Representable Functors
The previous page left a promise unredeemed. Each object \(A\) of a locally small category was to
be probed by the functor \(\mathscr{A}(A, -)\) that records all the maps out of it, turning the
object into the data of its relationships. It is time to make the construction precise and to ask
the question it forces: which set-valued functors arise this way? The functors naturally isomorphic
to an object's web of outgoing maps are the representable ones, and they are the
second route, after adjunctions, to the idea of a universal property.
The functor of maps out of an object
Fix an object \(A\) of a category \(\mathscr{A}\). To each object \(B\) assign the set
\(\mathscr{A}(A, B)\) of maps from \(A\) to \(B\). This assignment is functorial in \(B\). A map
\(g : B \to B'\) acts on a map \(p : A \to B\) without any choice, since there is exactly one thing
to do with \(p\), namely follow it by \(g\). Post-composition by \(g\) thus carries
\(\mathscr{A}(A, B)\) into \(\mathscr{A}(A, B')\).
Definition: Covariant Hom-Functor
Let \(\mathscr{A}\) be a
locally small
category and \(A\) an object of \(\mathscr{A}\). The covariant hom-functor
\[
H^A = \mathscr{A}(A, -) : \mathscr{A} \to \mathbf{Set}
\]
is defined on objects by \(H^A(B) = \mathscr{A}(A, B)\), and on a map \(g : B \to B'\) by
post-composition,
\[
H^A(g) = \mathscr{A}(A, g) : \mathscr{A}(A, B) \to \mathscr{A}(A, B'),
\quad p \mapsto g \circ p .
\]
Local smallness is exactly the hypothesis that each \(\mathscr{A}(A, B)\) is a genuine set, so
that the values lie in \(\mathbf{Set}\). The map \(H^A(g)\) is also written \(g \circ -\) or
\(g_*\).
That \(H^A\) is a
functor
is a one-line check. Identities are preserved because \(H^A(1_B)\) sends \(p\) to
\(1_B \circ p = p\), so \(H^A(1_B) = 1_{\mathscr{A}(A,B)}\). Composition is preserved because for
\(g : B \to B'\) and \(h : B' \to B''\), applying \(H^A(h) \circ H^A(g)\) to \(p\) yields
\(h \circ (g \circ p)\), which by associativity equals \((h \circ g) \circ p = H^A(h \circ g)(p)\).
The single fact that composition is associative is what makes post-composition functorial. Nothing
about the particular category \(\mathscr{A}\) is used.
Representability
Definition: Representable Functor
Let \(\mathscr{A}\) be a locally small category. A functor
\(X : \mathscr{A} \to \mathbf{Set}\) is representable if \(X \cong H^A\) for
some object \(A \in \mathscr{A}\), where \(\cong\) denotes
natural isomorphism.
A representation of \(X\) is a choice of an object \(A\) together with a
natural isomorphism \(H^A \xrightarrow{\sim} X\). Only functors with codomain
\(\mathbf{Set}\), the set-valued functors, can be representable, since \(H^A\) lands in
\(\mathbf{Set}\) by construction.
One should not expect a functor picked at random to be representable. The interest of the notion
lies in how often the functors that arise in practice turn out to be representable after all.
The forgetful functors, which strip structure from an object and return its underlying set, are
the leading examples.
The smallest examples
Take \(\mathscr{A} = \mathbf{Set}\) itself and let \(A = 1\) be a one-element set. A map
\(1 \to B\) is precisely a choice of one element of \(B\), so \(H^1(B) = \mathbf{Set}(1, B)\) is in
bijection with \(B\). In this sense the
terminal set
sees each set as its own collection of points. The bijection is natural in \(B\), because a map
\(g : B \to B'\) acts on both sides by applying \(g\) to the chosen element, so \(H^1\) is
naturally isomorphic to the identity functor \(1_{\mathbf{Set}}\). The identity functor on
\(\mathbf{Set}\) is therefore representable, represented by the one-element set. The observation
that an element of a set is the same thing as a map out of \(1\) was made on the previous page, and
here it is promoted to a natural isomorphism of functors.
