nLab
sieve

Context

Category Theory

Topos Theory

topos theory

Background

Toposes

Internal Logic

Topos morphisms

Extra stuff, structure, properties

Cohomology and homotopy

In higher category theory

Theorems

Contents

Idea

The notion of sieve is a generalization of that of (right) ideal in a monoid from monoids to categories: a sieve on an object XX in a category 𝒞\mathcal{C} is a collection of morphisms with codomain XX that are closed under precomposition with morphisms in 𝒞\mathcal{C}.

Sometimes one says that a sieve in a category 𝒞\mathcal{C} is a full subcategory closed under precomposition with morphisms in 𝒞\mathcal{C} (Lurie, def. 6.2.2.1). If so, then a sieve on an object XX is a sieve in the slice category 𝒞 /X\mathcal{C}_{/X}. But a sieve in a category is also naturally taken to be a collection of sieves on various objects. On the other hand, most authors speak just about sieves on an object anyway.

Sieves on objects are an equivalent way to talk about subobjects of representable functors in a presheaf category in terms of the total sets of elements of such a subfunctor.

The notion of sieve is usually used when certain such subobjects are singled out as covers of a (sifted) coverage: the singled out subobjects then correspond to covering sieves. Accordingly, the classical examples ofsieves on_ an object are Grothendieck topologies, used to present the presheaves that behave like coverings. They are used to say which presheaves are actually sheaves with respect to a given coverage or Grothendieck topology.

A choice of collections of morphism dcd \to c into an object cCc \in C for each dCd \in C reminds one of the representable functor presheaf Y(c):=hom C(,c):C opSetY(c) := \hom_C(-, c): C^{op} \to Set which assigns to each dCd \in C the set of all morphisms from dd to cc. Every choice of covers of cc is therefore for each dCd \in C a subset of the value of this functor evaluated at dd. This begins to look like an monic natural transformation into this functor. Indeed, it turns out that one can assume without restriction of generality that the assignment of covers of cc can always be extended to such a monic natural transformation, and hence one formalizes the notion of “collection of covers” of cc as a subobject i:Fhom(,c)i: F \hookrightarrow \hom(-, c) of the functor represented by cc: a sieve at cc.

A dual notion is a cosieve.

Definition

Let CC be a small category.

Definition

A sieve SS in CC is a functor SCS \hookrightarrow C that is both fully faithful and a discrete fibration.

A sieve on an object cCc \in C is a sieve in the slice category C/cC/c.

Spelling this out, we arrive at the traditional definition of a sieve on an object:

Definition

A sieve SS on an object cCc \in C is a subset SOb(C/c)S \subset Ob(C/c) of the set of objects of the over category over cc which is closed under precomposition: it has the property that whenever (dc)S(d \to c) \in S and (ed)Mor(C)(e \to d) \in Mor(C) then the composition (edc)(e \to d \to c) is in SS.

Remark

This is probably called a sieve because it “sifts out” the ‘special’ maps into cc from the set of all maps into cc. (Note that ‘sieve’ is the noun, while ‘sift’ is the verb.)

The French term for a sieve is crible.

Remark

Sometimes the condition of a sieve being closed under the operation of precomposing with an arbitrary morphism g:edg: e \to d is called a “saturation condition”. Given any collection of morphisms targeted at cc, one can always close it up, or saturate it, to obtain a sieve on cc.

Properties

Relation to subfunctors

There is a canonical way to create subfunctors from sieves and sieves from subfunctors.

A subfunctor is a subobject in a functor category. Here, specifically, one is interested in subobjects in a presheaf category of representable functors. It’s these subfunctors of representable functors that are in bijection with sieves.

Definition

Given a sieve SS on cc, the subfunctor F SY(c)F_S \hookrightarrow Y(c) defined by the sieve is the presheaf

  • that assigns to each object dCd \in C the set F S(d)={(dc)S}F_S(d) = \{(d \to c) \in S\};

  • that assigns to each morphism (dd)C(d \to d') \in C the function F S(d)F S(d)F_S(d') \to F_S(d) induced on elements by precomposition with ddd \to d'.

