9

Certain categories of mathematical structures have had synthetic axiom systems developed for them. One particularly well known such category is the category of sets and functions $\mathit{Set}$, which was axiomatised by William Lawvere as the Elementary Theory of the Category of Sets. More recently, Michael Shulman came up with axioms for the dagger category of sets and relations $\mathit{Rel}$ in his theory Sets, Elements, and Relations, and Chris Heunen and Andre Kornell came up with axioms for the dagger category of (real, complex) Hilbert spaces and continuous linear maps $\mathit{Hilb}$ in their article Axioms for the category of Hilbert spaces. Has anybody developed a synthetic set of axioms for the category of groups $\mathit{Grp}$ yet?

YCor
  • 60,149
  • 2
    It's a semiabelian category, to start. One could wonder what special properties is has in addition that singles it out among those. – David Roberts Oct 22 '22 at 07:19
  • 2
    One non-interesting possibility is to use a theorem of Kan that the category of cogroups in the category of groups is equivalent to the category of sets. So the axioms might be finite coproducts + the ETCS axioms on the category of internal cogroups. What seems to me interesting is which kind of categories are equivalent to the category of internal groups in the category of their internal cogroups. – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Oct 22 '22 at 11:27
  • 1
  • 4
    The most relevant answer I’ve seen appeared on MSE a few years back: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2332425/is-there-an-elementary-theory-of-the-category-of-groups – Kevin Carlson Oct 22 '22 at 22:31
  • 1
    @KevinArlin can you write an answer summarising the axioms, pointing to the MSE post? – David Roberts Oct 23 '22 at 08:32
  • 1
    @DavidRoberts Sure, I've posted it. – Kevin Carlson Oct 23 '22 at 19:49
  • Are the categories Set and Group unique up to equivalence? How does this relate to the fact models of ZFC are not unique, e.g, some satisfy CH and even GCH while others do not? GCH can be expressed categorically. – Jesse Elliott Oct 23 '22 at 23:54
  • @Jesse no, but you have to specify what you mean by "the category Set". For instance, taking the ETCS axioms doesn't give you a unique category, since any model of ZFC will give rise to a category of sets satisfying those axioms. You could take an inner model, or a forcing extension, or an end extension or whatever, and get very different categories. Even just on the category side, you can start with Set and build a new category satisfying the same ETCS axioms, but they are not equivalent. – David Roberts Oct 24 '22 at 11:42
  • @DavidRoberts. Why, then, does Lawvere say on the first page of his paper, "There is essentially only one category which satisfies these eight axioms together with the additional (nonelementary) axiom of completeness, namely, the category of sets and mappings"? And can ETCS replace ZFC as a foundation for pre-1950 mathematics? – Jesse Elliott Oct 24 '22 at 23:16
  • @JesseElliott Essentially is doing having lifting, here. And, you'll note, Lawvere says "with the additional... axiom of completeness". If you have a category of sets already, then you can talk about completeness with respect to colimits indexed by sets in it, and so pin down the category of sets up to equivalence, which is what Lawvere is meaning. But if you are talking about the first-order axiom system ETCS, it pins down the category of sets about as uniquely as the ZFC axioms pins down the universe $V$ of sets. 1/ – David Roberts Oct 24 '22 at 23:51
  • 1
    And, definitely, ETCS can replace ZFC for all mathematics that doesn't require instances of replacement, as ETCS is equivalent in strength to BZC. One can augment the original ETCS axioms (in the same style) to recover a system equivalent to ZFC itself. 2/2 – David Roberts Oct 24 '22 at 23:53
  • @DavidRoberts I browsed through several mentions of replacement here (including Andrej Bauer's 2013 and your 2015 questions about it) and on nLab, but could not pin down a definite reference for what you are saying. It must be hidden somewhere in a 2008 cat-dist thread, could you provide a link? – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Oct 27 '22 at 07:35
  • 1
    @მამუკაჯიბლაძე do you mean that one can augment the ETCS axioms to something equivalent to ZFC? There's work of McLarty, and also of Shulman, but also others. When I say "in the same style", I was being imprecise. What I meant was not just by appeal to something literally out of ZFC, but something that feels like category theory. There's a bunch of discussion here: https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2021/07/large_sets_125.html including stating the various versions – David Roberts Oct 27 '22 at 08:31
  • @მამუკაჯიბლაძე McLarty cites Osius' 1975 "Logical and set-theoretical tools in elementary topoi" in that 2008 thread as being an old source for the claim (presented via an alternative but apparently equivalent axiom scheme) that ETCS plus a replacement-style schema is in one sense equivalent to ZFC. He also points to his own 2004 "Exploring Categorical Structuralism". Does this help? – David Roberts Oct 27 '22 at 08:39
  • @DavidRoberts Thank you, it helps in the sense that all these are very interesting sources. On the other hand, I do not see how any of the axioms proposed there can be formulated in a category. I see how to do it with the axiomatization by Joyal & Moerdijk of classes of small-fibred maps, though. – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Oct 27 '22 at 11:05

3 Answers3

13

This is not really in the spirit of the examples you give but it is at least a set of purely categorical properties.