The pattern extends to the forgetful functors. The functor \(\mathbf{Top} \to \mathbf{Set}\) that
forgets a topology is naturally isomorphic to \(\mathbf{Top}(1, -)\), where \(1\) is the one-point
space, because a continuous map from a one-point space into \(X\) is just a point of \(X\). The
functor \(\mathbf{Grp} \to \mathbf{Set}\) forgetting the group structure is
\(\mathbf{Grp}(\mathbb{Z}, -)\), because a homomorphism out of the infinite cyclic group is
determined freely by where the generator goes, hence by an arbitrary element of the target group.
In each case a single chosen object, the one-point space or the integers, represents the operation
of reading off the underlying set.
Representables among structured categories
Beyond the underlying-set functors, representables turn up wherever a construction is governed by a
universal property. Fixing two finite-dimensional real vector spaces \(U\) and \(V\), consider the
functor \(\mathbf{Vect}_{\mathbb{R}} \to \mathbf{Set}\) whose value at \(W\) is the set of bilinear
maps \(U \times V \to W\). This functor is representable. There is a space \(T\) and a natural
isomorphism between the bilinear maps out of \(U \times V\) and the linear maps out of \(T\),
\[
\{\text{bilinear } U \times V \to W\} \cong \mathbf{Vect}_{\mathbb{R}}(T, W),
\quad \text{natural in } W .
\]
The representing object \(T\) is the
tensor product
\(U \otimes V\), and the natural isomorphism above is precisely its universal property, met earlier
as the statement that bilinear maps out of a product factor uniquely through the tensor product.
Naturality in \(W\) is the uniqueness clause of that property. For a linear map \(\ell : W \to W'\)
and a bilinear map \(\beta\) with linear factorization \(\widetilde{\beta}\), both
\(\ell \circ \widetilde{\beta}\) and the factorization of \(\ell \circ \beta\) are linear maps
out of \(U \otimes V\) that agree with \(\ell \circ \beta\) on the image of \(U \times V\), so
they coincide.
What was then phrased as a universal mapping property is, in the present language, the single
assertion that a certain functor is representable, with \(U \otimes V\) the representing object.
The basic spaces met across these pages furnish further instances. In the category of based spaces,
the based maps from the circle into a space \(X\) form the underlying set of its loop space
\(\Omega X\), so the functor sending \(X\) to its set of loops is represented by the circle. In the
based homotopy category, where maps are taken up to based homotopy, this same circle represents the
fundamental group
\(\pi_1(X)\), whose elements are the homotopy classes of those loops. These examples share one
shape. In each, a functor that looked like a free-standing construction is unmasked as the maps out
of one well-chosen object.
Seeing and Being Seen
The examples just gathered were not produced one at a time by luck. The forgetful functors share a
feature that forces representability on them, and naming that feature converts a list of instances
into a theorem. The feature is the possession of a left adjoint.
Adjoints produce representables
Recall that an
adjunction
\(F \dashv G\) supplies a bijection \(\mathscr{B}(F A, B) \cong \mathscr{A}(A, G B)\) natural in
both arguments. Reading it with \(A\) fixed and \(B\) varying exhibits the composite
\(\mathscr{A}(A, G(-))\) as a hom-functor in disguise.
Lemma: Adjoints Give Rise to Representables
Let \(\mathscr{A}\) and \(\mathscr{B}\) be locally small categories, let
\(F : \mathscr{A} \to \mathscr{B}\) be left adjoint to \(G : \mathscr{B} \to \mathscr{A}\), and
fix an object \(A \in \mathscr{A}\). Then the functor
\[
\mathscr{A}(A, G(-)) : \mathscr{B} \to \mathbf{Set} ,
\]
the composite of \(G\) with the covariant hom-functor \(H^A\), is representable and is
represented by \(F(A)\). Explicitly, \(\mathscr{A}(A, G(-)) \cong H^{F(A)}\).
Proof.