Definition

Given a subfunctor FY(c)F \hookrightarrow Y(c), the sieve defined by the subfunctor is given by

  • S F:={g:dcMor(C)Y(d)Y(g)Y(c)=Y(d)FY(c)}S_F := \{g: d \to c \in Mor(C) | Y(d) \stackrel{Y(g)}\to Y(c) = Y(d) \to F \to Y(c) \}

or equivalently

  • S F= dObj(C)F(d)S_F = \coprod_{d \in Obj(C)}F(d).
Lemma

These two definitions establish a bijection between sieves on cc and subobjects of Y(c)Y(c).

For every sieve SS we have

S F S=S S_{F_S} = S

and for every subfunctor we have

F S F=F. F_{S_F} = F \,.
Remarks
  • The construction of S FS_F makes sense for every morphism of presheaves FY(c)F \to Y(c). The sieve is sensitive precisely to the image of this map,

    S F=S im(FY(c)). S_{F} = S_{im (F \to Y(c))} \,.
  • In the presence of a Grothendieck topology a morphism FY(c)F \to Y(c) is sometimes called a local epimorphism if the sieve S FS_F is a covering sieve. If FY(c)F \to Y(c) is actually a subfunctor, then it is called a dense monomorphism.

  • The pullback of a subfunctor i:F SY(c)=hom(,c)i: F_S \hookrightarrow Y(c) = \hom(-, c) along any morphism hom(,g):hom(,d)hom(,c)\hom(-, g): \hom(-, d) \to \hom(-, c) is again a subfunctor g *Fg^* F of dd, hence sieves are closed under pulling back. Concretely,

    g *S= eOb(C){f:ed:gfS}.g^* S = \bigcup_{e \in Ob(C)} \{f: e \to d: g f \in S\} \,.
  • A sieve S FS_F on cc, for i:Fhom(,c)i: F \hookrightarrow \hom(-, c) a subfunctor, may be described as a function which assigns to each object dd a collection of morphisms f:dcf: d \to c into cc. Naturality of the inclusion ii means that whenever f:dcf: d \to c belongs to the sieve and g:edg: e \to d is any morphism, then fg:ecf g: e \to c also belongs to the sieve.

Lemma

The subfunctor F SXF_S \hookrightarrow X corresponding to a sieve SS is the coimage of the morphism out of the disjoint union of all objects (regarded as representable presheaves) in the sieve:

(U= (U αX)SU α)X (U = \coprod_{(U_\alpha \to X) \in S} U_\alpha) \to X

in that

(F SX)=((colim(U× XUU)X). (F_S \to X) = ((colim(U \times_X U \stackrel{\to}{\to} U) \to X) \,.

If the sieve is generated by (is the saturation of) a collection of morphisms {U αU}\{U_\alpha \to U\} then the same statement remains true with UU being the coproduct over just these U αU_\alpha.

Proof

As described at limits and colimits by example, the colimit of presheaves may be computed objectwise in SetSet. Doing so and using the Yoneda lemma tells us that for each object VV we have

colim(U× XUU)(V) colim(Hom(V,U× XU)Hom(V,U)) colim(Hom(V,U)× Hom(U,X)Hom(V,U)Hom(V,U)) \begin{aligned} colim(U \times_X U \stackrel{\to}{\to} U)(V) & \simeq colim(Hom(V,U \times_X U) \stackrel{\to}{\to} Hom(V,U)) \\ & \simeq colim( Hom(V,U) \times_{Hom(U,X)} Hom(V,U) \stackrel{\to}{\to} Hom(V,U)) \end{aligned}

where all objects appearing (at least in the first lines) are implicitly regarded as presheaves under the Yoneda embedding.

But this colimit now manifestly computes the set

{mapsfromVtoXthatfactorthroughU} \{ maps from V to X that factor through U\}_\sim

where the equivalence relation is

((fUX)(gUX))(fandgcoincideasmapstoX). ((f \to U \to X) \sim (g \to U \to X)) \Leftrightarrow (f and g coincide as maps to X) \,.

So the set is just the set of maps from VV to XX that factor through one of the U αU_\alpha, which is precisely the set F S(V)F_S(V) assigned by the subfunctor corresponding to the sieve.

Sieves as covers

Introduction and overview

The following is a pedagogical step-by-step description of the crucial aspects of sieves as covers.

