let be arbitrary, we want then to construct a natural transformation . To do this we define componentwise by where . Let’s show that this actually is a natural transformation. To this end, let be any morphism in we then need to check that (recalling that our functors are contravariant)
(where, as usual, is the image of under the functor ). So, for any we check that
from where the naturality of follows. Thus, we see that is really a mapping . Let’s now show that and are inverses of one another. Indeed, let be a natural transformation we see then that for any one has that
so that . Conversely, given any we have that
so that and are indeed mutually inverses. Thus, we see that indeed holds.
The fact then that is really a natural transformation in either or if the other is fixed is just a simple computation, so I’ll leave it to you.
While Yoneda’s lemma is itself interesting it’s real use is really to prove the following:
Theorem: The Yoneda embedding really is an embedding.
Proof: The fact that is injective on objects is just the statement that we require Hom sets to be disjoint, the real crux of the argument is why it is full and faithful. What we really need to show is that induces bijections on the Hom sets. In other words, we need to show that induces an isomorphism
But, this is precisely Yoneda’s lemma as one can easily check.
So now, the important consequence we’ve been referencing over and over again is
Corollary: Let and be objects in some locally small category . Then, if is naturally isomorphic to then by a unique isomorphism.
Of course, the dual of the above statement proves that:
Corollary: Let and be objects in some locally small category . Then, if is naturally isomorphic to then by a unique isomorphism.
References:
[1] Mac, Lane Saunders. Categories for the Working Mathematician. New York: SpringerVerlag, 1994. Print.
[2] Adámek, Jirí, Horst Herrlich, and George E. Strecker. Abstract and Concrete Categories: the Joy of Cats. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1990. Print.
[3] Berrick, A. J., and M. E. Keating. Categories and Modules with Ktheory in View. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print.
[4] Freyd, Peter J. Abelian Categories. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Print.
[5] Rotman, Joseph J. Introduction to Homological Algebra. SpringerVerlag. Print.
[6] Herrlich, Horst, and George E. Strecker. Category Theory: An Introduction. Lemgo: Heldermann, 2007. Print.
January 18, 2012  Posted by Alex Youcis  Algebra, Category Theory  Algebra, Category Theory, Yoneda, Yoneda's Embedding, Yoneda's Lemma
No comments yet.
About me
My name is Alex Youcis. I am currently a senior a first year graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.
About Me
Blogroll
 Absolutely Useless
 Abstract Algebra
 Annoying Precision
 Aquazorcarson's Blog
 Bruno's Math Blog
 Chris' Math Blog
 Climbing Mount Bourbaki
 E. Kowalski's Blog
 Geometric Group Theory
 Geometry and the Imagination
 Gower's Weblog
 Hard Arithmetic
 HardyRamanujan Letters
 Ngô Quốc Anh's Blog
 Project Crazy Project
 Rigorous Trivialities
 Secret Blogging Seminar
 SymOmega
 TCS Math
 Unapologetic Mathematician
 What's New
Lecture Notes
Categories
Top Posts
 Munkres Chapter 2 Section 19 (Part I)
 Munkres Chapter two Section 12 & 13: Topological Spaces and Bases
 Munkres Chapter 2 Section 18
 Munkres Chapter 2 Section 17
 Relationship Between Hom and Limits (Modules)(Pt. I)
 Frobenius Reciprocity
 The Splitting Lemma (For Modules)
 Munkres Chapter 2 Section 1
 Review of Group Theory: Consequences of Lagrange's Theorem
 The Hom Functor is Left Exact

Algebra Algebraic Combinatorics Algebraic Topology Analysis Answers Category Theory Chapter 2 Characters Character Theory Class Functions Compactness Complex Analysis Connectedness Derivative Differential Geometry Differential Topology DIrect Limit Direct Limits Examples Exterior Algebra Field Theory Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces Full Solutions Functor Galois Theory Geometry Group Group Actions Group Algebra Groups Group Theory Halmos Homological Algebra Homomorphism Homotopy Ideals Induced Character Induced Representation Intuition Inverse Limit Irreducible Characters Irreps Isomorphism Linear Algebra Linear Transformations Manifolds Matrices Module Modules Module Theory Motivation Multivariable Analysis Munkres Normal Subgroups Number Theory Permutations PID Polynomials Prime Ideals Products Product Topology Projections Representation Theory Review of Group Theory Riemann Surfaces Ring Rings Ring Theory Rudin Solutions Sylow Theorems Symmetric Group Tensor Product Topology Total Derivative
Leave a Reply