The adjunction supplies, for each object \(B \in \mathscr{B}\), a bijection
\[
\mathscr{A}(A, G B) \cong \mathscr{B}(F A, B) = H^{F(A)}(B).
\]
It remains to check that this family of bijections is natural in \(B\), for then it is a
natural isomorphism
and the representability follows. Let \(q : B \to B'\) be a map in \(\mathscr{B}\). The
naturality square
to be verified is
\[
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathscr{A}(A, G B) & \longrightarrow & \mathscr{B}(F A, B) \\
{\scriptstyle G(q)\circ-}\big\downarrow & & \big\downarrow{\scriptstyle q\circ-} \\
\mathscr{A}(A, G B') & \longrightarrow & \mathscr{B}(F A, B')
\end{array}
\]
where the horizontal arrows are the adjunction bijections, the left vertical arrow is the
action of \(\mathscr{A}(A, G(-))\) on \(q\), namely post-composition by \(G(q)\), and the right
vertical arrow is the action of \(H^{F(A)}\) on \(q\), namely post-composition by \(q\).
Write \(\bar{f} : F A \to B\) for the
transpose of
a map \(f : A \to G B\) under the adjunction, so that transposing carries
\(\mathscr{A}(A, G B)\) bijectively onto \(\mathscr{B}(F A, B)\). Take
\(f \in \mathscr{A}(A, G B)\). Along the top-then-right path it becomes first \(\bar f\), then
\(q \circ \bar f\). Along the left-then-bottom path it becomes first \(G(q) \circ f\), then its
transpose \(\overline{G(q) \circ f}\). The square commutes precisely when
\[
q \circ \bar f = \overline{G(q) \circ f}
\quad\text{equivalently}\quad
\overline{q \circ \bar f} = G(q) \circ f ,
\]
and the right-hand form is exactly the naturality equation
\(\overline{q \circ g} = G(q) \circ \bar g\) recorded in the definition of the
adjunction, applied with \(g = \bar f\), for which \(\bar g = \bar{\bar f} = f\). The
condition therefore holds for every \(q\), the bijections assemble into a natural
isomorphism, and \(\mathscr{A}(A, G(-)) \cong H^{F(A)}\).
The lemma specializes at once to set-valued functors. A forgetful functor lands in \(\mathbf{Set}\)
and, in the algebraic cases, carries a left adjoint in the form of the free construction. Having
such an adjoint is enough to force representability.
Proposition: A Set-Valued Functor with a Left Adjoint is Representable
Let \(\mathscr{A}\) be locally small. Any functor \(G : \mathscr{A} \to \mathbf{Set}\) that has
a left adjoint is representable.
Proof.
Let \(F\) be a left adjoint to \(G : \mathscr{A} \to \mathbf{Set}\), and write \(1\) for a
one-element set. Applying the previous lemma with \(\mathbf{Set}\) in the role of
\(\mathscr{A}\), the present \(\mathscr{A}\) in the role of \(\mathscr{B}\), and \(A = 1\)
gives that \(\mathbf{Set}(1, G(-))\) is representable. But \(\mathbf{Set}(1, G(B)) \cong G(B)\) naturally in \(B\), since maps out of
the one-element set are elements, so \(G \cong \mathbf{Set}(1, G(-))\). Chaining the two
natural isomorphisms, we find that \(G\) is representable. In fact \(G \cong H^{F(1)}\), so the
representing object is the value of the left adjoint at the one-element set.
The proposition explains the earlier list at a stroke, and it produces new instances. The
forgetful functor \(\mathbf{Vect}_k \to \mathbf{Set}\) has the
free vector space
functor as its left adjoint. The value of that adjoint at the one-element set is the
one-dimensional space \(k\), so the forgetful functor is \(H^k\). Directly, a linear map out of
\(k\) is fixed by the image of \(1\), which may be any vector of the target. Likewise, the
forgetful functor on commutative rings with identity, with ring homomorphisms required to send
\(1\) to \(1\), is represented by the polynomial ring \(\mathbb{Z}[x]\), because such a
homomorphism out of \(\mathbb{Z}[x]\) is determined by the image of \(x\), which may be any
element of the target. Across algebra, the free-forgetful pattern is in every case a
certificate of representability.