Proposition: A category $C$ is the category of models of a Lawvere theory iff it has reflexive coequalizers and there exists an object $P$ (the free object on one generator) such that the functor $U = \text{Hom}(P, -) : C \to \text{Set}$ preserves sifted colimits, is conservative, and has a left adjoint $F : \text{Set} \to C$.

Sketch. Since reflexive coequalizers are sifted colimits, by the crude monadicity theorem the adjunction $F \vdash U$ is monadic, so $C$ is the category of algebras over the monad $UF : \text{Set} \to \text{Set}$. Since $UF$ preserves sifted colimits, and in particular preserves filtered colimits, it is a finitary monad, and these are known to be equivalent to (the monads induced by) Lawvere theories, with the equivalence also sending categories of algebras to categories of models. $\Box$

This set of categorical properties could be replaced by other ones, e.g. we could replace "has a left adjoint" with hypotheses sufficient for the adjoint functor theorem, and/or use a characterization of categories monadic over $\text{Set}$ as the Barr exact categories with a compact regular-projective generator $P$. But 1) the generator of the category of models of a Lawvere theory given by the free object on one generator always satisfies the stronger property above that $\text{Hom}(P, -)$ preserves sifted, not just filtered, colimits, and 2) because reflexive coequalizers are sifted colimits, this lets us apply the crude monadicity theorem without needing to know anything else about the behavior of coequalizers. So I think this characterization is a bit simpler.

Now $\text{Grp}$ can be isolated as the category satisfying the above properties such that the monad $UF$ is the free group monad. I don't expect this to be particularly satisfying but it does at least establish that $\text{Grp}$ can be isolated among all categories via categorical properties.

Edit: Philosophically I think the category of groups is less interesting to ask for a synthetic theory of compared to the examples you give of sets and Hilbert spaces. Sets and Hilbert spaces are both categories in which interesting stuff "takes place" while I don't think the category of groups is really like this. I think a more interesting question would be to ask for a synthetic theory of the $2$-category of groupoids, along the lines of homotopy type theory as a synthetic category of the $\infty$-category of $\infty$-groupoids. This is more of a "spatial" category, much closer in behavior to $\text{Set}$ (e.g. it is now distributive), and a category in which stuff can "take place."

The category of groups isn't that great anyway; some important constructions on groups cannot be understood in terms of it, e.g. the semidirect product and HNN extensions. The $2$-category of groupoids is capable of expressing both of these and more as homotopy colimits. It also naturally provides a home for the center, the outer automorphism group, the classification of arbitrary group extensions, the classification of projective representations...

Qiaochu Yuan
  • 114,941
  • 2
    Groupoids are the types that satisfy UIP, so we know how to give a type-theoretic account of them, which however is not in the spirit of the question. – Andrej Bauer Oct 22 '22 at 09:33
  • 1
    There is actually some litterature about interpreting classical group construction in terms of the category of groups, and other interesting properties of the category of groups. Like a category theoretic account of the Automorphism group of a group, or semi-direct product. This is studied by people working with things like protomodular, semi-abelian, or Mal'cev categories. I'm not very familiar with these topic but this book https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4020-1962-3 is probably a good starting place - chapter 5 has a discussion of semi-direct product. – Simon Henry Nov 09 '22 at 16:40
10

As requested, here is an answer summarizing axioms for the category of groups that were given by Pierre Leroux, and which I learned from an MSE answer of Arnaud D. The category of groups is the unique category $C$ with the following properties:

  1. It has all limits and colimits, and a zero object.
  2. It has as a full subcategory $C_Z$ a category closed under coproducts and containing a cogroup $Z,$ and generated by the morphisms required by those properties.
  3. $C_Z$ is closed under subobjects in $C.$
  4. $Z$ is a regular-projective generator of $C.$
  5. Every inclusion of the equivalence class of $0$ in an equivalence relation on an object of $C$ is a normal monomorphism.
  6. Every object of $C$ is a subobject of a simple object.
Kevin Carlson
  • 2,964
  • 1
  • 20
  • 22
  • Thanks Kevin, this will allow the OP the chance to accept an actual answer to the question. – David Roberts Oct 23 '22 at 20:36
  • This is a very neat answer but it somehow smuggles in groups through that $Z$... – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Oct 27 '22 at 07:22
  • 1
    @მამუკაჯიბლაძე Yes, though to be fair, characterizations of the category of sets also involve assuming the terminal object is a co-set object! Anyway I do think things like the characterization of categories of Hilbert spaces mentioned in the OP are strictly "better" than this one for that reason. – Kevin Carlson Oct 27 '22 at 16:58
2

The category of groups is the universal example of a cocomplete category equipped with a cogroup object. A similar statement holds for other types of algebraic structures. This is due to Freyd. See also my paper on limit sketches for a generalization.

This doesn't describe the category of groups internally of course, but rather by its relation to other cocomplete categories.

The category of sets is the cocomplete category freely generated by one object.