6

There exist endofunctors of $\mathbf{Set}$ that are deficient inasmuch as they lack an initial algebra. The canonical example is the covariant powerset functor (the initial algebra of $\mathcal{P}$, if it existed, would include the whole cumulative hierarchy).

Now let $\mathbf{Set}_{< \aleph_1}$ denote the category of countable sets. I'm curious to know if there exist endofunctors of $\mathbf{Set}_{< \aleph_1}$ that also lack an initial algebra. Since we can't take powersets while remaining in the countable realm, it will be interesting to see if anyone can find an example of such a thing.

goblin GONE
  • 67,744
  • Please don't use both the set-theory and the elementary-set-theory tags in the same post. – Andrés E. Caicedo Oct 19 '19 at 22:50
  • @AndrésE.Caicedo, can we get the descriptions on those tags fixed? Five years later, the distinction is still super confusing. – goblin GONE Oct 26 '19 at 01:10
  • Hmm... I'm not sure I see what to clarify. Let me know what parts are not clear, and we can try to find an appropriately clarifying phrasing to disambiguate them. – Andrés E. Caicedo Oct 26 '19 at 01:52
  • Well, the elementary set theory tag reads: "This tag is for elementary questions on set theory, spanning topics usually found in introductory courses in set theory, in addition to review sections of graduate textbooks in the same field. Topics include intersections and unions, differences and complements, De Morgan's laws, Venn diagrams, relations, etc. More advanced topics should use (set-theory) instead" The weird thing about this descriptor is that it mainly seems to be about Boolean algebra, as distinct from set theory. In particular, there's no mention of cardinality ... – goblin GONE Oct 26 '19 at 02:34
  • ... or the category of sets, it's almost like "real" elementary set theory (as opposed to the baby stuff) doesn't fit here. But then you look at the "set theory" tag and it jumps straight to really advanced stuff like large cardinals and models of set theory, and there's still no mention of the intermediate-level stuff that, from my point of view, is the most relevant to practicing mathematicians. – goblin GONE Oct 26 '19 at 02:36
  • @AndrésE.Caicedo, honestly, I think we need three tags, lets call them "basic set theory" (boolean algebra stuff, relations), "intermediate set theory" (cardinals, ordinals, computing the cardinality of things, the study of $\mathbf{Set}$, etc.) and "advanced set theory" (models of set theory, large cardinals, etc.) – goblin GONE Oct 26 '19 at 02:48
  • "In particular, there's no mention of cardinality". Cardinality is mentioned: "Topics include intersections and unions, De Morgan's laws, Venn diagrams, relations, functions, countability and uncountability, power sets, etc." – Andrés E. Caicedo Oct 26 '19 at 02:58
  • Hmmm. The version I see when I mouse over the tag doesn't say that. It just says: "This tag is for elementary questions on set theory, spanning topics usually found in introductory courses in set theory, in addition to review sections of graduate textbooks in the same field. Topics include intersections and unions, differences and complements, De Morgan's laws, Venn diagrams, relations, etc. More advanced topics should use (set-theory) instead." I don't understand how it's possible that we're looking at different descriptors. – goblin GONE Oct 26 '19 at 03:05
  • Yes, the more nuanced version doesn't fit in the alloted space. When you open the tag, there is a "learn more" button, and the more detailed version appears. It is a known problem for several tags. – Andrés E. Caicedo Oct 26 '19 at 03:08
  • (There are also tags for descriptive-set-theory and for alternative-set-theories, by the way.) – Andrés E. Caicedo Oct 26 '19 at 03:11

1 Answers1

7

Every endofunctor on $\mathbf{Set}_{< \aleph_1}$ has an initial algebra. To prove this, here's the key set-theoretical lemma:

Lemma: Let $T$ be an endofunctor on $\mathbf{Set}_{< \aleph_1}$ and let $A_0\subset A_1\subset A_2\subset\dots$ be a sequence of countably infinite sets with union $A$, such that $A_{n+1}\setminus A_n$ is infinite for each $n$. Then the natural map $\operatorname{colim}T(A_n)\to T(A)$ is surjective.