Putting the views together
We have, for each object \(A\), a functor \(H^A\) describing how \(A\) sees the rest of the
category. As \(A\) varies the view varies, yet it is always the same category being viewed, so the
views are related. A map \(A' \to A\) converts maps out of \(A\) into maps out of \(A'\) by
pre-composition. Note the reversal. The assignment \(A \mapsto H^A\) is itself
contravariant.
Definition: The Functor of Covariant Representables
Let \(\mathscr{A}\) be locally small. The assignment of \(H^A\) to each object \(A\) extends
to a functor
\[
H^\bullet : \mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}} \to [\mathscr{A}, \mathbf{Set}],
\]
defined on objects by \(H^\bullet(A) = H^A\) and on a map \(f : A' \to A\) by the natural
transformation \(H^f = H^\bullet(f) : H^A \to H^{A'}\) whose component at \(B\) is
\[
\mathscr{A}(A, B) \to \mathscr{A}(A', B), \quad p \mapsto p \circ f .
\]
The transformation \(H^f\) is also written \(\mathscr{A}(f, -)\) or \(f^*\). The symbol
\(\bullet\) marks the slot held open for the varying object, just as \(-\) marks the
slot in \(H^A = \mathscr{A}(A, -)\).
Both claims in this definition are instances of associativity. Each \(H^f\) is natural because, for
a map \(g : B \to B'\), both routes around the naturality square send \(p \in \mathscr{A}(A, B)\)
to \(g \circ p \circ f\). The assignment \(f \mapsto H^f\) preserves identities because
\(p \circ 1_A = p\), and it reverses composition because for \(f' : A'' \to A'\) one has
\(H^{f'} \circ H^f : p \mapsto (p \circ f) \circ f' = p \circ (f \circ f')\), which is
\(H^{f \circ f'}\). The reversed order is the contravariance of \(H^\bullet\).
Dualizing: how objects are seen
Every definition so far can be dualized by reversing the arrows. At the formal level the move is
the trivial one of replacing \(\mathscr{A}\) by \(\mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}}\), but the flavor
changes. We stop asking what an object sees and start asking how it is seen. Fixing a target \(A\)
and letting the source vary gives the maps into \(A\), and a map \(g : B' \to B\) now
acts by pre-composition. It sends a map \(B \to A\) to a map \(B' \to A\), in the opposite
direction to \(g\).
Definition: Contravariant Hom-Functor
Let \(\mathscr{A}\) be locally small and \(A\) an object. The
contravariant hom-functor
\[
H_A = \mathscr{A}(-, A) : \mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathbf{Set}
\]
is defined on objects by \(H_A(B) = \mathscr{A}(B, A)\), and on a map \(g : B' \to B\) by
pre-composition,
\[
H_A(g) = \mathscr{A}(g, A) : \mathscr{A}(B, A) \to \mathscr{A}(B', A),
\quad p \mapsto p \circ g .
\]
It is a
presheaf
on \(\mathscr{A}\). The map \(H_A(g)\) is also written \(g^*\) or \(- \circ g\).
Representability for presheaves is defined by the mirror condition. Strictly the notion is
already available, since a contravariant functor on \(\mathscr{A}\) is a covariant functor
on \(\mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}}\), to which the earlier definition applies. A direct
statement is nonetheless convenient.
Definition: Representable Presheaf
Let \(\mathscr{A}\) be locally small. A presheaf \(X : \mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathbf{Set}\)
is representable if \(X \cong H_A\) for some object \(A \in \mathscr{A}\). A
representation of \(X\) is a choice of such an \(A\) together with a natural
isomorphism \(H_A \xrightarrow{\sim} X\).
The contravariant examples are as natural as the covariant ones. The power-set construction is a
presheaf \(\mathbf{Set}^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathbf{Set}\). It sends a set \(B\) to its
power set
\(\mathcal{P}(B)\) and a map \(g : B' \to B\) to the operation of taking preimages,
\(U \mapsto g^{-1}U\). Since a subset of \(B\) is the same as a map \(B \to 2\) into the
two-element set, this presheaf is represented by \(2\), that is, \(\mathcal{P} \cong H_2\).
