Dear David, As usual, constructing colimits in Cat (and other concrete categories or 2-categories) is more difficult than constructing limits. As you suspected, a cocomma object over the initial object is just a coproduct. This is completely general, not just true in Cat. Seen as a general 2-categorical fact, it becomes the same fact that you mentioned: a comma object over a terminal object is just a product. I won't try to describe the general cocomma object, but another special case of a cocomma object is the *collage* of an arrow f:A-->B. This is the universal diagram containing arrows i:A->C and j:B->C and a 2-cell jf->i. It can be seen as a cocomma object of f and the identity 1_A. This special case is easy to describe in Cat. The object-set of C is the disjoint union of the object-sets of A and of B. A morphism in C between objects of A is a morphism in A; a morphism in C between objects of B is a morphism of B. There is a morphism fa->a for each a in A, and these are the only morphisms from objects of B to objects of A; there are no morphisms from objects of A to objects of B. (Thus the morphisms can be described by the 2x2 matrix with entries A, f, 0, B; this can be made precise if you think of the underlying span of a category as a matrix.) Steve Lack. On 30/10/2011, at 11:34 PM, David Leduc wrote:
Hi,
A comma category is a comma object in the 2-category Cat of categories and functors. And a comma object is defined by a universal property. Now, one can dualize the notion of comma object by turning around the 1-cells and/or 2-cells in its definition. My question is: when we instantiate those dualized definitions to Cat, what do we obtain? In other words, what is a "co-comma category"?
For example, since the product of two categories is a special case of comma category, I would expect that the coproduct of two categories is a special case of "co-comma category".
Thanks!
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]