Proof: Suppose $\operatorname{colim}T(A_n)\to T(A)$ is not surjective. That is, there is some element of $T(A)$ that is not in the image of $T(A_n)\to T(A)$ for any $n$. For each $r\in\mathbb{R}$, let $C(r)=\{q\in\mathbb{Q}:q<r\}$, and pick an increasing sequence of rational numbers $(q_n)$ with limit $r$. We can then find a bijection $f:A\to C(r)$ such that $f(A_n)=C(q_n)$ for each $n$ (here we use the assumption that $A_{n+1}\setminus A_n$ is infinite for each $n$). So, there is some element $x_r\in T(C(r))$ which is not in the image of $T(C(q_n))$ for any $n$. It follows that $x_r$ is not in the image of $T(C(s))$ for any $s<r$.

Now let $y_r$ be the image of $x_r$ in $T(\mathbb{Q})$. By construction, $y_r$ is in the image of $T(C(r))\to T(\mathbb{Q})$ but is not in the image of $T(C(s))\to T(\mathbb{Q})$ for any $s<r$. Thus the elements $y_r\in T(\mathbb{Q})$ are all distinct. This is a contradiction, since $T(\mathbb{Q})$ must be countable.

From this lemma, we can deduce the following remarkable fact:

Theorem: Every endofunctor on $\mathbf{Set}_{< \aleph_1}$ preserves sequential colimits.

Proof: Let $T$ be an endofunctor on $\mathbf{Set}_{< \aleph_1}$. We first prove that $A_0\to A_1\to A_2\to\dots$ be a sequential diagram in $\mathbf{Set}_{< \aleph_1}$ with colimit $A$, then the natural map $\operatorname{colim} T(A_n)\to T(A)$ is surjective.

Note first that every surjection in $\mathbf{Set}_{< \aleph_1}$ splits and so $T$ preserves surjections. If the map $A_n\to A$ is surjective for some $n$, the conclusion is thus trivial. So we assume $A_n\to A$ is not surjective for any $n$. In particular, this means $A_n$ is nonempty for sufficiently large $n$, so we may assume $A_n$ is always nonempty. Passing to a subsequence, we may also assume that for each $n$, the image of $A_n$ in $A$ is strictly contained in the image of $A_{n+1}$ in $A$.

Now let $B=A\times\mathbb{N}$ and $B_n=A_n\times\mathbb{N}$. Note that our diagram $(A_n)$ is then a retract of the diagram $(B_n)$, and so the map $\operatorname{colim} T(A_n)\to T(A)$ is a retract of the map $\operatorname{colim} T(B_n)\to T(B)$. Since a retract of a surjection is surjective, it suffices to show $\operatorname{colim} T(B_n)\to T(B)$ is a surjection.

Now let $C_n$ be the image of $B_n$ in $B$. By our previous reductions, we know that each $C_n$ is infinite and that $C_{n+1}\setminus C_n$ is infinite for each $n$. By the Lemma, we conclude that the natural map $\operatorname{colim} T(C_n)\to T(B)$ is surjective. But we have surjections $B_n\to C_n$ compatible with the maps to $B$ for each $n$, and thus surjections $T(B_n)\to T(C_n)$ compatible with the maps to $T(B)$. It follows that $\operatorname{colim} T(B_n)\to T(B)$ is also surjective and thus so is $\operatorname{colim} T(A_n)\to T(A)$.

Note in particular that writing any countable set as a sequential colimit of finite subsets, we see that for any $A$ and any $x\in T(A)$, there is some finite $F\subseteq A$ such that $x$ is in the image of $T(F)\to T(A)$. We now use this to prove that for any sequential diagram $A_0\to A_1\to A_2\to\dots$ with colimit $A$, the natural map $\operatorname{colim} T(A_n)\to T(A)$ is also injective (and thus bijective, so $T$ preserves the colimit).