In the same way, the operation of sending a topological space to its set of open subsets is a
representable presheaf on the category of spaces. It is represented by the Sierpiński space,
the two-point space in which exactly one singleton is open. The assignment to each space of its
ring of continuous real-valued functions, post-composed with the forgetful functor to sets, is
represented by the real line. In each case the object being mapped into, whether the classifier
\(2\), the Sierpiński space, or the line, is the universal receptacle through which the
construction is read.
The Yoneda Embedding
The covariant representables were bundled, in the previous section, into a single contravariant
functor \(H^\bullet\). The contravariant representables can be bundled in the same way, and it is
this second bundling that the theory takes as its main object. As the target \(A\) varies, each map
\(f : A \to A'\) gives a natural transformation \(H_A \to H_{A'}\) between the presheaves. This
time the direction is preserved, so the assignment \(A \mapsto H_A\) is covariant.
Definition: The Yoneda Embedding
Let \(\mathscr{A}\) be a locally small category. The Yoneda embedding of
\(\mathscr{A}\) is the functor
\[
H_\bullet : \mathscr{A} \to [\mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}}, \mathbf{Set}]
\]
defined on objects by \(H_\bullet(A) = H_A = \mathscr{A}(-, A)\) and on a map
\(f : A \to A'\) by the natural transformation \(H_\bullet(f) = H_f : H_A \to H_{A'}\) with
components \(p \mapsto f \circ p\). It sends each object to the presheaf of maps into it, and
each map to the operation of post-composing with it. The transformation \(H_f\) is also written
\(\mathscr{A}(-, f)\) or \(f_*\).
Naturality of each \(H_f\) and functoriality of \(H_\bullet\) follow from associativity exactly as
for \(H^\bullet\), with the roles of the two slots exchanged, and this time the order of
composition is preserved. The choice to work with the presheaf bundling rather than its covariant
mirror is a matter of convenience, not of substance, since any theorem about one dualizes to a
theorem about the other. The advantage is that, when \(\mathscr{A}\) is small, the target
\([\mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}}, \mathbf{Set}]\) is a richly structured category, with
limits and colimits
and
exponentials
that \(\mathscr{A}\) itself may lack. Embedding \(\mathscr{A}\) into it therefore places a category
inside a well-behaved one. The word embedding anticipates a fact proved in the pages
ahead: \(H_\bullet\) is
full and faithful,
and consequently
injective on isomorphism classes
of objects, so that no information about \(\mathscr{A}\) is lost in the passage to its presheaves.
Non-isomorphic objects give non-isomorphic presheaves. An object is determined, up to isomorphism,
by the bare pattern of maps into it.
A summary of the four functors
Four functors have now been built from the single operation of forming hom-sets, and it is worth
setting them side by side. For each object \(A\) there is a covariant functor
\(H^A : \mathscr{A} \to \mathbf{Set}\) of maps out of \(A\), and collecting these over all \(A\)
gives the contravariant \(H^\bullet : \mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}} \to [\mathscr{A}, \mathbf{Set}]\).
Dually, for each object \(A\) there is a presheaf
\(H_A : \mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}} \to \mathbf{Set}\) of maps into \(A\), and collecting these gives
the covariant Yoneda embedding
\(H_\bullet : \mathscr{A} \to [\mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}}, \mathbf{Set}]\). The second pair is the
dual of the first. Both involve a contravariant step that cannot be avoided. Whether one fixes the
source and varies the target or the reverse, exactly one of the two slots reverses arrows.
The two slots at once
One further functor unifies all four. Rather than fix either argument of the hom-set, we let both
vary. Since the first slot reverses arrows and the second preserves them, the home of that
functor is \(\mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}} \times \mathscr{A}\).