To start with the simplest example that already contains in it all the relevant aspects, consider a topological space XX with an open subset VXV \subset X that is covered by two open subsets U 1,U 2XU_1, U_2 \subset X in that the union U 1U 2U_1 \cup U_2 in XX coincides with VV:

U 1U 2=V. U_1 \cup U_2 = V \,.

This is the coproduct in the category of open subsets of XX, but that behaves very differently from the disjoint coproducts that we are used to from categories like Set. On the other hand, when one comes to a category of presheaves or sheaves (a Grothendieck topos), this topos does have disjoint coproducts.

Another way to think of this is obtained by first forming the fiber product of U 1U_1 with U 2U_2 over VV in Op(X)Op(X), which is the intersection U 1U 2U_1 \cap U_2 sitting in the pullback diagram

U 1× VU 2 U 1 U 2 V \array{ U_1 \times_V U_2 &\to& U_1 \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ U_2 &\to& V }

in Op(X)Op(X).

The union U 1U 2U_1 \cup U_2 is again obtained from this by removing in the above diagram the bottom right corner and then forming the pushout over the resulting diagram: this is again VV, i.e. the diagram

U 1× VU 2 U 1 U 2 U 1U 2=V \array{ U_1 \times_V U_2 &\to& U_1 \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ U_2 &\to& U_1 \cup U_2 = V }

is not only a pullback also a pushout diagram.

The important point about (covering) sieves is that they show up when the above situation is sent via the Yoneda embedding from Op(X)Op(X) to presheaves on Op(X)Op(X). The crucial aspect here that gives rise to the peculiarities of sieves is that

As a result, the above discussion goes through equivalently for the presheaves represented by our open subsets all the way up to the last pushout. In Op(X)Op(X) that last pushout reproduced the open subset VV. In PSh(X)=[Op(X) op,Set]PSh(X) = [Op(X)^{op}, Set] it instead reproduces the sieve on VV generated by U 1U_1 and U 2U_2.

Let’s go through this in detail. First of all notice that in PSh(X)PSh(X) all limits and colimits do exist (see limits and colimits by example for more on that); in particular the coproduct

Y(U 1)⨿Y(U 2) Y(U_1) \amalg Y(U_2)

exists. Here YY denotes the Yoneda embedding which we here indicate explicitly, even though often and elsewhere, notably elsewhere in this entry here, it is notationally suppressed.

For the following it is helpful to say explicitly what the presheaf Y(U 1)⨿Y(U 2)Y(U_1) \amalg Y(U_2) is like. Since, as described at limits and colimits by example, colimits of presheaves are computed objectwise, we know that this presheaf evaluated on any open set WXW \subset X yields the set

(Y(U 1)⨿Y(U 2))(W) =Y(U 1)(W)⨿Y(U 2)(W) =Hom(W,U 1)⨿Hom(W,U 2), \begin{aligned} (Y(U_1) \amalg Y(U_2))(W) &= Y(U_1)(W) \amalg Y(U_2)(W) \\ &= Hom(W,U_1) \amalg Hom(W, U_2) \end{aligned} \,,

where the coproducts on the right are just those in Set which are just ordinary disjoint unions of sets.

So this says that Y(U 1)⨿Y(U 2)Y(U_1) \amalg Y(U_2) is the presheaf that assigns to any open set WW the disjoint union of the collections of maps from WW to U 1U_1 and those from WW to U 2U_2 in XX. (Since Op(X)Op(X) is a poset there is either none or one such map in each case, but it is helpful to speak generally of “sets of all maps”, since that is the general intuition useful for presheaf categories. Op(X)Op(X) just happens to be a particularly simple example.)

Notice that in particular a given map WVW \to V which factors both through U 1VU_1 \to V as well as through U 2VU_2 \to V will appear as two distinct elements in the set (Y(U 1)⨿Y(U 2))(W)(Y(U_1) \amalg Y(U_2))(W). This we’ll come back to in a minute.