If $A$ is empty then so is every $A_n$ and the conclusion is trivial, so we assume $A$ is nonempty and then may also assume each $A_n$ is nonempty (if not just drop the finitely many empty terms from the sequence). Now suppose $x,y\in \operatorname{colim} T(A_n)$ have the same image in $T(A)$. There is $n$ such that $x$ and $y$ both lift to $T(A_n)$, and then a finite nonempty subset $F\subseteq A_n$ such that $x$ and $y$ both lift to $T(F)$. Since $F$ is finite, its image in $A_m$ for $m\geq n$ eventually stabilizes. That is, we can choose $m\geq n$ such that the natural map $F'\to A$ is injective, where $F'$ is the image of $F$ in $A_m$. Since $F'$ is nonempty, this injection splits, and so $T(F')\to T(A)$ is injective too. Since $x$ and $y$ have the same image in $T(A)$, their lifts to $T(F')$ must thus be equal. That means their lifts to $T(A_m)$ are equal, so $x$ and $y$ are equal in $\operatorname{colim} T(A_n)$.

It then follows that any endofunctor on $\mathbf{Set}_{< \aleph_1}$ has an initial algebra by Adámek's theorem. Explicitly, we define $A_n=T^n(\emptyset)$ for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$. There are canonical maps $A_n\to A_{n+1}$ given by applying $T^n$ to the unique map $\emptyset\to T(\emptyset)$. Letting $A=\operatorname{colim} A_n$, we also have $A\cong\operatorname{colim} T(A_n)$ since $T(A_n)=A_{n+1}$ and this is compatible with the maps in the system. Since $T$ preserves sequential colimits, the canonical map $A\cong\operatorname{colim} T(A_n)\to T(A)$ is an isomorphism, and its inverse gives a $T$-algebra structure $T(A)\to A$ on $A$, which can be shown to be initial.

Eric Wofsey
  • 330,363
  • Great argument! Did you come up with the key lemma for the purpose of answering this question, or does it (or something similar) appear elsewhere? – Alex Kruckman Oct 17 '19 at 02:27
  • 1
    @AlexKruckman: I came up with it for this. Of course the basic idea of using the order of $\mathbb{R}$ to get uncountably many things from a countable set comes up in a lot of places. – Eric Wofsey Oct 17 '19 at 02:38
  • Eric, do you know if there's any other cardinals beyond $\aleph_1$ for which this argument can be adapted, or is $\aleph_1$ special in this regard? – goblin GONE Oct 18 '19 at 03:04
  • @goblin: I wouldn't be surprised if it can be adapted to every regular cardinal, but I haven't thought through the details, and I also wouldn't be surprised if you end up needing some cardinal arithmetic assumptions (if so, I would expect GCH is sufficient). This question seems relevant to generalizing the Lemma. – Eric Wofsey Oct 18 '19 at 03:39
  • @EricWofsey, surely it can't be adapted to every regular cardinal assuming only ZFC, since ZFC can't disprove the existence of strongly inaccessible cardinals. I think you mean that it's possible that every regular cardinal that is not strongly inaccessible has this property. – goblin GONE Oct 18 '19 at 03:43
  • @goblin: Oh, hmmm, right, it's definitely false for inaccessibles. Yeah, the path to generalization I had in mind was tacitly assuming you had a successor cardinal. – Eric Wofsey Oct 18 '19 at 03:45
  • Or I guess more precisely in connection with the question I linked above, maybe what you need is that $\operatorname{ded}(\lambda)\geq\kappa$ for some $\lambda<\kappa$ (which is impossible for a strong limit cardinal but could hold for a weak inaccessible). – Eric Wofsey Oct 18 '19 at 03:47