Definition: The Hom-Bifunctor
Let \(\mathscr{A}\) be locally small. The hom-bifunctor
\[
\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathscr{A}} : \mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}} \times \mathscr{A} \to \mathbf{Set}
\]
sends an object \((A, B)\) to the hom-set \(\mathscr{A}(A, B)\), and a morphism
\((f, g) : (A, B) \to (A', B')\) of the
product category
\(\mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}} \times \mathscr{A}\), where \(f : A' \to A\) and \(g : B \to B'\),
to the function
\[
\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathscr{A}}(f, g) : \mathscr{A}(A, B) \to \mathscr{A}(A', B'),
\quad p \mapsto g \circ p \circ f .
\]
Fixing the first argument at \(A\) recovers the covariant hom-functor
\(H^A = \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathscr{A}}(A, -)\), and fixing the second at \(B\) recovers the
presheaf \(H_B = \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathscr{A}}(-, B)\). The bifunctor carries the same
information as the whole family of representables, presented in one piece.
The form \(p \mapsto g \circ p \circ f\) is forced. A morphism in
\(\mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}} \times \mathscr{A}\) from \((A,B)\) to \((A',B')\) is a pair
\(A' \xrightarrow{f} A\) and \(B \xrightarrow{g} B'\). The only way to turn a map \(p : A \to B\)
into a map \(A' \to B'\) using \(f\) and \(g\) is to precede \(p\) by \(f\) and follow it by \(g\).
Functoriality follows from associativity.
The hom-bifunctor as a category's own metric
The existence of \(\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathscr{A}}\) is the categorical counterpart of a
familiar fact about metric spaces: on a space \((X, d)\) the distance is itself a continuous
map \(d : X \times X \to \mathbb{R}\), so that moving two points slightly changes their
distance only slightly. The hom-bifunctor plays the analogous role for a category. It takes a
pair of objects and returns the set of maps between them, and it does so functorially.
Deforming either object along a morphism deforms the set of maps in a controlled,
composition-respecting way. A category measures the proximity of its objects not by a number
but by a set of arrows, and \(\operatorname{Hom}_{\mathscr{A}}\) is the single map that records
the whole measurement.
Packaging the hom-sets into a bifunctor also clarifies what the naturality clauses in the
definition of an adjunction were asserting. An adjunction \(F \dashv G\) between
\(F : \mathscr{A} \to \mathscr{B}\) and \(G : \mathscr{B} \to \mathscr{A}\) gives, for each
\(A\) and \(B\), a bijection \(\mathscr{B}(F A, B) \cong \mathscr{A}(A, G B)\). Both sides are
values of functors \(\mathscr{A}^{\mathrm{op}} \times \mathscr{B} \to \mathbf{Set}\), namely
\(\mathscr{B}(F-, -)\) and \(\mathscr{A}(-, G-)\), each obtained from a hom-bifunctor. The
requirement that the bijection be natural in both arguments is precisely the requirement that
these two functors be
naturally isomorphic,
because a morphism \((p, q)\) of the product category factors as \((1, q) \circ (p, 1)\), so
naturality in each variable separately amounts to naturality in the pair. What once looked
like a pair of commuting-square conditions is the single statement that an adjunction is a
natural isomorphism \(\mathscr{B}(F-, -) \cong \mathscr{A}(-, G-)\).
Objects Probed by Elements
This page has turned on one reversal: an object is known not by what it contains but by how it
relates to others. The most concrete form of that reversal comes now. Objects of an arbitrary
category have no elements in any obvious sense, since there is nothing inside an abstract object to
point at. But sets do have elements, and at the start of this page an element of a set \(A\) was
seen to be the same thing as a map out of the
terminal object,
a map \(1 \to A\). That identification seeds a definition restoring a notion of element to every
object of every category.
Definition: Generalized Element
Let \(A\) be an object of a category. A generalized element of \(A\) is a map
with codomain \(A\). A map \(S \to A\) is a generalized element of \(A\) of shape
\(S\). When the category is locally small, the generalized elements of \(A\) of shape \(S\) are
exactly the members of the hom-set of maps \(S \to A\).