But first consider the fiber product from before, now after having applied the Yoneda embedding. Since we know from general nonsense that this preserves fiber products, we know that the pullback presheaf Y(U 1)× Y(V)Y(U 2)Y(U_1) \times_{Y(V)} Y(U_2) in

Y(U 1)× Y(V)Y(U 2) Y(U 2) Y(U 1) Y(V) \array{ Y(U_1) \times_{Y(V)} Y(U_2) &\to& Y(U_2) \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ Y(U_1) &\to& Y(V) }

is the same as Y(U 1× VU 2)=Y(U 1U 2)Y(U_1 \times_V U_2) = Y(U_1 \cap U_2).

But this is also easily checked explicitly. We go through this because this kind of reasoning for computing limits and colimits of presheaves will be needed throughout here: since for any WW the covariant hom-functor Psh(Y(W),):PshPShPsh(Y(W),-) : Psh \to PSh preserves limits (by the very definition of limit!) we have for every WW a pullback diagram of sets

Hom(Y(W),Y(U 1)× Y(V)Y(U 2)) Hom(Y(W),Y(U 2)) Hom(Y(W),Y(U 1)) Hom(Y(W),Y(V)) \array{ Hom(Y(W),Y(U_1) \times_{Y(V)} Y(U_2)) &\to& Hom(Y(W),Y(U_2)) \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ Hom(Y(W),Y(U_1)) &\to& Hom(Y(W),Y(V)) }

Again by the Yoneda lemma this is simply

(Y(U 1)× Y(V)Y(U 2))(W) Hom(W,U 2) Hom(W,U 1) Hom(W,V). \array{ (Y(U_1) \times_{Y(V)} Y(U_2) )(W) &\to& Hom(W,U_2) \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ Hom(W,U_1) &\to& Hom(W,V) } \,.

This being a pullback diagram now says in words:

The set (Y(U 1)× Y(V)Y(U 2))(W)(Y(U_1) \times_{Y(V)} Y(U_2) )(W) is the set of those pairs of maps WU 1W \to U_1 and WU 2W \to U_2 that coincide as maps WU 1VW \to U_1 \to V and WU 2VW \to U_2 \to V to VV.

Clearly, this set is the same as the set of maps into the intersection U 1U 2U_1 \cap U_2, so indeed

Y(U 1)× Y(V)Y(U 2)=Y(U 1× VU 2)=Y(U 1U 2). Y(U_1) \times_{Y(V)} Y(U_2) = Y(U_1 \times_V U_2) = Y(U_1 \cap U_2) \,.

So far so long-winded. Now let’s see what happens when we now form the pushout over

Y(U 1× VU 2) Y(U 2) Y(U 1) \array{ Y(U_1 \times_V U_2) &\to& Y(U_2) \\ \downarrow \\ Y(U_1) }

that will go, for a moment, by its canonical but lenghty name Y(U 1) Y(U 1× VU 2)Y(U 2) Y(U_1) \coprod_{Y(U_1 \times_V U_2)} Y(U_2)

Y(U 1× VU 2) Y(U 2) Y(U 1) Y(U 1) Y(U 1× VU 2)Y(U 2). \array{ Y(U_1 \times_V U_2) &\to& Y(U_2) \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ Y(U_1) &\to& Y(U_1) \coprod_{Y(U_1 \times_V U_2)} Y(U_2) } \,.

Again, we can figure out what this presheaf is by computing objectwise what it does to any open subset WW: since colimits of presheaves are computed objectwise, the diagram

Hom(W,U 1× VU 2) Hom(W,U 2) Hom(W,U 1) (Y(U 1) Y(U 1× VU 2)Y(U 2))(W) \array{ Hom(W, U_1 \times_V U_2) &\to& Hom(W, U_2) \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ Hom(W,U_1) &\to& (Y(U_1) \coprod_{Y(U_1 \times_V U_2)} Y(U_2))(W) }

must be a colimit in Set. Again, this is easily read out in words:

The set (Y(U 1) Y(U 1× VU 2)Y(U 2))(W)(Y(U_1) \coprod_{Y(U_1 \times_V U_2)} Y(U_2))(W) is the quotient of the disjoint union of the collection of maps from WW into U 1U_1 and those from WW into U 2U_2, by the equivalence relation which identifies two such maps WU 1W \to U_1 and WU 2W \to U_2 if they both factor through a map WU 1× XU 2W \to U_1 \times_X U_2, i.e. if they both land in the intersection U 1U 2U_1 \cap U_2 and coincide there.