The term is a synonym for map. Its value lies in the change of attitude it encourages.
Generalized elements recover the ordinary ones and reach beyond them. When \(A\) is a set, a
generalized element of shape \(1\) is an ordinary element, while a generalized element of shape
\(\mathbb{N}\) is a sequence in \(A\). In the category of spaces the generalized elements of shape
\(1\), the one-point space, are the points, and the generalized elements of shape the circle are,
by definition, the loops. In categories of geometric objects one may therefore equally well speak
of figures of a given shape. Among based spaces, the based loops of \(X\), that is, its generalized
elements of shape the based circle, form the underlying set of its loop space, and their based
homotopy classes form the
fundamental group
\(\pi_1(X)\). The first section of this page found both of these, as functors of \(X\), to be
represented by the circle.
Algebra furnishes the same pattern. To study the solutions of an equation such as \(x^2 + y^2 = 1\)
over a commutative ring \(A\) is to study the pairs \((a, b) \in A \times A\) with
\(a^2 + b^2 = 1\). Each such pair corresponds to exactly one ring homomorphism out of
\(\mathbb{Z}[x, y]/(x^2 + y^2 - 1)\) sending \(1\) to \(1\), namely the one whose values on \(x\)
and \(y\) form the chosen pair. A solution in the ring \(A\) is thus a generalized element of \(A\)
whose shape is the coordinate ring of the equation. The fixed object
\(\mathbb{Z}[x, y]/(x^2 + y^2 - 1)\) is the shape, and the maps out of it into the varying ring
\(A\) are exactly the solutions there. A geometric figure, a sequence, a point, and a solution of
an equation are each a map into an object, and the totality of maps of a given shape is a
representable functor evaluated at that object.
Probing is functorial
Fixing the shape and letting the probed object vary gives, for each object \(S\), the covariant
functor \(H^S = \mathscr{A}(S, -)\) sending an object to its set of generalized elements of shape
\(S\). The functoriality of \(H^S\) carries a plain meaning: any map \(A \to B\) transforms
\(S\)-shaped elements of \(A\) into \(S\)-shaped elements of \(B\), simply by composition. A
continuous map of spaces transforms loops into loops, a ring homomorphism transforms solutions of
an equation into solutions, and a linear map transforms the chosen probes of one space into those
of another. The probe is held fixed and the map pushes its elements forward.
Functoriality of this kind has already appeared, in concrete form, in the manifold series. To
each smooth map of manifolds \(F : M \to N\) and each point \(p\) there is the differential
\(dF_p : T_pM \to T_{F(p)}N\), and the
properties of the differential
established there include the chain rule \(d(G \circ F)_p = dG_{F(p)} \circ dF_p\) and the
identity \(d(\mathrm{Id})_p = \mathrm{Id}\). Read in the present language these two equations
are preservation of composition and preservation of identities. It follows that the operation
of taking the tangent space at a chosen point is a functor on manifolds equipped with a point,
and the differential is what it does to maps. The pushforward notation \(F_* := dF_p\), with
its rule \((G \circ F)_* = G_* \circ F_*\), was the functoriality asserting itself before the
word was available.
Representability as a learning principle
Much of geometric deep learning rests on representing a structured object by the way fixed
probes map into it. A graph is encoded by aggregating, at each node, the patterns that small
fixed templates form around it. A point cloud is encoded by the local arrangements that a fixed
neighborhood shape can occupy, and an algebraic structure by the homomorphisms a fixed test
object admits. Each scheme is, in outline, the computation of a hom-set \(\mathscr{A}(S, -)\)
with the probe \(S\) held fixed, and the demand that a morphism between objects push probes
forward compatibly with these encodings is the functoriality of \(H^S\).
Whether such an encoding is lossless, so that the object is recoverable from how the probes map
in, depends on which shapes \(S\) are used. Taking every shape at once packages all the
generalized elements of an object \(A\) into the presheaf \(H_A\), and the pages ahead show
that this loses nothing. The embedding of a category into its presheaves is full and faithful,
and the bundle of all generalized elements determines the object up to isomorphism.