But this just means that contrary to the plain coproduct Y(U 1)⨿Y(U 2)Y(U_1) \amalg Y(U_2), two maps WU 1W \to U_1 and WU 2W \to U_2 that coincide as maps WXW \to X are no longer regarded as different elements of our set given by the pushout presheaf, but are regarded as being the same.

So this means we find that

(Y(U 1) Y(U 1× VU 2)Y(U 2))(W)={mapsWVthatfactorthrougheitherU 1orU 2}. (Y(U_1) \coprod_{Y(U_1 \times_V U_2)} Y(U_2))(W) = \{ maps W \to V that factor through either U_1 or U_2 \} \,.

But this is by definition the assignment of the subfunctor coresponding to the sieve on VV generated by U 1VU_1 \to V and U 2VU_2 \to V.

So we find that

F sieve(U 1,U 2)=Y(U 1) Y(U 1× VU 2)Y(U 2). F_{sieve(U_1,U_2)} = Y(U_1) \coprod_{Y(U_1 \times_V U_2)} Y(U_2) \,.

Given that we made it to this point, we should go one small step further that will be very useful.

In the present simple example we worked with a cover given by just two objects U 1U_1 and U 2U_2. Of course in general the cover will consist of more than just two objects. Then the above kind of notation becomes a bit cumbersome. But there is a simple reformulation that makes everything look nice again.

Namely, let’s come back to the observation that the coproduct Y(U 1)⨿Y(U 2)Y(U_1) \amalg Y(U_2) does exist. Let’s just call this presheaf U\mathbf{U}. (not in general a representable!).

Then it is easy to see by the same kind of objectwise reasoning that the colimiting presheaf that we are after is equivalently the colimit over the pair of parallel morphisms

U× Y(V)Up 1p 2U \mathbf{U} \times_{Y(V)} \mathbf{U} \stackrel{\stackrel{p_2}{\to}}{\stackrel{p_1}{\to}} \mathbf{U}

in that

F sieve(U 1,U 2)colim(U× Y(V)Up 1p 2U). F_{sieve(U_1,U_2)} \simeq colim ( \mathbf{U} \times_{Y(V)} \mathbf{U} \stackrel{\stackrel{p_2}{\to}}{\stackrel{p_1}{\to}} \mathbf{U} ) \,.

This description now has an evident direct generalization to the case where instead of just U 1VU_1 \to V and U 2VU_2 \to V we have an arbitrary collection {U iV}\{U_i \to V\} of open sets UU covering VV. One finds again with

U:= iY(U(i)) \mathbf{U} := \coprod_i Y(U(i))

that

F sieve({U i})colim(U× Y(V)Up 1p 2U) F_{sieve(\{U_i\})} \simeq colim ( \mathbf{U} \times_{Y(V)} \mathbf{U} \stackrel{\stackrel{p_2}{\to}}{\stackrel{p_1}{\to}} \mathbf{U} )

is the presheaf that to every WW assigns the set of all maps WVW \to V that factor through any one of the U iU_i.

It is in this way that sieves and their associated subfunctors encapsulate the notion of cover of an object VV: they tell us which of all the maps into VV do factor through the cover.

And, to end this pedagocial piece with an outlook to indicate the gain in understanding this achieves:

once we start forming U× Y(V)UU\mathbf{U} \times_{Y(V)} \mathbf{U} \stackrel{\to}{\to} \mathbf{U} there is no stopping. We can keep forming higher and higher such fiber products

U× Y(V)U× Y(V)U× Y(V)UU× Y(V)U× Y(V)UU× Y(V)UU. \cdots \mathbf{U} \times_{Y(V)} \mathbf{U} \times_{Y(V)} \mathbf{U} \times_{Y(V)} \mathbf{U} \stackrel{\to}{\stackrel{\to}{\stackrel{\to}{\to}}} \mathbf{U} \times_{Y(V)} \mathbf{U} \times_{Y(V)} \mathbf{U} \stackrel{\to}{\stackrel{\to}{\to}} \mathbf{U} \times_{Y(V)} \mathbf{U} \stackrel{\to}{\to} \mathbf{U} \,.

When one passes from just presheaves to (∞,1)-presheaves, then covering presheaves will be given by the right kind of colimit over these simplicial diagrams (namely the homotopy colimit). More on that is at descent.

The sheaf condition from morphisms out of a sieve

We now show that the subfunctor F SF_S associated with a sieve SS coming from a cover {U iX}\{U_i \to X\} is the right kind of morphism to require a sheaf to be a local object for, by demonstrating that using it the usual sheaf condition on a presheaf with respect to the cover iU i\coprod_i U_i is reproduced:

From the above detailed discuss recall that F sieve({U i})F_{sieve(\{U_i\})} is precisely the coequalizer of the obvious pair of morphisms

i,jhom(,U iU j) ihom(,U i) \coprod_{i, j} \hom(-, U_i \cap U_j) \stackrel{\to}{\to} \coprod_i hom(-, U_i)

with hom(,U i):=Y(U i)hom(-, U_i) := Y(U_i) denoting the presheaf represented under the Yoneda embedding by U iU_i, as usual.

Here the domain of this parallel pair is the pullback of the evident map ihom(,U i)hom(,X)\coprod_i hom(-, U_i) \to hom(-,X)
along itself, and the two parallel arrows are the projection maps out of this pullback:

i,jhom(,U iU j) ihom(,U j) ihom(,U i) hom(,X) \array{ \coprod_{i,j} hom(-,U_i \cap U_j) &\to& \coprod_i hom(-, U_j) \\ \downarrow && \downarrow \\ \coprod_i hom(-, U_i) &\to& hom(-,X) }

Thus for GG any presheaf, maps FGF \to G are precisely the same as maps ihom(,U i)G\coprod_i \hom(-, U_i) \to G which coequalize the parallel pair. Applying Hom Set C op(,G)Hom_{Set^{C^{op}}}(-,G) to the colimit diagram

i,jhom(,U iU j) ihom(,U i)F \coprod_{i, j} \hom(-, U_i \cap U_j) \stackrel{\to}{\to} \coprod_i hom(-, U_i) \to F

yields the limit diagram

Hom(F,G)Hom( ihom(,U i),G)Hom( i,jhom(,U iU j),G) Hom(F, G) \to Hom(\coprod_i hom(-, U_i), G) \stackrel{\to}{\to} Hom(\coprod_{i, j} \hom(-, U_i \cap U_j), G)

which using Yoneda is the equalizer diagram

Hom(F,G) iG(U i) i,jG(U iU j) Hom(F,G) \to \prod_i G(U_i) \stackrel{\to}{\to} \prod_{i, j} G(U_i \cap U_j)

and hence identifies Hom(F,G)Hom(F,G) indeed as the set of descent data for the sheaf condition on GG.

Examples

  • For XX a topological space let Op(X)Op(X) be the category of open subsets of XX and consider presheaves PSh(X):=[Op(X) op,Set]PSh(X) := [Op(X)^{op}, Set] on XX. For any open subset c=VOp(X)c = V \in Op(X) let {d i}={U i}\{d_i\} = \{U_i\} be a cover of VV by open subsets U iU_i in the ordinary sense (i.e. each U iU_i is an open subset of VV and their joint union is VV, iU i=V\bigcup_i U_i = V), then π:( iY(U i)) iU i iXY(V)\pi : (\coprod_i Y(U_i)) \stackrel{\coprod_i U_i \hookrightarrow_i X}{\to} Y(V) (with YY the Yoneda embedding) is a local epimorphism of presheaves on VV and its image – or equivalently its coimage – is the subfunctor (F:= iY(U i))Y(V)(F := \bigcup_i Y(U_i)) \hookrightarrow Y(V) that sends each WOp(X)W \in Op(X) to the set of maps WVW \to V that factor through one of the U iU_i. The collection of all such maps for all choice of WW is the corresponding covering sieve {f:WVMor(S)f=WU iV}\{ f : W \to V \in Mor(S) \;|\; f = W \to U_i \to V \}.

  • The situation for more general sites SS other than Op(X)Op(X) is literally the same as above, with U i,W,VU_i, W, V etc. objects of SS.

References

A standard textbook account on sieves in category theory is in

In the context of (∞,1)-categories sieves are discussed around def. 6.2.2.1 of

Revised on May 14, 2013 12:11:00 by Anonymous Coward (137.132.3.9)